Judge is criticised for drugs comment

[Phil Stovell]

This judge sounds quite sensible to me, which does make a pleasant change.

<http://www.oxfordmail.net/news/headlines/display.var.861655.0.judges_criticised_for_drugs_comment.php>

Judge is criticised for drugs comment By Matt Wilkinson

A judge has been criticised for suggesting that people who use their homes
as drug factories are no more of a nuisance than those who cultivate
tomato plants.

Judge Charles Harris questioned whether council tenant Phillip Pledge was
causing anti-social behaviour by growing and storing cannabis of a street
value totalling £3,400 at his flat in Blackbird Leys, Oxford.

He also compared the nuisance value of growing cannabis to fictional
detective Sherlock Holmes taking drugs in the novels by Sir Arthur Conan
Doyle.

The judge's comments, made during an Antisocial Behaviour Order hearing at
Oxford Crown Court yesterday, left community leaders baffled.

Blackbird Leys councillor Lee Cole, of the Independent Working Class
Association (IWCA), who campaigns against the social damage of drug use in
his area, said: "It sounds like he's been on something himself. The judge
seems to have lost his mind.

"Cultivating cannabis attracts the wrong type of people to your house. And
neighbours, especially in a place like a tower block, have to put up with
them knocking on doors all the time."

Barry Beadle, area manager for Oxford drugs counselling group Libra
Project, said: "In the short term he is probably right but in the long
term the production and cultivation of illegal drugs will have anti-social
effect to the individual and the community."

The judge's comments, which we have reproduced in full below, were made at
a hearing brought by Oxford City Council against Pledge, of Strawberry
Path in Blackbird Leys, Oxford, who allegedly broke his tenancy agreement
by storing drugs in a council flat.

Police raided the flat in Evenlode Tower in February where Pledge was
temporarily housed after an arson attack on his home.

They discovered cannabis plants growing under hydroponic lights and drugs
with a street value of £3,400 and weighing 21.1oz.

Prosecuting, Simon Strelitz, told the court by storing and growing drugs,
Pledge broke his tenancy agreement .

He asked the judge for a possession order for the council house in
Strawberry Path and an Asbo banning Pledge from Blackbird Leys for two
years.

He added: "The city council is not prepared to allow its property to
harbour people who wish to commit offences.

"The fact that he has drugs in such quantity acts as a magnet for other
unsavoury characters."

After making his remarks, Judge Harris also called the Asbo application
"the sort of thing they do in Russia or China".

Defending himself, Pledge, a business partner in Oxford Hydroponics and a
driver for the National Blood Service, told the court the drugs were for
personal use.

He added: "I've not dealt drugs and it's never been proven that I dealt
drugs. I am a partner in a hydroponics shop which carries a certain stigma
with it.

"I've been trying to get a move away for two years and been trying to wean
myself off cannabis. The only reason I went back to the cannabis was
because of the traumatic experience when my house burnt down."

Pledge remains on bail for possession of class C drugs with intent to
supply.

Judge Harris told the court he would reserve judgement on the case until
Monday.

[Granville West]

Post by Phil Stovell
This judge sounds quite sensible to me, which does make a pleasant change.
<http://www.oxfordmail.net/news/headlines/display.var.861655.0.judges_criticised_for_drugs_comment.php>

<snipped>

"They discovered cannabis plants growing under hydroponic lights and
drugs
with a street value of £3,400 and weighing 21.1oz"

Seems to me the accused is a drug dealer + grower. Unless cannabis is
that expensive! Never having use it, so don't know.

GW

[Phil Stovell]

"They discovered cannabis plants growing under hydroponic lights and drugs
with a street value of £3,400 and weighing 21.1oz"

£161.14 per ounce. I don't think so.

[Granville West]

Post by Phil Stovell

"They discovered cannabis plants growing under hydroponic lights and drugs
with a street value of £3,400 and weighing 21.1oz"

£161.14 per ounce. I don't think so.

So therefore other drugs found? Dealer perhaps & not for his own
personal use?

GW

[Phil Stovell]

Post by Phil Stovell

Post by Granville West
"They discovered cannabis plants growing under hydroponic lights and
drugs with a street value of £3,400 and weighing 21.1oz"

£161.14 per ounce. I don't think so.

So therefore other drugs found? Dealer perhaps & not for his own personal
use?

They've inflated the price to make the bust appear better. It's probably
worth about £100/oz, so the real value is more like £2,100.

GW

[Granville West]

Post by Phil Stovell

Post by Phil Stovell

Post by Granville West
"They discovered cannabis plants growing under hydroponic lights and
drugs with a street value of £3,400 and weighing 21.1oz"

£161.14 per ounce. I don't think so.

So therefore other drugs found? Dealer perhaps & not for his own personal
use?

They've inflated the price to make the bust appear better. It's probably
worth about £100/oz, so the real value is more like £2,100.

Are you suggesting perjury?

GW

[gentlegreen]

Post by Phil Stovell

Post by Phil Stovell

Post by Granville West
"They discovered cannabis plants growing under hydroponic lights and
drugs with a street value of £3,400 and weighing 21.1oz"

£161.14 per ounce. I don't think so.

So therefore other drugs found? Dealer perhaps & not for his own personal
use?

They've inflated the price to make the bust appear better. It's probably
worth about £100/oz, so the real value is more like £2,100.

Are you suggesting perjury?

It's like those adverts which say "we could have charged up to ...", or
"previously sold for ...."

Stateside it's positively barking - there are tables printed of penalties
for plant numbers and weights ... it's effectively taxation of a most
vicious sort .. the Federal crime is technically tax evasion under
Anslinger's "Marijuana Tax Act" of 1937.

Mark Emery - a Canadian under threat of deportation by the DEA could be
facing the death penalty because he's sold 60,000 seeds to Americans ...
.

[bobbie sellers]

Post by Phil Stovell

Post by Phil Stovell

Post by Granville West

Post by Granville West
"They discovered cannabis plants growing under hydroponic lights and
drugs with a street value of Ł3,400 and weighing 21.1oz"

Ł161.14 per ounce. I don't think so.

So therefore other drugs found? Dealer perhaps & not for his own

personal

Post by Phil Stovell

Post by Granville West
use?

They've inflated the price to make the bust appear better. It's probably
worth about Ł100/oz, so the real value is more like Ł2,100.

Are you suggesting perjury?
It's like those adverts which say "we could have charged up to ...", or
"previously sold for ...."
Stateside it's positively barking - there are tables printed of
penalties for plant numbers and weights ... it's effectively taxation of
a most vicious sort .. the Federal crime is technically tax evasion
under Anslinger's "Marijuana Tax Act" of 1937.

Actually the MTA was repealed due to unconstitutionally requiring
self-incrimination and replaced with the Controlled Substances Act
of the 1960s. This is the one in force currently with no requirement
for Tax Stamps for the people involved in cannabis traffic.
Anslinger's act was economic prohibition and intended to provide
a basis in the regulation of commerce for the suppression of cannabis
but the CTA is a law providing criminal penalties for the possession of
a variety of interesting substances including cannabis..

Post by Phil Stovell
Mark Emery - a Canadian under threat of deportation by the DEA could be
facing the death penalty because he's sold 60,000 seeds to Americans ...

So glad I didn't buy any seeds and thus contribute to his present
problems.

later
bliss -- C O C O A Powered... (at california dot com)

--
bobbie sellers - a retired nurse in San Francisco

"It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the beans of cocoa that the thoughts acquire speed,
the thighs acquire girth, the girth become a warning.
It is by theobromine alone I set my mind in motion."
--from Someone else's Dune spoof ripped to my taste.

[JohnR]

Post by Phil Stovell

Post by Phil Stovell

Post by Granville West
"They discovered cannabis plants growing under hydroponic lights and
drugs with a street value of £3,400 and weighing 21.1oz"

£161.14 per ounce. I don't think so.

So therefore other drugs found? Dealer perhaps & not for his own personal
use?

They've inflated the price to make the bust appear better. It's probably
worth about £100/oz, so the real value is more like £2,100.

Are you suggesting perjury?

- are you so naive?

[Phil Stovell]

Post by Granville West

Post by Phil Stovell

Post by Granville West

Post by Phil Stovell

Post by Granville West
"They discovered cannabis plants growing under hydroponic lights
and drugs with a street value of £3,400 and weighing 21.1oz"

£161.14 per ounce. I don't think so.

So therefore other drugs found? Dealer perhaps & not for his own
personal use?

They've inflated the price to make the bust appear better. It's probably
worth about £100/oz, so the real value is more like £2,100.

Are you suggesting perjury?

No. It's standard practise to inflate the value of drugs seized.

Post by Granville West
GW

[JohnR]

Post by Phil Stovell

Post by Granville West

Post by Phil Stovell

Post by Granville West

Post by Phil Stovell

Post by Granville West
"They discovered cannabis plants growing under hydroponic lights
and drugs with a street value of £3,400 and weighing 21.1oz"

£161.14 per ounce. I don't think so.

So therefore other drugs found? Dealer perhaps & not for his own
personal use?

They've inflated the price to make the bust appear better. It's probably
worth about £100/oz, so the real value is more like £2,100.

Are you suggesting perjury?

No. It's standard practise to inflate the value of drugs seized.

It's also standard practice to deflate the value of any cash found, perk of
the job I guess.

[Jasbird]

On 3 Aug 2006 01:31:48 -0700, "Granville West"

Post by Granville West

Post by Phil Stovell
This judge sounds quite sensible to me, which does make a pleasant change.
<http://www.oxfordmail.net/news/headlines/display.var.861655.0.judges_criticised_for_drugs_comment.php>

<snipped>
"They discovered cannabis plants growing under hydroponic lights and
drugs
with a street value of £3,400 and weighing 21.1oz"
Seems to me the accused is a drug dealer + grower. Unless cannabis is
that expensive! Never having use it, so don't know.
GW

So, in future, people are to be convicted of drug dealing based upon
your guesswork?

How do we know that this wasn't a one-off operation - to grow lots of
cannabis, vacuum pack it and store it in a fridge so that this guy could
go for a year or two without the hassle of growing cannabis (with all
the risks that involves?)

Seems to me that people like you are corrupting our justice system in a
search for easy convictions to full up the prisons.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nobel-prize winning economist, Gary Becker, says:
legalize drugs, tax them as luxury goods to stop people
using them; it will be as efficient as criminal sanctions in
reducing use but far cheaper and more humane.
<http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2005/03/the_failure_of.html>
<http://home.uchicago.edu/~gbecker/illegalgoods_Becker_Grossman_Murphy.pdf>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Granville West]

Post by Jasbird
On 3 Aug 2006 01:31:48 -0700, "Granville West"

Post by Granville West

Post by Phil Stovell
This judge sounds quite sensible to me, which does make a pleasant change.
<http://www.oxfordmail.net/news/headlines/display.var.861655.0.judges_criticised_for_drugs_comment.php>

<snipped>
"They discovered cannabis plants growing under hydroponic lights and
drugs
with a street value of £3,400 and weighing 21.1oz"
Seems to me the accused is a drug dealer + grower. Unless cannabis is
that expensive! Never having use it, so don't know.
GW

So, in future, people are to be convicted of drug dealing based upon
your guesswork?
How do we know that this wasn't a one-off operation - to grow lots of
cannabis, vacuum pack it and store it in a fridge so that this guy could
go for a year or two without the hassle of growing cannabis (with all
the risks that involves?)
Seems to me that people like you are corrupting our justice system in a
search for easy convictions to full up the prisons.

And you and your ilk are apologists for illegal activities concerning
drugs!

GW

[Jasbird]

On 3 Aug 2006 03:16:54 -0700, "Granville West"

Post by Granville West

Post by Jasbird
On 3 Aug 2006 01:31:48 -0700, "Granville West"

Post by Granville West

Post by Phil Stovell
This judge sounds quite sensible to me, which does make a pleasant change.
<http://www.oxfordmail.net/news/headlines/display.var.861655.0.judges_criticised_for_drugs_comment.php>

<snipped>
"They discovered cannabis plants growing under hydroponic lights and
drugs
with a street value of £3,400 and weighing 21.1oz"
Seems to me the accused is a drug dealer + grower. Unless cannabis is
that expensive! Never having use it, so don't know.
GW

So, in future, people are to be convicted of drug dealing based upon
your guesswork?
How do we know that this wasn't a one-off operation - to grow lots of
cannabis, vacuum pack it and store it in a fridge so that this guy could
go for a year or two without the hassle of growing cannabis (with all
the risks that involves?)
Seems to me that people like you are corrupting our justice system in a
search for easy convictions to full up the prisons.

And you and your ilk are apologists for illegal activities concerning
drugs!

A pathetic attempt to by-pass the issue. He is charged with intent to
deal.

Where's the evidence? Did they put a copper on watch outside his flat
to record comings and goings? Did they search people after leaving his
flat to discover drugs on them?

No evidence. The law is unjust and you will be a barbarian if you
support it.

The attempt by the council to evict him is even worse.

Post by Granville West
GW

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nobel-prize winning economist, Gary Becker, says:
legalize drugs, tax them as luxury goods to stop people
using them; it will be as efficient as criminal sanctions in
reducing use but far cheaper and more humane.
<http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2005/03/the_failure_of.html>
<http://home.uchicago.edu/~gbecker/illegalgoods_Becker_Grossman_Murphy.pdf>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Jez]

Post by Jasbird
On 3 Aug 2006 01:31:48 -0700, "Granville West"

Post by Granville West

Post by Phil Stovell
This judge sounds quite sensible to me, which does make a pleasant change.
<http://www.oxfordmail.net/news/headlines/display.var.861655.0.judges_criticised_for_drugs_comment.php>

<snipped>
"They discovered cannabis plants growing under hydroponic lights and
drugs
with a street value of £3,400 and weighing 21.1oz"
Seems to me the accused is a drug dealer + grower. Unless cannabis is
that expensive! Never having use it, so don't know.
GW

So, in future, people are to be convicted of drug dealing based upon
your guesswork?
How do we know that this wasn't a one-off operation - to grow lots of
cannabis, vacuum pack it and store it in a fridge so that this guy could
go for a year or two without the hassle of growing cannabis (with all
the risks that involves?)
Seems to me that people like you are corrupting our justice system in a
search for easy convictions to full up the prisons.
And you and your ilk are apologists for illegal activities concerning
drugs!

Nope...........just plants.
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.

'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable notion
that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often led to
accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what that
reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be skeptical of
someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn

[JohnR]

Post by Jasbird
On 3 Aug 2006 01:31:48 -0700, "Granville West"

Post by Granville West

Post by Phil Stovell
This judge sounds quite sensible to me, which does make a pleasant change.
<http://www.oxfordmail.net/news/headlines/display.var.861655.0.judges_criticised_for_drugs_comment.php>

<snipped>
"They discovered cannabis plants growing under hydroponic lights and
drugs
with a street value of £3,400 and weighing 21.1oz"
Seems to me the accused is a drug dealer + grower. Unless cannabis is
that expensive! Never having use it, so don't know.
GW

So, in future, people are to be convicted of drug dealing based upon
your guesswork?
How do we know that this wasn't a one-off operation - to grow lots of
cannabis, vacuum pack it and store it in a fridge so that this guy could
go for a year or two without the hassle of growing cannabis (with all
the risks that involves?)
Seems to me that people like you are corrupting our justice system in a
search for easy convictions to full up the prisons.

And you and your ilk are apologists for illegal activities concerning
drugs!

- horticulture is illegal?

[BernieM]

Post by Granville West

Post by Jasbird
On 3 Aug 2006 01:31:48 -0700, "Granville West"

Post by Granville West

Post by Phil Stovell
This judge sounds quite sensible to me, which does make a pleasant change.
<http://www.oxfordmail.net/news/headlines/display.var.861655.0.judges_criticised_for_drugs_comment.php>

<snipped>
"They discovered cannabis plants growing under hydroponic lights and
drugs
with a street value of £3,400 and weighing 21.1oz"
Seems to me the accused is a drug dealer + grower. Unless cannabis is
that expensive! Never having use it, so don't know.
GW

So, in future, people are to be convicted of drug dealing based upon
your guesswork?
How do we know that this wasn't a one-off operation - to grow lots of
cannabis, vacuum pack it and store it in a fridge so that this guy could
go for a year or two without the hassle of growing cannabis (with all
the risks that involves?)
Seems to me that people like you are corrupting our justice system in a
search for easy convictions to full up the prisons.

And you and your ilk are apologists for illegal activities concerning
drugs!
- horticulture is illegal?

My news server obviously skipped part of the post you're replying to I don't
see any suggestion being made that horticulture is illegal. I see the
suggestion that some people are apologists for illegal activities concerning
drugs. Which seems valid as the subject being discussed stems from someone
doing a specific illegal act ie. growing cannabis.

Sure growing cannabis is a 'horticultural' activity but to suggest the post
implies horticulture is illegal is like suggesting being a butcher makes you
a murderer based on the fact that some people have been killed with a meat
cleaver .. an act of butchery.

[Jasbird]

Post by BernieM

Post by Granville West

Post by Jasbird
On 3 Aug 2006 01:31:48 -0700, "Granville West"

Post by Granville West

Post by Phil Stovell
This judge sounds quite sensible to me, which does make a pleasant change.
<http://www.oxfordmail.net/news/headlines/display.var.861655.0.judges_criticised_for_drugs_comment.php>

<snipped>
"They discovered cannabis plants growing under hydroponic lights and
drugs
with a street value of £3,400 and weighing 21.1oz"
Seems to me the accused is a drug dealer + grower. Unless cannabis is
that expensive! Never having use it, so don't know.
GW

So, in future, people are to be convicted of drug dealing based upon
your guesswork?
How do we know that this wasn't a one-off operation - to grow lots of
cannabis, vacuum pack it and store it in a fridge so that this guy could
go for a year or two without the hassle of growing cannabis (with all
the risks that involves?)
Seems to me that people like you are corrupting our justice system in a
search for easy convictions to full up the prisons.

And you and your ilk are apologists for illegal activities concerning
drugs!
- horticulture is illegal?

My news server obviously skipped part of the post you're replying to I don't
see any suggestion being made that horticulture is illegal. I see the
suggestion that some people are apologists for illegal activities concerning
drugs. Which seems valid as the subject being discussed stems from someone
doing a specific illegal act ie. growing cannabis.
Sure growing cannabis is a 'horticultural' activity but to suggest the post
implies horticulture is illegal is like suggesting being a butcher makes you
a murderer based on the fact that some people have been killed with a meat
cleaver .. an act of butchery.

The charge is "intent to supply" not growing an illegal drug.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nobel-prize winning economist, Gary Becker, says:
legalize drugs, tax them as luxury goods to stop people
using them; it will be as efficient as criminal sanctions in
reducing use but far cheaper and more humane.
<http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2005/03/the_failure_of.html>
<http://home.uchicago.edu/~gbecker/illegalgoods_Becker_Grossman_Murphy.pdf>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Granville West]

Post by Jasbird

Post by BernieM

Post by Granville West

Post by Jasbird
On 3 Aug 2006 01:31:48 -0700, "Granville West"

Post by Granville West

Post by Phil Stovell
This judge sounds quite sensible to me, which does make a pleasant change.
<http://www.oxfordmail.net/news/headlines/display.var.861655.0.judges_criticised_for_drugs_comment.php>

<snipped>
"They discovered cannabis plants growing under hydroponic lights and
drugs
with a street value of £3,400 and weighing 21.1oz"
Seems to me the accused is a drug dealer + grower. Unless cannabis is
that expensive! Never having use it, so don't know.
GW

So, in future, people are to be convicted of drug dealing based upon
your guesswork?
How do we know that this wasn't a one-off operation - to grow lots of
cannabis, vacuum pack it and store it in a fridge so that this guy could
go for a year or two without the hassle of growing cannabis (with all
the risks that involves?)
Seems to me that people like you are corrupting our justice system in a
search for easy convictions to full up the prisons.

And you and your ilk are apologists for illegal activities concerning
drugs!
- horticulture is illegal?

My news server obviously skipped part of the post you're replying to I don't
see any suggestion being made that horticulture is illegal. I see the
suggestion that some people are apologists for illegal activities concerning
drugs. Which seems valid as the subject being discussed stems from someone
doing a specific illegal act ie. growing cannabis.
Sure growing cannabis is a 'horticultural' activity but to suggest the post
implies horticulture is illegal is like suggesting being a butcher makes you
a murderer based on the fact that some people have been killed with a meat
cleaver .. an act of butchery.

The charge is "intent to supply" not growing an illegal drug.

No it is not. Read the bloody article:-(

GW

[BernieM]

Post by Jasbird

Post by BernieM

Post by Granville West

Post by Jasbird
On 3 Aug 2006 01:31:48 -0700, "Granville West"

Post by Granville West

Post by Phil Stovell
This judge sounds quite sensible to me, which does make a pleasant change.
<http://www.oxfordmail.net/news/headlines/display.var.861655.0.judges_criticised_for_drugs_comment.php>

<snipped>
"They discovered cannabis plants growing under hydroponic lights and
drugs
with a street value of £3,400 and weighing 21.1oz"
Seems to me the accused is a drug dealer + grower. Unless cannabis is
that expensive! Never having use it, so don't know.
GW

So, in future, people are to be convicted of drug dealing based upon
your guesswork?
How do we know that this wasn't a one-off operation - to grow lots of
cannabis, vacuum pack it and store it in a fridge so that this guy could
go for a year or two without the hassle of growing cannabis (with all
the risks that involves?)
Seems to me that people like you are corrupting our justice system in a
search for easy convictions to full up the prisons.

And you and your ilk are apologists for illegal activities concerning
drugs!
- horticulture is illegal?

My news server obviously skipped part of the post you're replying to I don't
see any suggestion being made that horticulture is illegal. I see the
suggestion that some people are apologists for illegal activities concerning
drugs. Which seems valid as the subject being discussed stems from someone
doing a specific illegal act ie. growing cannabis.
Sure growing cannabis is a 'horticultural' activity but to suggest the post
implies horticulture is illegal is like suggesting being a butcher makes you
a murderer based on the fact that some people have been killed with a meat
cleaver .. an act of butchery.

The charge is "intent to supply" not growing an illegal drug.

No it is not. Read the bloody article:-(

GW

Jasbird's quite correct ...

" Pledge remains on bail for possession of class C drugs with intent to
supply".

So I edit the sentence from my previous accordingly ...

"Which seems valid as the subject being discussed stems from someone doing a
specific illegal act ie. possessing cannabis with intent to supply."

[bobbie sellers]

Post by Phil Stovell

Post by Jasbird
On 3 Aug 2006 01:31:48 -0700, "Granville West"

Post by Granville West

Post by Phil Stovell
This judge sounds quite sensible to me, which does make a pleasant cha

nge.

Post by Jasbird

Post by Granville West

Post by Phil Stovell
<http://www.oxfordmail.net/news/headlines/display.var.861655.0.judges_

criticised_for_drugs_comment.php>

Post by Jasbird

Post by Granville West
<snipped>
"They discovered cannabis plants growing under hydroponic lights and
drugs
with a street value of Ł3,400 and weighing 21.1oz"
Seems to me the accused is a drug dealer + grower. Unless cannabis is
that expensive! Never having use it, so don't know.
GW

So, in future, people are to be convicted of drug dealing based upon
your guesswork?
How do we know that this wasn't a one-off operation - to grow lots of
cannabis, vacuum pack it and store it in a fridge so that this guy could
go for a year or two without the hassle of growing cannabis (with all
the risks that involves?)
Seems to me that people like you are corrupting our justice system in a
search for easy convictions to full up the prisons.

And you and your ilk are apologists for illegal activities concerning
drugs!
GW

No we are arguing for law change because the prohibition does more
damage to society than the immoderate use of the drugs in question does.
I do feel for the victims of overly severe laws whose lives are ruined by
contact with the law, noting that several US Presidents have used cannabis.
among other illegal drugs, during their foolish youth. Coming from a
wealthy background prosecution against them was squelched. A poor person
using the same things might well lose his chance at an education if
apprended by the agents of order and the law.

My interest in such matters originated in my 20s when I chanced to
read "Really the Blues" by Mezz Mezzrow aka Milton Mezzrow, a Jewish
jazz musician of the pre-WW II period who was at one point a supplier
to jazz artists in Harlem. He encountered the Marijuana Tax Act and
lost a good portion of his life to it. His name was synonymous with
high quality cannabis at one point aka "the Mighty Mezz" and he had
songs written about his activities but none afaik about his prison
term. Among other users were Louis Armstrong who invented whole
genres of modern jazz, including Swing.

later
bliss -- C O C O A Powered... (at california dot com)

--
bobbie sellers - a retired nurse in San Francisco

"It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the beans of cocoa that the thoughts acquire speed,
the thighs acquire girth, the girth become a warning.
It is by theobromine alone I set my mind in motion."
--from Someone else's Dune spoof ripped to my taste.

[Pete nospam Zakel]

Post by Granville West

Post by Jasbird
On 3 Aug 2006 01:31:48 -0700, "Granville West"

Post by Granville West

This judge sounds quite sensible to me, which does make a pleasant cha=

nge.

Post by Jasbird

Post by Granville West
Seems to me the accused is a drug dealer + grower. Unless cannabis is
that expensive! Never having use it, so don't know.

So, in future, people are to be convicted of drug dealing based upon
your guesswork?
How do we know that this wasn't a one-off operation - to grow lots of
cannabis, vacuum pack it and store it in a fridge so that this guy could
go for a year or two without the hassle of growing cannabis (with all
the risks that involves?)

And you and your ilk are apologists for illegal activities concerning
drugs!=20

So, if I buy a few cases of wine to store in my cellar, should I be considered
a drug dealer?

Were cannabis legal, growing a number of plants for future storage would be
no worse that brewing a keg of ale of fermenting a barrel of wine.

Or growing a plot of tomatoes.

-Pete Zakel
(***@seeheader.nospam)

To be is to do. -- Plato
To do is to be. -- Socrates
Yabba-dabba-doo! -- Fred Flintstone

[Granville West]

Post by Pete nospam Zakel

Post by Granville West

Post by Jasbird
On 3 Aug 2006 01:31:48 -0700, "Granville West"

Post by Granville West

This judge sounds quite sensible to me, which does make a pleasant cha=

nge.

Post by Jasbird

Post by Granville West
Seems to me the accused is a drug dealer + grower. Unless cannabis is
that expensive! Never having use it, so don't know.

So, in future, people are to be convicted of drug dealing based upon
your guesswork?
How do we know that this wasn't a one-off operation - to grow lots of
cannabis, vacuum pack it and store it in a fridge so that this guy could
go for a year or two without the hassle of growing cannabis (with all
the risks that involves?)

And you and your ilk are apologists for illegal activities concerning
drugs!=20

So, if I buy a few cases of wine to store in my cellar, should I be considered
a drug dealer?

And why should you be:-0

Post by Pete nospam Zakel
Were cannabis legal, growing a number of plants for future storage would be
no worse that brewing a keg of ale of fermenting a barrel of wine.

No illegal at the moment in the UK! So hang the F*ckers :-0

GW

[JohnR]

Post by Granville West

Post by Pete nospam Zakel

Post by Granville West

Post by Jasbird
On 3 Aug 2006 01:31:48 -0700, "Granville West"

Post by Granville West

This judge sounds quite sensible to me, which does make a pleasant cha=

nge.

Post by Jasbird

Post by Granville West
Seems to me the accused is a drug dealer + grower. Unless cannabis is
that expensive! Never having use it, so don't know.

So, in future, people are to be convicted of drug dealing based upon
your guesswork?
How do we know that this wasn't a one-off operation - to grow lots of
cannabis, vacuum pack it and store it in a fridge so that this guy could
go for a year or two without the hassle of growing cannabis (with all
the risks that involves?)

And you and your ilk are apologists for illegal activities concerning
drugs!=20

So, if I buy a few cases of wine to store in my cellar, should I be considered
a drug dealer?

And why should you be:-0

Post by Pete nospam Zakel
Were cannabis legal, growing a number of plants for future storage would be
no worse that brewing a keg of ale of fermenting a barrel of wine.

No illegal at the moment in the UK! So hang the F*ckers :-0

You're just a stupid troll.

[Sla#s]

Granville West wrote:
<SNIP>

Post by Granville West

Post by Pete nospam Zakel
Were cannabis legal, growing a number of plants for future storage would be
no worse that brewing a keg of ale of fermenting a barrel of wine.

No illegal at the moment in the UK! So hang the F*ckers :-0

The point is we are trying to change an unjust law. Is that wrong?

There have been many unjust laws and the best way to get them changed is
to break them. I wish it were not the case but would women have the vote
today were it were not for the likes of Emily Pankhurst? You can go back
through British history for similar laws that were changed because
people rebelled against them them.

Slatts

[BernieM]

Post by Sla#s
<SNIP>

Post by Granville West

Post by Pete nospam Zakel
Were cannabis legal, growing a number of plants for future storage would be
no worse that brewing a keg of ale of fermenting a barrel of wine.

No illegal at the moment in the UK! So hang the F*ckers :-0

The point is we are trying to change an unjust law. Is that wrong?
There have been many unjust laws and the best way to get them changed is
to break them. I wish it were not the case but would women have the vote
today were it were not for the likes of Emily Pankhurst? You can go back
through British history for similar laws that were changed because people
rebelled against them them.
Slatts

I agree but what doesn't help the cause is when people start arguing their
case taking things completely out of context or appear to be in denial eg:

1) A reply to prosecutor Simon Strelitz's opinion that by storing and
growing drugs Pledge broke his tenancy agreement

.... "So do they have a clause in the tenancy agreement which mandates
homelessness for speeding offences - and all other offences?"

I think the point about breaking the tenancy was the fact the premises were
being used. Speeding has nothing to do with it.

2) The replies to Granville West's statement suggesting some are apologists
for illegal activities concerning drugs!

... "Nope...........just plants."
... "horticulture is illegal?"
... "So, if I buy a few cases of wine to store in my cellar, should I be
considered a drug dealer? Were cannabis legal, growing a number of plants
for future storage would be no worse that brewing a keg of ale of fermenting
a barrel of wine.


Why start an argument with "were canabis legal"? Cannabis is a drug.
Producing drugs is illegal. Why deny those truths? It doesn't mean you
agree with pathetic laws.

Stick with the truth and deal with it head on ... otherwise risk being taken
for a fool.

[Pete nospam Zakel]

Post by BernieM
Why start an argument with "were canabis legal"? Cannabis is a drug.
Producing drugs is illegal. Why deny those truths? It doesn't mean you
agree with pathetic laws.

Producing drugs is not illegal. Producing *prohibited* drugs is illegal.
Which drugs are prohibited are completely arbitrary.

I can produce enough wine or beer for myself and my family to keep us quite
happy, and it is quite legal.

As far as I know I can legally grow coffee, tea or tobacco for my own use.

All of these are drugs.

-Pete Zakel
(***@seeheader.nospam)

The Abrams' Principle:
The shortest distance between two points is off the wall.

[BernieM]

Post by Pete nospam Zakel

Post by BernieM
Why start an argument with "were canabis legal"? Cannabis is a drug.
Producing drugs is illegal. Why deny those truths? It doesn't mean you
agree with pathetic laws.

Producing drugs is not illegal. Producing *prohibited* drugs is illegal.
Which drugs are prohibited are completely arbitrary.
I can produce enough wine or beer for myself and my family to keep us quite
happy, and it is quite legal.
As far as I know I can legally grow coffee, tea or tobacco for my own use.
All of these are drugs.
-Pete Zakel
The shortest distance between two points is off the wall.

Like I said ... taking things out of context. Of course I meant producing
'illegal' drugs is illegal. Why do these conversations have to be so
difficult? Replies like your's really don't help the cause.

[JohnR]

Post by BernieM

Post by Pete nospam Zakel

Post by BernieM
Why start an argument with "were canabis legal"? Cannabis is a drug.
Producing drugs is illegal. Why deny those truths? It doesn't mean you
agree with pathetic laws.

Producing drugs is not illegal. Producing *prohibited* drugs is illegal.
Which drugs are prohibited are completely arbitrary.
I can produce enough wine or beer for myself and my family to keep us quite
happy, and it is quite legal.
As far as I know I can legally grow coffee, tea or tobacco for my own use.
All of these are drugs.
-Pete Zakel
The shortest distance between two points is off the wall.

Like I said ... taking things out of context. Of course I meant producing
'illegal' drugs is illegal. Why do these conversations have to be so
difficult? Replies like your's really don't help the cause.

You seem to be scrabbling to gain some intellectual high ground here and
only managing to dig a hole.

Illegal drugs are illegal, legal drugs are legal.
That's not a converstaion. The fact is simply that people have, do and
always will use drugs whether they're legal or illegal.
So what is it you want to discuss?
Drug laws are entirely arbitrary, vindictive and bigoted. They impose many
problems on society where naturally there would be few.

[Phil Stovell]

Post by BernieM
Like I said ... taking things out of context. Of course I meant producing
'illegal' drugs is illegal. Why do these conversations have to be so
difficult? Replies like your's really don't help the cause.

Because you don't appear to consider alcohol, tobacco etc. drugs.

[BernieM]

Post by Phil Stovell

Post by BernieM
Like I said ... taking things out of context. Of course I meant producing
'illegal' drugs is illegal. Why do these conversations have to be so
difficult? Replies like your's really don't help the cause.

Because you don't appear to consider alcohol, tobacco etc. drugs.
--
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
"They said I should not take him to the police, but rather
let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife"

Where have I said anything that makes it appear I don't considering alcohol
and tobacco drugs? If you read my original post I was making the point that
pointless arguments were being made ...

1) A reply to prosecutor Simon Strelitz's opinion that by storing and
growing drugs Pledge broke his tenancy agreement

Why would someone then say .. "So do they have a clause in the tenancy
agreement which mandates homelessness for speeding offences - and all other
offences?"

How is that question relevant? It's not. The point about him breaking his
tenancy agreement had to do with him using the premises for the production
of 'prohibited' drugs.

2) When Granville West's suggested some are apologists for illegal
activities concerning drugs!

We get these responses ...

... "Nope...........just plants."
... "horticulture is illegal?"
... "So, if I buy a few cases of wine to store in my cellar, should I be
considered a drug dealer? Were cannabis legal, growing a number of plants
for future storage would be no worse that brewing a keg of ale of fermenting
a barrel of wine.

They weren't 'just plants' they were a 'prohibited drug'. No one is
suggesting horticulture is illegal. How can they ... it's not but producing
a 'prohibited drug' is. Why suggest 'if cannabis were legal' and then
compare its production to two other 'non prohibited' drugs?

Why say ...As far as I know I can legally grow coffee, tea or tobacco for my
own use." Of course you can ... they are not prohibited drugs.

Does anyone ever stop to consider how retarded their arguments actually are?
When I say 'it doesn't help the cause I mean that to non drug taking folk
those sorts of arguments appear to be retarded and one can only assume the
person making them has fried their brain one to many times.

Why can't drug dealers and drug users that get busted face the facts that
they were doing something illegal and deal with it? Me making that comment
does, in no way, mean they deserve to be caught. Shit, I like drugs as much
as the next person but I realise that I'm doing the wrong thing ... 'in the
eyes of the law'. I don't agree with the laws but not agreeing doesn't
negate the law. If it were that easy we'd just go to court and say that
because we don't agree with the law then we've done nothing wrong.
Unfortunately some people appear to think that way.

I look forward to the out of context replies full of misquotes and
assumptions that have somehow become fact.

[k***@xs4all.nl]

Post by BernieM

Post by Pete nospam Zakel

Post by BernieM
Why start an argument with "were canabis legal"? Cannabis is a drug.
Producing drugs is illegal. Why deny those truths? It doesn't mean you
agree with pathetic laws.

Producing drugs is not illegal. Producing *prohibited* drugs is illegal.
Which drugs are prohibited are completely arbitrary.
I can produce enough wine or beer for myself and my family to keep us quite
happy, and it is quite legal.
As far as I know I can legally grow coffee, tea or tobacco for my own use.
All of these are drugs.
-Pete Zakel
The shortest distance between two points is off the wall.

Like I said ... taking things out of context.

Sure...

Post by BernieM
Of course I meant producing 'illegal' drugs is illegal.

Hey, we've got ourselves a regular Einstein here...

Post by BernieM
Why do these conversations have to be so difficult?

Try switching on your other braincell, too.

Post by BernieM
Replies like your's really don't help the cause.

What cause?

[BernieM]

Post by k***@xs4all.nl

Post by BernieM

Post by Pete nospam Zakel

Post by BernieM
Why start an argument with "were canabis legal"? Cannabis is a drug.
Producing drugs is illegal. Why deny those truths? It doesn't mean you
agree with pathetic laws.

Producing drugs is not illegal. Producing *prohibited* drugs is illegal.
Which drugs are prohibited are completely arbitrary.
I can produce enough wine or beer for myself and my family to keep us quite
happy, and it is quite legal.
As far as I know I can legally grow coffee, tea or tobacco for my own use.
All of these are drugs.
-Pete Zakel
The shortest distance between two points is off the wall.

Like I said ... taking things out of context.

Sure...

Post by BernieM
Of course I meant producing 'illegal' drugs is illegal.

Hey, we've got ourselves a regular Einstein here...

Post by BernieM
Why do these conversations have to be so difficult?

Try switching on your other braincell, too.

Post by BernieM
Replies like your's really don't help the cause.

What cause?

Interesting you found it necessary to have a go at my post when I was simply
replying to someone who found it necessary to tell me that producing
prohibited drugs is illegal.

This place is full of enlightened people.

[k***@xs4all.nl]

Post by BernieM

Post by k***@xs4all.nl

Post by BernieM

Post by Pete nospam Zakel

Post by BernieM
Why start an argument with "were canabis legal"? Cannabis is a drug.
Producing drugs is illegal. Why deny those truths? It doesn't mean you
agree with pathetic laws.

Producing drugs is not illegal. Producing *prohibited* drugs is illegal.
Which drugs are prohibited are completely arbitrary.
I can produce enough wine or beer for myself and my family to keep us quite
happy, and it is quite legal.
As far as I know I can legally grow coffee, tea or tobacco for my own use.
All of these are drugs.
-Pete Zakel
The shortest distance between two points is off the wall.

Like I said ... taking things out of context.

Sure...

Post by BernieM
Of course I meant producing 'illegal' drugs is illegal.

Hey, we've got ourselves a regular Einstein here...

Post by BernieM
Why do these conversations have to be so difficult?

Try switching on your other braincell, too.

Post by BernieM
Replies like your's really don't help the cause.

What cause?

Interesting you found it necessary to have a go at my post when I was simply
replying to someone who found it necessary to tell me that producing
prohibited drugs is illegal.

Some people find the strangest things interesting. Any particular point
you wish to make or are you just farting about generally?

Post by BernieM
This place is full of enlightened people.

And you're not one of them. Now ain't that a shame...

[BernieM]

Post by k***@xs4all.nl

Post by BernieM

Post by k***@xs4all.nl

Post by BernieM

Post by Pete nospam Zakel

Post by BernieM
Why start an argument with "were canabis legal"? Cannabis is a drug.
Producing drugs is illegal. Why deny those truths? It doesn't mean you
agree with pathetic laws.

Producing drugs is not illegal. Producing *prohibited* drugs is illegal.
Which drugs are prohibited are completely arbitrary.
I can produce enough wine or beer for myself and my family to keep
us
quite
happy, and it is quite legal.
As far as I know I can legally grow coffee, tea or tobacco for my
own
use.
All of these are drugs.
-Pete Zakel
The shortest distance between two points is off the wall.

Like I said ... taking things out of context.

Sure...

Post by BernieM
Of course I meant producing 'illegal' drugs is illegal.

Hey, we've got ourselves a regular Einstein here...

Post by BernieM
Why do these conversations have to be so difficult?

Try switching on your other braincell, too.

Post by BernieM
Replies like your's really don't help the cause.

What cause?

Interesting you found it necessary to have a go at my post when I was simply
replying to someone who found it necessary to tell me that producing
prohibited drugs is illegal.

Some people find the strangest things interesting. Any particular point
you wish to make or are you just farting about generally?

Post by BernieM
This place is full of enlightened people.

And you're not one of them. Now ain't that a shame...

whatever

[Jasbird]

*Date:* 4 Aug 2006 14:38:58 -0800

Post by BernieM
Why start an argument with "were canabis legal"? Cannabis is a
drug. Producing drugs is illegal. Why deny those truths? It doesn't
mean you agree with pathetic laws.

Producing drugs is not illegal. Producing *prohibited* drugs is
illegal. Which drugs are prohibited are completely arbitrary.

Well you may not agree with the decisions but it is most certainly not
arbitrary.

Seems pretty arbitrary to me:
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5230006.stm#drugs>

I wonder whereabouts aspirin and paracetamol would be in that list?

I can produce enough wine or beer for myself and my family to keep us
quite happy, and it is quite legal.

It has not always been legal to do so in the UK, I remember when it was
not. Distillation at home (though astonishingly easy) remains illegal,
even now. Is that a public health measure or a protection of tax
measure, debate.

It's a tax measure. If you applied for the license I think they would
let you provided you paid the tax.

There are zoning restrictions on what kind of business you may operate
on residential premises and areas. It becomes a public health measure if
you are in violation of those zoning laws because you're making loads of
hooch at home.

I don't think you can grow tobacco legally at home; unless you pay the
tax too.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nobel-prize winning economist, Gary Becker, says:
legalize drugs, tax them as luxury goods to stop people
using them; it will be as efficient as criminal sanctions in
reducing use but far cheaper and more humane.
<http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2005/03/the_failure_of.html>
<http://home.uchicago.edu/~gbecker/illegalgoods_Becker_Grossman_Murphy.pdf>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Just Another Legal Fan]

Post by Jasbird
I wonder whereabouts aspirin and paracetamol would be in that list?

I don't know about Asprin but Paracetamol is certainly a legal
drug responsible for many deaths by overdose.

Becaus it is legal many people simply do not know how dangerous
Paracetamol is.

[bobbie sellers]

Post by Jasbird
I wonder whereabouts aspirin and paracetamol would be in that list?

I don't know about Asprin but Paracetamol is certainly a legal drug
responsible for many deaths by overdose.
Becaus it is legal many people simply do not know how dangerous
Paracetamol is.

So is aspirin, a drug chosen by suicidal people.

later
bliss -- C O C O A Powered... (at california dot com)

--
bobbie sellers - a retired nurse in San Francisco

"It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the beans of cocoa that the thoughts acquire speed,
the thighs acquire girth, the girth become a warning.
It is by theobromine alone I set my mind in motion."
--from Someone else's Dune spoof ripped to my taste.

[Jethro]

Post by Jasbird

*Date:* 4 Aug 2006 14:38:58 -0800

Post by BernieM
Why start an argument with "were canabis legal"? Cannabis is a
drug. Producing drugs is illegal. Why deny those truths? It doesn't
mean you agree with pathetic laws.

Producing drugs is not illegal. Producing *prohibited* drugs is
illegal. Which drugs are prohibited are completely arbitrary.

Well you may not agree with the decisions but it is most certainly not
arbitrary.

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5230006.stm#drugs>
I wonder whereabouts aspirin and paracetamol would be in that list?

I can produce enough wine or beer for myself and my family to keep us
quite happy, and it is quite legal.

It has not always been legal to do so in the UK, I remember when it was
not. Distillation at home (though astonishingly easy) remains illegal,
even now. Is that a public health measure or a protection of tax
measure, debate.

It's a tax measure. If you applied for the license I think they would
let you provided you paid the tax.
There are zoning restrictions on what kind of business you may operate
on residential premises and areas. It becomes a public health measure if
you are in violation of those zoning laws because you're making loads of
hooch at home.
I don't think you can grow tobacco legally at home; unless you pay the
tax too.

IIRC this is correct technically. However, HMRC do not deploy any
resources to collecting this revenue, and do not prosecute people who
grow tobacco ... there's a website where you can buy tobacco seeds
which has a statement from them on the subject

[Phil Stovell]

Post by BernieM
Producing drugs is illegal.

Rubbish. I brew my own beer.

[Granville West]

Post by Sla#s
<SNIP>

Post by Granville West

Post by Pete nospam Zakel
Were cannabis legal, growing a number of plants for future storage would be
no worse that brewing a keg of ale of fermenting a barrel of wine.

No illegal at the moment in the UK! So hang the F*ckers :-0

The point is we are trying to change an unjust law. Is that wrong?

You won't change it by the use usenet!

Post by Sla#s
There have been many unjust laws and the best way to get them changed is
to break them. I wish it were not the case but would women have the vote
today were it were not for the likes of Emily Pankhurst? You can go back
through British history for similar laws that were changed because
people rebelled against them them.

So? They where jailed when it was an illegal act was commited.

When I see that a majority of the population are in favour of
legalising "controlled substances" then I would not have a problem with
the law being altered. Until then I'll abide by the law;-)

GW

[brian bennett]

Post by Granville West

Post by Sla#s
<SNIP>

Post by Granville West

Post by Pete nospam Zakel
Were cannabis legal, growing a number of plants for future storage would be
no worse that brewing a keg of ale of fermenting a barrel of wine.

No illegal at the moment in the UK! So hang the F*ckers :-0

The point is we are trying to change an unjust law. Is that wrong?

You won't change it by the use usenet!

Post by Sla#s
There have been many unjust laws and the best way to get them changed is
to break them. I wish it were not the case but would women have the vote
today were it were not for the likes of Emily Pankhurst? You can go back
through British history for similar laws that were changed because
people rebelled against them them.

So? They where jailed when it was an illegal act was commited.
When I see that a majority of the population are in favour of
legalising "controlled substances" then I would not have a problem with
the law being altered. Until then I'll abide by the law;-)
GW

so your approach to dealing with unjust laws is to wait until it's
popular to speak out against them? then you sign up to change the
laws?

you think that the only reason to take a side is if you are on the
majority side?

that is quite pathetic!

b
--
citizen, patriot, stoner

Marijuana: it's nowhere near as scary as they want you to think.
truth: the Anti-drugwar http://www.briancbennett.com

Nothing will ever change if we don't stand up for ourselves:
http://cannabisconsumers.org

"Cops say legalize drugs" ask them why:
http://www.leap.cc

[Granville West]

Post by brian bennett

Post by Granville West

Post by Sla#s
<SNIP>

Post by Granville West

Post by Pete nospam Zakel
Were cannabis legal, growing a number of plants for future storage would be
no worse that brewing a keg of ale of fermenting a barrel of wine.

No illegal at the moment in the UK! So hang the F*ckers :-0

The point is we are trying to change an unjust law. Is that wrong?

You won't change it by the use usenet!

Post by Sla#s
There have been many unjust laws and the best way to get them changed is
to break them. I wish it were not the case but would women have the vote
today were it were not for the likes of Emily Pankhurst? You can go back
through British history for similar laws that were changed because
people rebelled against them them.

So? They where jailed when it was an illegal act was commited.
When I see that a majority of the population are in favour of
legalising "controlled substances" then I would not have a problem with
the law being altered. Until then I'll abide by the law;-)
GW

so your approach to dealing with unjust laws is to wait until it's
popular to speak out against them? then you sign up to change the
laws?
you think that the only reason to take a side is if you are on the
majority side?
that is quite pathetic!
b

Get the laws changed then! Until then I'll abide with the law:-(

Don't spout off on usenet! That won't get the law changed.

GW

[bobbie sellers]

Post by Granville West

Post by brian bennett

Post by Granville West

Post by Sla#s
<SNIP>

Post by Granville West

Post by Pete nospam Zakel
Were cannabis legal, growing a number of plants for future storage would be
no worse that brewing a keg of ale of fermenting a barrel of wine.

No illegal at the moment in the UK! So hang the F*ckers :-0

The point is we are trying to change an unjust law. Is that wrong?

You won't change it by the use usenet!

Post by Sla#s
There have been many unjust laws and the best way to get them changed is
to break them. I wish it were not the case but would women have the vote
today were it were not for the likes of Emily Pankhurst? You can go back
through British history for similar laws that were changed because
people rebelled against them them.

So? They where jailed when it was an illegal act was commited.
When I see that a majority of the population are in favour of
legalising "controlled substances" then I would not have a problem with
the law being altered. Until then I'll abide by the law;-)
GW

so your approach to dealing with unjust laws is to wait until it's
popular to speak out against them? then you sign up to change the
laws?
you think that the only reason to take a side is if you are on the
majority side?
that is quite pathetic!
b

Get the laws changed then! Until then I'll abide with the law:-(
Don't spout off on usenet! That won't get the law changed.
GW

No it won't you troll but our free discussion of the reality
of the situation will move a few people to do as we(tpd) have done
and write letters to the legislators we (national district) have
elected urging a change to the harmful and dangerous law.
The following material is included for the more uninformed lurkers
and prohibitionists. All of it is from U.S.A. government sources.

** Begin copied material from Usenet **

Marijuana: it's nowhere near as scary as they want
you to think. truth: the Anti-drugwar
http://www.briancbennett.com

Nothing will ever change if we don't stand up for
ourselves:
http://cannabisconsumers.org

"Cops say legalize drugs" ask them why:
http://www.leap.cc

...America just celebrated 90 years of Federal drug "control"
(the Harrision Narcotics Act was passed on December 17, 1914) --
when do you suppose this prohibition stuff will start to "work"?
Brian Bennett, Thursday 17 December 2004

** End copied material from Usenet **
later
bliss -- C O C O A Powered... (at california dot com)

--
bobbie sellers - a retired nurse in San Francisco

"It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the beans of cocoa that the thoughts acquire speed,
the thighs acquire girth, the girth become a warning.
It is by theobromine alone I set my mind in motion."
--from Someone else's Dune spoof ripped to my taste.

[Granville West]

<snipped the sh*t>

"bobbie sellers - a retired nurse in San Francisco"

I suggest you concentrate on changing the law in the USA then. As UK
law does not affect you:-(


GW

[bobbie sellers]

Post by Granville West
<snipped the sh*t>
"bobbie sellers - a retired nurse in San Francisco"
I suggest you concentrate on changing the law in the USA then. As UK law
does not affect you:-(
GW

Don't cross post your nonsense to the international group talk.politics
drugs if you don't want it refuted.

later
bliss -- C O C O A Powered... (at california dot com)

--
bobbie sellers - a retired nurse in San Francisco

"It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the beans of cocoa that the thoughts acquire speed,
the thighs acquire girth, the girth become a warning.
It is by theobromine alone I set my mind in motion."
--from Someone else's Dune spoof ripped to my taste.

[Phil Stovell]

Post by Granville West
<snipped the sh*t>
"bobbie sellers - a retired nurse in San Francisco"
I suggest you concentrate on changing the law in the USA then. As UK law
does not affect you:-(

Our own (UK) war on drugs is mandated by the USA.

Post by Granville West
GW

[Phil Stovell]

Post by Granville West

Post by brian bennett

Post by Granville West

Post by Sla#s
<SNIP>

Post by Granville West

Post by Pete nospam Zakel
Were cannabis legal, growing a number of plants for future
storage would be no worse that brewing a keg of ale of fermenting
a barrel of wine.

No illegal at the moment in the UK! So hang the F*ckers :-0

The point is we are trying to change an unjust law. Is that wrong?

You won't change it by the use usenet!

Post by Sla#s
There have been many unjust laws and the best way to get them
changed is to break them. I wish it were not the case but would
women have the vote today were it were not for the likes of Emily
Pankhurst? You can go back through British history for similar laws
that were changed because people rebelled against them them.

So? They where jailed when it was an illegal act was commited.
When I see that a majority of the population are in favour of
legalising "controlled substances" then I would not have a problem
with the law being altered. Until then I'll abide by the law;-)
GW

so your approach to dealing with unjust laws is to wait until it's
popular to speak out against them? then you sign up to change the laws?
you think that the only reason to take a side is if you are on the
majority side?
that is quite pathetic!
b

Get the laws changed then! Until then I'll abide with the law:-(
Don't spout off on usenet! That won't get the law changed.

But it will open people's eyes and, hopefully, get them to modify their
voting intentions.

Post by Granville West
GW

[BernieM]

Post by Pete nospam Zakel

Post by Granville West

Post by Jasbird
On 3 Aug 2006 01:31:48 -0700, "Granville West"

Post by Granville West

This judge sounds quite sensible to me, which does make a pleasant cha=

nge.

Post by Jasbird

Post by Granville West
Seems to me the accused is a drug dealer + grower. Unless cannabis is
that expensive! Never having use it, so don't know.

So, in future, people are to be convicted of drug dealing based upon
your guesswork?
How do we know that this wasn't a one-off operation - to grow lots of
cannabis, vacuum pack it and store it in a fridge so that this guy could
go for a year or two without the hassle of growing cannabis (with all
the risks that involves?)

And you and your ilk are apologists for illegal activities concerning
drugs!=20

So, if I buy a few cases of wine to store in my cellar, should I be considered
a drug dealer?

Technically that's most likely to be correct but he specifically mentioned
'illegal activities' and as purchasing even large quantities of wine is not
illegal it's a moot point.

Post by Pete nospam Zakel
Were cannabis legal, growing a number of plants for future storage would be
no worse that brewing a keg of ale of fermenting a barrel of wine.

That's most likely correct but growing canabis isn't legal so it's a moot
point.

Post by Pete nospam Zakel
Or growing a plot of tomatoes.

Growing tomatoes is perfectly legal so you're most likely correct in saying
that, if growing canabis was legal, then growing it would be no worse than
growing tomatoes but as growing canabis is not legal it's a moot point.

Post by Pete nospam Zakel
-Pete Zakel
To be is to do. -- Plato
To do is to be. -- Socrates
Yabba-dabba-doo! -- Fred Flintstone

FYI ... moot point ... A debatable question, an issue open to argument;
also, an irrelevant question, a matter of no importance.

[Jonathan Bryce]

Post by Granville West
"They discovered cannabis plants growing under hydroponic lights and
drugs
with a street value of £3,400 and weighing 21.1oz"
Seems to me the accused is a drug dealer + grower. Unless cannabis is
that expensive! Never having use it, so don't know.

I suspect that reported street values are massively inflated.

[bobbie sellers]

Post by Phil Stovell

Post by Phil Stovell
This judge sounds quite sensible to me, which does make a pleasant change.
<http://www.oxfordmail.net/news/headlines/display.var.861655.0.judges_cri

ticised_for_drugs_comment.php>
<snipped>
"They discovered cannabis plants growing under hydroponic lights and
drugs
with a street value of Ł3,400 and weighing 21.1oz"
Seems to me the accused is a drug dealer + grower. Unless cannabis is
that expensive! Never having use it, so don't know.
GW

The police in the USA generally use wet weight of the whole plant
to exxagerate the amounts. Then they multiply the weight by the highest
possible price. Cannabis is expensive because it is illegal and the
dealers have to pay more.
It is important to understand that the highest price is only paid for
the dried flowers and its adjacent stems. Note that dried flowers also
called "colas" are not mentioned.

Why do the police exxagerate you might well ask? Because arrest of a
bigger grower is more important than the arrest of a user/hobbyist.

later
bliss -- C O C O A Powered... (at california dot com)

--
bobbie sellers - a retired nurse in San Francisco

"It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the beans of cocoa that the thoughts acquire speed,
the thighs acquire girth, the girth become a warning.
It is by theobromine alone I set my mind in motion."
--from Someone else's Dune spoof ripped to my taste.

[Jasbird]

Post by Phil Stovell
This judge sounds quite sensible to me, which does make a pleasant change.
<http://www.oxfordmail.net/news/headlines/display.var.861655.0.judges_criticised_for_drugs_comment.php>
Judge is criticised for drugs comment By Matt Wilkinson
A judge has been criticised for suggesting that people who use their homes
as drug factories are no more of a nuisance than those who cultivate
tomato plants.
Judge Charles Harris questioned whether council tenant Phillip Pledge was
causing anti-social behaviour by growing and storing cannabis of a street
value totalling £3,400 at his flat in Blackbird Leys, Oxford.
He also compared the nuisance value of growing cannabis to fictional
detective Sherlock Holmes taking drugs in the novels by Sir Arthur Conan
Doyle.
The judge's comments, made during an Antisocial Behaviour Order hearing at
Oxford Crown Court yesterday, left community leaders baffled.
Blackbird Leys councillor Lee Cole, of the Independent Working Class
Association (IWCA), who campaigns against the social damage of drug use in
his area, said: "It sounds like he's been on something himself. The judge
seems to have lost his mind.
"Cultivating cannabis attracts the wrong type of people to your house. And
neighbours, especially in a place like a tower block, have to put up with
them knocking on doors all the time."

Dead right. Coppers smashing in your door at 4 am.

Post by Phil Stovell
Barry Beadle, area manager for Oxford drugs counselling group Libra
Project, said: "In the short term he is probably right but in the long
term the production and cultivation of illegal drugs will have anti-social
effect to the individual and the community."

Which is why it should be done on a mass scale in the country-side in
poly-tunnels - that is clearly what God intended, before the laws of Man
got in the way.

Post by Phil Stovell
The judge's comments, which we have reproduced in full below, were made at
a hearing brought by Oxford City Council against Pledge, of Strawberry
Path in Blackbird Leys, Oxford, who allegedly broke his tenancy agreement
by storing drugs in a council flat.
Police raided the flat in Evenlode Tower in February where Pledge was
temporarily housed after an arson attack on his home.
They discovered cannabis plants growing under hydroponic lights and drugs
with a street value of £3,400 and weighing 21.1oz.
Prosecuting, Simon Strelitz, told the court by storing and growing drugs,
Pledge broke his tenancy agreement .

The Judge was actually saying that the tenancy agreement itself was
illegitimate because it made onerous demands upon the tenant.

Post by Phil Stovell
He asked the judge for a possession order for the council house in
Strawberry Path and an Asbo banning Pledge from Blackbird Leys for two
years.
He added: "The city council is not prepared to allow its property to
harbour people who wish to commit offences.

So do they have a clause in the tenancy agreement which mandates
homelessness for speeding offences - and all other offences? How does
that tally with the Rehabilitation of offenders Act - or have they
scrapped that?

Post by Phil Stovell
"The fact that he has drugs in such quantity acts as a magnet for other
unsavoury characters."
After making his remarks, Judge Harris also called the Asbo application
"the sort of thing they do in Russia or China".
Defending himself, Pledge, a business partner in Oxford Hydroponics and a
driver for the National Blood Service, told the court the drugs were for
personal use.
He added: "I've not dealt drugs and it's never been proven that I dealt
drugs. I am a partner in a hydroponics shop which carries a certain stigma
with it.
"I've been trying to get a move away for two years and been trying to wean
myself off cannabis. The only reason I went back to the cannabis was
because of the traumatic experience when my house burnt down."
Pledge remains on bail for possession of class C drugs with intent to
supply.

He must appeal if convicted - all the way to the international court of
human rights. This is obscene, charging someone with dealing without any
evidence. If they refuse him leave of appeal he should try to get
Amnesty or Liberty to take up his case.

Post by Phil Stovell
Judge Harris told the court he would reserve judgement on the case until
Monday.

This is just the kind of Fascistic mentality we've come to expect from
the Labour Party.

Let's hope this Judge holds the line for civilisation and justice
against the barbarians of the police state.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nobel-prize winning economist, Gary Becker, says:
legalize drugs, tax them as luxury goods to stop people
using them; it will be as efficient as criminal sanctions in
reducing use but far cheaper and more humane.
<http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2005/03/the_failure_of.html>
<http://home.uchicago.edu/~gbecker/illegalgoods_Becker_Grossman_Murphy.pdf>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Just Another Legal Fan]

Post by Phil Stovell
He added: "The city council is not prepared to allow its property to
harbour people who wish to commit offences.

By that reckoning, anyone living in a council house who shoplifts,
burgles or even parks illegally should have their tenancy withdrawn?

For once a judge appears to be thinking.......

[Phil Stovell]

Post by Just Another Legal Fan
For once a judge appears to be thinking.......

I was impressed too.

Doesn't THC4MS come up for sentence tomorrow?

[Clough]

Post by Phil Stovell

Post by Just Another Legal Fan
For once a judge appears to be thinking.......

I was impressed too.
Doesn't THC4MS come up for sentence tomorrow?

More idiot pontificating from the bench, no doubt, about
"irresponsible defiance of the law." Maybe some lunatic preaching
about "dangerous drugs, blughblaghblurp" from some ossified old twat
in a wig.

Unfortunatly the ignorant twats have power. So they can inflict all
the misery and suffering they want.

If more sensible people were in power, there would be no need to shoot
the cunts, since they would be marginalised lunatics with no influence
and they could be ignored.

But sensible people are not in power. They are. So shooting the
miserable cunts seems a reasonable act.

Clough

[Granville West]

Post by Just Another Legal Fan

Post by Phil Stovell
He added: "The city council is not prepared to allow its property to
harbour people who wish to commit offences.

By that reckoning, anyone living in a council house who shoplifts,
burgles or even parks illegally should have their tenancy withdrawn?

Nothing of the kind smart-arse! The council do have a legal right to
take action against someone using THEIR property in an illegal manner.

GW

[arclight]

Post by Granville West

Post by Just Another Legal Fan

Post by Phil Stovell
He added: "The city council is not prepared to allow its property to
harbour people who wish to commit offences.

By that reckoning, anyone living in a council house who shoplifts,
burgles or even parks illegally should have their tenancy withdrawn?

Nothing of the kind smart-arse! The council do have a legal right to
take action against someone using THEIR property in an illegal manner.

you mean like storing goods they've just stolen?

[Granville West]

Post by arclight

Post by Granville West

Post by Just Another Legal Fan

Post by Phil Stovell
He added: "The city council is not prepared to allow its property to
harbour people who wish to commit offences.

By that reckoning, anyone living in a council house who shoplifts,
burgles or even parks illegally should have their tenancy withdrawn?

Nothing of the kind smart-arse! The council do have a legal right to
take action against someone using THEIR property in an illegal manner.

you mean like storing goods they've just stolen?

Lol. Certainly & why not;-)

GW

[Jasbird]

Post by Phil Stovell
This judge sounds quite sensible to me, which does make a pleasant change.
<http://www.oxfordmail.net/news/headlines/display.var.861655.0.judges_criticised_for_drugs_comment.php>
Judge is criticised for drugs comment By Matt Wilkinson
A judge has been criticised for suggesting that people who use their homes
as drug factories are no more of a nuisance than those who cultivate
tomato plants.
Judge Charles Harris questioned whether council tenant Phillip Pledge was
causing anti-social behaviour by growing and storing cannabis of a street
value totalling £3,400 at his flat in Blackbird Leys, Oxford.

Judge rules no ASBO for drug cultivation
<http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1147162006>

..
.
Charles Harris QC had been asked to impose an Anti Social Behaviour
Order by Oxford City Council, ...

However, Judge Harris refused the application, saying that merely
growing the plants was not causing problems for his neighbours.

"For some reason the Crown Prosecution Service has not charged Mr
Pledge. He was arrested and then released.

"If there is evidence against the defendant he should be brought before
a criminal court and tried."

...


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nobel-prize winning economist, Gary Becker, says:
legalize drugs, tax them as luxury goods to stop people
using them; it will be as efficient as criminal sanctions in
reducing use but far cheaper and more humane.
<http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2005/03/the_failure_of.html>
<http://home.uchicago.edu/~gbecker/illegalgoods_Becker_Grossman_Murphy.pdf>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Ollie Clark]

Post by Jasbird

Post by Phil Stovell
This judge sounds quite sensible to me, which does make a pleasant change.
<http://www.oxfordmail.net/news/headlines/display.var.861655.0.judges_criticised_for_drugs_comment.php>
Judge is criticised for drugs comment By Matt Wilkinson
A judge has been criticised for suggesting that people who use their homes
as drug factories are no more of a nuisance than those who cultivate
tomato plants.
Judge Charles Harris questioned whether council tenant Phillip Pledge was
causing anti-social behaviour by growing and storing cannabis of a street
value totalling £3,400 at his flat in Blackbird Leys, Oxford.

Judge rules no ASBO for drug cultivation
<http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1147162006>
..
.
Charles Harris QC had been asked to impose an Anti Social Behaviour
Order by Oxford City Council, ...
However, Judge Harris refused the application, saying that merely
growing the plants was not causing problems for his neighbours.

How sensible.

Post by Jasbird
"For some reason the Crown Prosecution Service has not charged Mr
Pledge. He was arrested and then released.
"If there is evidence against the defendant he should be brought before
a criminal court and tried."

Well, quite. If he's commited a crime, try him for that. If they wanted to
pretend he was being antisocial for growing some plants then they deserve
to lose the case.

[Cynic]

Post by Jasbird
Charles Harris QC had been asked to impose an Anti Social Behaviour
Order by Oxford City Council, ...
However, Judge Harris refused the application, saying that merely
growing the plants was not causing problems for his neighbours.
"For some reason the Crown Prosecution Service has not charged Mr
Pledge. He was arrested and then released.
"If there is evidence against the defendant he should be brought before
a criminal court and tried."

Good to see that a judge is not prepared to see ASBOs used as a
substitute for evidence gathering and properly presented prosecutions.
It's what several of us have been complaining about on this ng for
quite some time.

Perhaps the magistrates will follow the lead.

I note that the council saw fit to spend their ratepayers' money on
the hiring of a *QC* to bring an ASBO. anyone like to take a guess at
what that might have cost?

[Jasbird]

Post by Phil Stovell
This judge sounds quite sensible to me, which does make a pleasant change.
<http://www.oxfordmail.net/news/headlines/display.var.861655.0.judges_criticised_for_drugs_comment.php>
Judge is criticised for drugs comment By Matt Wilkinson
A judge has been criticised for suggesting that people who use their homes
as drug factories are no more of a nuisance than those who cultivate
tomato plants.

<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2302649,00.html>

Cultivating cannabis? It's like growing tomatoes, says judge
By Nicola Woolcock

A JUDGE has refused to impose an antisocial behaviour order on a man
cultivating cannabis because it is "no worse than having tomato plants".

He also told Oxford City Council, who applied for the ASBO, that it was
"the sort of thing they do in Russia or China".

...

A spokesman for Oxford City Council said that it would be appealing
against the decision.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nobel-prize winning economist, Gary Becker, says:
legalize drugs, tax them as luxury goods to stop people
using them; it will be as efficient as criminal sanctions in
reducing use but far cheaper and more humane.
<http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2005/03/the_failure_of.html>
<http://home.uchicago.edu/~gbecker/illegalgoods_Becker_Grossman_Murphy.pdf>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Jasbird]

-0700

Post by Pete nospam Zakel
nospam

14:38:58 -0800

"BernieM"
Why start an argument with "were canabis legal"? Cannabis is a

drug. >Producing drugs is illegal. Why deny those truths? It
doesn't
mean you >agree with pathetic laws.
Producing drugs is not illegal. Producing *prohibited* drugs is
illegal.
Which drugs are prohibited are completely arbitrary.

Well you may not agree with the decisions but it is most certainly
not
arbitrary.

I can produce enough wine or beer for myself and my family to keep
us quite happy, and it is quite legal.

It has not always been legal to do so in the UK, I remember when it
was not. Distillation at home (though astonishingly easy) remains
illegal, even now. Is that a public health measure or a protection
of tax measure, debate.

prolly bit of both ... and whilst it is "easy", it is also "easy" to
f*** up ... you could either end up drinking methanol, *or* putting
your garden shed into orbit ...
IMHO at least the prohibition on home distilling has some "public
safety" merit to it.

Exactly and the regulations on other drugs have similar objectives

Really?

Claude is right - protection of public safety is an objective - the
point is that the law fails to achieve its objective. Policy makers
continue blindly on - gleefully ignoring evidence. Drug policy remains
what it's always been - "an evidence free zone".

The law makes drug use more dangerous. Imposing luxury taxes instead
would be a better way to control use and would lead to a much more
civilized society.

So why is it illegal to grow cannabis then, forcing anyone who
wants to grow it to grow it under hot lights inside causing a fire risk?

2 years in clink. Grow your own, a trafficking offence, 14 years clink.

I'm guessing that most people would probably get away with growing their
own provided they kept the operation small-scale. Say less than 20
plants at any one time. Even if caught, I doubt you'd get jail. I
haven't noticed ANY stories of small-scale cannabis (using a single, say
400-600 watt lamp) growers being busted and I've checked of Google news
most every day for months on end.

Most unusual case I saw was a guy caught with over a tonne of resin in
his van - he got 2.5 years with no previous.
<http://www.leamingtonspatoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=691&ArticleID=1679145>

Compare that to the Ecstasy dealer given 2 years a while back for
selling 1 gram. Prof. Nutt with 20 other scientists rated ecstasy less
dangerous than cannabis !
<http://politicsofsin.50megs.com/clarke/Science.Tech.Report.2006-app14.html#classes>
Sorry folks. It doesn't look like my ad-free, free-site :- sharemation,
has been TOSsed. More a case of a provider in need of Elastoplast.
Remember to close pop-ups for that mirror:
<http://politicsofsin.50megs.com/>


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nobel-prize winning economist, Gary Becker, says:
legalize drugs, tax them as luxury goods to stop people
using them; it will be as efficient as criminal sanctions in
reducing use but far cheaper and more humane.
<http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2005/03/the_failure_of.html>
<http://home.uchicago.edu/~gbecker/illegalgoods_Becker_Grossman_Murphy.pdf>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Phil Stovell]

Post by Jasbird
I'm guessing that most people would probably get away with growing their
own provided they kept the operation small-scale. Say less than 20 plants
at any one time. Even if caught, I doubt you'd get jail. I haven't noticed
ANY stories of small-scale cannabis (using a single, say 400-600 watt
lamp) growers being busted and I've checked of Google news most every day
for months on end.

There was a case recently of a 50+ year old busted with about 8 plants,
IIRC. The police took no action (I don't know if he kept his plants). It
was posted to uk.politics.drugs. No doubt, it'll be another postcode
lottery on whether nothing happens or you go to court.

I use Google news alerts, BTW.

[Jasbird]

*Date:* Wed, 09 Aug 2006 08:18:15 GMT

In article

01:55:51

-0700

(Pete

Post by Pete nospam Zakel
nospam

2006

Post by Pete nospam Zakel

14:38:58 -0800

"BernieM"
Why start an argument with "were canabis legal"? Cannabis

is a

Post by Pete nospam Zakel

drug. >Producing drugs is illegal. Why deny those truths? It
doesn't
mean you >agree with pathetic laws.
Producing drugs is not illegal. Producing *prohibited*

drugs is

Post by Pete nospam Zakel

illegal.
Which drugs are prohibited are completely arbitrary.

Well you may not agree with the decisions but it is most

certainly

Post by Pete nospam Zakel
not
arbitrary.

I can produce enough wine or beer for myself and my family

to keep

Post by Pete nospam Zakel

us quite happy, and it is quite legal.

It has not always been legal to do so in the UK, I remember

when it

Post by Pete nospam Zakel
was not. Distillation at home (though astonishingly easy)

remains

Post by Pete nospam Zakel
illegal, even now. Is that a public health measure or a

protection

Post by Pete nospam Zakel
of tax measure, debate.

prolly bit of both ... and whilst it is "easy", it is also

"easy" to

f*** up ... you could either end up drinking methanol, *or*

putting

your garden shed into orbit ...
IMHO at least the prohibition on home distilling has some "public
safety" merit to it.

Exactly and the regulations on other drugs have similar objectives

Really?

Claude is right - protection of public safety is an objective - the
point is that the law fails to achieve its objective. Policy makers
continue blindly on - gleefully ignoring evidence. Drug policy remains
what it's always been - "an evidence free zone".
The law makes drug use more dangerous. Imposing luxury taxes instead
would be a better way to control use and would lead to a much more
civilized society.

SNIP>
It is rather difficult to see how you can sustain that last line
argument given the massive reduction in non medicinal Opiate use in the
last 100 years or so. The international agreements have been
astonishingly successful in reducing world wide use. Legalization to
that earlier un controlled state, even with high taxes, would surely
return use to the earlier heights? If not, why not? Discuss.

I'm not interested in discussing drug policy as a whole based upon a
case study of one of the most addictive drugs. That doesn't make sense.
We currently have an infinite number of illegal so-called "class A
drugs" in the UK - most of those chemicals classed as drugs don't have
an actual drug-like action. Those laws weren't put there to stop heroin
use.

Suppose all pornography was illegal. Can you imagine a free speech
activist campaigning for the legalization of adult porn - where the
scenario under discussion ONLY involved discussing child-porn? It
wouldn't happen - free-speech activists are not daft enough to argue for
the legalization of child-porn. [This is illustrative only and makes no
comparison between child porn and heroin - except to admit that they are
close to being worst case scenarios, in their, respectively,
incomparable fields]

That some drugs are particularly addictive doesn't justify a blanket ban
on all drugs - especially not a ban on an infinite number of so-called
drugs (most of which don't actually have a drug-like effect!).

I think sensible reformers should, at this stage, restrict themselves to
arguments for the legalization of specific drugs. It's much easier to
argue for the legalization of relatively safe drugs (compared with
alcohol and tobacco). That puts people like you under most pressure.

Right now, I restrict my discussion of cocaine and opiates to arguments
for a harm-reduction strategies which have been shown to work. (e.g. 7
years ago the prevalence of heroin use in Sweden and Holland was about
the same. The death rate in Sweden was 7 times higher than in Holland
because Sweden adopted a "just say no to drugs" strategy whereas Holland
adopted harm reduction.)

Remember that drug chart at the BBC site with Ecstasy rated = 1.1 and
alcohol = 1.8 :
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5230006.stm#drugs>
There are several class A drugs (not listed on the chart) which are
safer than Ecstasy. A nice legalization argument - which totally
undercuts anything you could come up with - would restrict itself to
arguing for the legalization of drugs which are safer than, say, khat.

PS: The EU recently banned the sale of nicotine chewing gum (2002) -
using the argument that it was "novel to the market" - but accepting
that it was safer than any of the drugs listed above, on the Nutt chart.
Prohibition is out-of-control and your ancient "just say no" is doing
more damage the longer we let it go on. You're a dinosaur Claude; your
drug policy is long overdue for extinction. "just say no" propaganda
belongs to the dark ages alongside torture by ordeal.

The implication in Becker's argument is that a regime of legal drugs
would work better for ALL drugs - but one doesn't need to accept that
argument to take up Becker's drug-legalization argument. You could just
accept that legalization works best for SOME drugs. Leave it there for
the time being and argue for specific reforms for those relatively safe
drugs.

That's politics ...


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nobel-prize winning economist, Gary Becker, says:
legalize drugs, tax them as luxury goods to stop people
using them; it will be as efficient as criminal sanctions in
reducing use but far cheaper and more humane.
<http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2005/03/the_failure_of.html>
<http://home.uchicago.edu/~gbecker/illegalgoods_Becker_Grossman_Murphy.pdf>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[brian bennett]

Post by Jasbird

*Date:* Wed, 09 Aug 2006 08:18:15 GMT

In article

01:55:51

-0700

(Pete

Post by Pete nospam Zakel
nospam

2006

Post by Pete nospam Zakel

14:38:58 -0800

"BernieM"
Why start an argument with "were canabis legal"? Cannabis

is a

Post by Pete nospam Zakel

drug. >Producing drugs is illegal. Why deny those truths? It
doesn't
mean you >agree with pathetic laws.
Producing drugs is not illegal. Producing *prohibited*

drugs is

Post by Pete nospam Zakel

illegal.
Which drugs are prohibited are completely arbitrary.

Well you may not agree with the decisions but it is most

certainly

Post by Pete nospam Zakel
not
arbitrary.

I can produce enough wine or beer for myself and my family

to keep

Post by Pete nospam Zakel

us quite happy, and it is quite legal.

It has not always been legal to do so in the UK, I remember

when it

Post by Pete nospam Zakel
was not. Distillation at home (though astonishingly easy)

remains

Post by Pete nospam Zakel
illegal, even now. Is that a public health measure or a

protection

Post by Pete nospam Zakel
of tax measure, debate.

prolly bit of both ... and whilst it is "easy", it is also

"easy" to

f*** up ... you could either end up drinking methanol, *or*

putting

your garden shed into orbit ...
IMHO at least the prohibition on home distilling has some "public
safety" merit to it.

Exactly and the regulations on other drugs have similar objectives

Really?

Claude is right - protection of public safety is an objective - the
point is that the law fails to achieve its objective. Policy makers
continue blindly on - gleefully ignoring evidence. Drug policy remains
what it's always been - "an evidence free zone".
The law makes drug use more dangerous. Imposing luxury taxes instead
would be a better way to control use and would lead to a much more
civilized society.

SNIP>
It is rather difficult to see how you can sustain that last line
argument given the massive reduction in non medicinal Opiate use in the
last 100 years or so. The international agreements have been
astonishingly successful in reducing world wide use. Legalization to
that earlier un controlled state, even with high taxes, would surely
return use to the earlier heights? If not, why not? Discuss.

I'm not interested in discussing drug policy as a whole based upon a
case study of one of the most addictive drugs. That doesn't make sense.
We currently have an infinite number of illegal so-called "class A
drugs" in the UK - most of those chemicals classed as drugs don't have
an actual drug-like action. Those laws weren't put there to stop heroin
use.
Suppose all pornography was illegal. Can you imagine a free speech
activist campaigning for the legalization of adult porn - where the
scenario under discussion ONLY involved discussing child-porn? It
wouldn't happen - free-speech activists are not daft enough to argue for
the legalization of child-porn. [This is illustrative only and makes no
comparison between child porn and heroin - except to admit that they are
close to being worst case scenarios, in their, respectively,
incomparable fields]
That some drugs are particularly addictive doesn't justify a blanket ban
on all drugs - especially not a ban on an infinite number of so-called
drugs (most of which don't actually have a drug-like effect!).
I think sensible reformers should, at this stage, restrict themselves to
arguments for the legalization of specific drugs. It's much easier to
argue for the legalization of relatively safe drugs (compared with
alcohol and tobacco). That puts people like you under most pressure.
Right now, I restrict my discussion of cocaine and opiates to arguments
for a harm-reduction strategies which have been shown to work. (e.g. 7
years ago the prevalence of heroin use in Sweden and Holland was about
the same. The death rate in Sweden was 7 times higher than in Holland
because Sweden adopted a "just say no to drugs" strategy whereas Holland
adopted harm reduction.)
Remember that drug chart at the BBC site with Ecstasy rated = 1.1 and
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5230006.stm#drugs>
There are several class A drugs (not listed on the chart) which are
safer than Ecstasy. A nice legalization argument - which totally
undercuts anything you could come up with - would restrict itself to
arguing for the legalization of drugs which are safer than, say, khat.
PS: The EU recently banned the sale of nicotine chewing gum (2002) -
using the argument that it was "novel to the market" - but accepting
that it was safer than any of the drugs listed above, on the Nutt chart.
Prohibition is out-of-control and your ancient "just say no" is doing
more damage the longer we let it go on. You're a dinosaur Claude; your
drug policy is long overdue for extinction. "just say no" propaganda
belongs to the dark ages alongside torture by ordeal.
The implication in Becker's argument is that a regime of legal drugs
would work better for ALL drugs - but one doesn't need to accept that
argument to take up Becker's drug-legalization argument. You could just
accept that legalization works best for SOME drugs. Leave it there for
the time being and argue for specific reforms for those relatively safe
drugs.
That's politics ...

actually, that's horseshit! it would be like getting a dental care
plan and plumbing for slaves. the instituion of prohibition is itself
the problem -- it must be destroyed, not given a pretty paint job.

b
--
citizen, patriot, stoner

Marijuana: it's nowhere near as scary as they want you to think.
truth: the Anti-drugwar http://www.briancbennett.com

Nothing will ever change if we don't stand up for ourselves:
http://cannabisconsumers.org

"Cops say legalize drugs" ask them why:
http://www.leap.cc

[brian bennett]

Post by Jasbird

*Date:* Wed, 09 Aug 2006 08:18:15 GMT

In article

01:55:51

-0700

(Pete

Post by Pete nospam Zakel
nospam

2006

Post by Pete nospam Zakel

14:38:58 -0800

"BernieM"
Why start an argument with "were canabis legal"? Cannabis

is a

Post by Pete nospam Zakel

drug. >Producing drugs is illegal. Why deny those truths? It
doesn't
mean you >agree with pathetic laws.
Producing drugs is not illegal. Producing *prohibited*

drugs is

Post by Pete nospam Zakel

illegal.
Which drugs are prohibited are completely arbitrary.

Well you may not agree with the decisions but it is most

certainly

Post by Pete nospam Zakel
not
arbitrary.

I can produce enough wine or beer for myself and my family

to keep

Post by Pete nospam Zakel

us quite happy, and it is quite legal.

It has not always been legal to do so in the UK, I remember

when it

Post by Pete nospam Zakel
was not. Distillation at home (though astonishingly easy)

remains

Post by Pete nospam Zakel
illegal, even now. Is that a public health measure or a

protection

Post by Pete nospam Zakel
of tax measure, debate.

prolly bit of both ... and whilst it is "easy", it is also

"easy" to

f*** up ... you could either end up drinking methanol, *or*

putting

your garden shed into orbit ...
IMHO at least the prohibition on home distilling has some "public
safety" merit to it.

Exactly and the regulations on other drugs have similar objectives

Really?

Claude is right - protection of public safety is an objective - the
point is that the law fails to achieve its objective. Policy makers
continue blindly on - gleefully ignoring evidence. Drug policy remains
what it's always been - "an evidence free zone".
The law makes drug use more dangerous. Imposing luxury taxes instead
would be a better way to control use and would lead to a much more
civilized society.

SNIP>
It is rather difficult to see how you can sustain that last line
argument given the massive reduction in non medicinal Opiate use in the
last 100 years or so. The international agreements have been
astonishingly successful in reducing world wide use. Legalization to
that earlier un controlled state, even with high taxes, would surely
return use to the earlier heights? If not, why not? Discuss.

I'm not interested in discussing drug policy as a whole based upon a
case study of one of the most addictive drugs. That doesn't make sense.
We currently have an infinite number of illegal so-called "class A
drugs" in the UK - most of those chemicals classed as drugs don't have
an actual drug-like action. Those laws weren't put there to stop heroin
use.
Suppose all pornography was illegal. Can you imagine a free speech
activist campaigning for the legalization of adult porn - where the
scenario under discussion ONLY involved discussing child-porn? It
wouldn't happen - free-speech activists are not daft enough to argue for
the legalization of child-porn. [This is illustrative only and makes no
comparison between child porn and heroin - except to admit that they are
close to being worst case scenarios, in their, respectively,
incomparable fields]
That some drugs are particularly addictive doesn't justify a blanket ban
on all drugs - especially not a ban on an infinite number of so-called
drugs (most of which don't actually have a drug-like effect!).
I think sensible reformers should, at this stage, restrict themselves to
arguments for the legalization of specific drugs. It's much easier to
argue for the legalization of relatively safe drugs (compared with
alcohol and tobacco). That puts people like you under most pressure.
Right now, I restrict my discussion of cocaine and opiates to arguments
for a harm-reduction strategies which have been shown to work. (e.g. 7
years ago the prevalence of heroin use in Sweden and Holland was about
the same. The death rate in Sweden was 7 times higher than in Holland
because Sweden adopted a "just say no to drugs" strategy whereas Holland
adopted harm reduction.)
Remember that drug chart at the BBC site with Ecstasy rated = 1.1 and
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5230006.stm#drugs>
There are several class A drugs (not listed on the chart) which are
safer than Ecstasy. A nice legalization argument - which totally
undercuts anything you could come up with - would restrict itself to
arguing for the legalization of drugs which are safer than, say, khat.
PS: The EU recently banned the sale of nicotine chewing gum (2002) -
using the argument that it was "novel to the market" - but accepting
that it was safer than any of the drugs listed above, on the Nutt chart.
Prohibition is out-of-control and your ancient "just say no" is doing
more damage the longer we let it go on. You're a dinosaur Claude; your
drug policy is long overdue for extinction. "just say no" propaganda
belongs to the dark ages alongside torture by ordeal.
The implication in Becker's argument is that a regime of legal drugs
would work better for ALL drugs - but one doesn't need to accept that
argument to take up Becker's drug-legalization argument. You could just
accept that legalization works best for SOME drugs. Leave it there for
the time being and argue for specific reforms for those relatively safe
drugs.
That's politics ...

actually, that's horseshit! it would be like getting a dental care
plan and plumbing for slaves. the institution of prohibition is itself
the problem -- it must be destroyed, not given a pretty paint job.

b
--
citizen, patriot, stoner

Marijuana: it's nowhere near as scary as they want you to think.
truth: the Anti-drugwar http://www.briancbennett.com

Nothing will ever change if we don't stand up for ourselves:
http://cannabisconsumers.org

"Cops say legalize drugs" ask them why:
http://www.leap.cc

[Jasbird]

Post by Jasbird
your ancient "just say no"

Mine? You really are very bad at examining evidence.
It was used originally by Nancy Reagan as I recall. I do not remember it
being adopted in the UK. Maybe I am wrong but I have a reasonable
memory, relatively undamaged by substance abuse or age.
Do you remember it being adopted here, or is this another of your
historical inaccuracies? I find your capacity for comment without
understanding the history, quite staggering.

That's essentially your argument even if you don't use Nancy's language.
You believe that all 'soft' drugs are a gateway to more dangerous drugs
so that, presumably, in you idyllic world all (non-medical) drugs would
be banned. There's a clear implication in your argument that alcohol
should be banned too - even if you don't actually say that.

We have to deal with the consequences of a drug policy that treats most
drugs as, in some sense, an evil to be avoided. Better to just tell the
truth.

You should just accept that some people in society can't control their
drug use. They will end up abusing alcohol, heroin, cocaine or even
cannabis. That's no reason to place a prohibition on society because we
know we can't stop these people abusing something. They may not be sick
in the sense that addiction is a 'sickness' but they are, in some sense,
like ill people - in need of care (care in the sense of medical or
psychiatric help, not care as in a big truncheon). If we consider drug
abuse to be a bad thing there's no evidence that zero tolerance will
stop it. In the first place, if they are going to abuse drugs, it's
better for them to abuse safer drugs.

Prohibition creates a market for the most dangerous drugs; whilst
banning safer alternatives to alcohol and tobacco. What kind of madness
is that?

<http://www.drugprevent.demon.co.uk/New%20look%20of%20Website/homepage...>

'Harm Reduction' is a dishonest title for a process which seeks
o facilitate drug use at the expense of the rest of society.
This process has nothing to do with the sort of intervention
which drug workers have traditionally practiced on a 1-to-1
basis with known users seeking to bring their lives under
control. 'Harm Reduction' is a philosophy delivered to all,
whether they are users or not; it seeks to loosen control and
validate drug use. This tactic even pervades our schools' drug
education system in covert propaganda for drug libertarianism.

- Really? If I seek to replace more harmful drugs with less harmful
drugs you're telling me that is NOT harm reduction because TRUE harm
reduction would involve no drugs at all.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nobel-prize winning economist, Gary Becker, says:
legalize drugs, tax them as luxury goods to stop people
using them; it will be as efficient as criminal sanctions in
reducing use but far cheaper and more humane.
<http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2005/03/the_failure_of.html>
<http://home.uchicago.edu/~gbecker/illegalgoods_Becker_Grossman_Murphy.pdf>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Jasbird]

*Date:* Wed, 09 Aug 2006 08:18:15 GMT

In article

01:55:51

-0700

(Pete

Post by Pete nospam Zakel
nospam

2006

Post by Pete nospam Zakel

14:38:58 -0800

"BernieM"
Why start an argument with "were canabis legal"? Cannabis

is a

Post by Pete nospam Zakel

drug. >Producing drugs is illegal. Why deny those truths? It
doesn't
mean you >agree with pathetic laws.
Producing drugs is not illegal. Producing *prohibited*

drugs is

Post by Pete nospam Zakel

illegal.
Which drugs are prohibited are completely arbitrary.

Well you may not agree with the decisions but it is most

certainly

Post by Pete nospam Zakel
not
arbitrary.

I can produce enough wine or beer for myself and my family

to keep

Post by Pete nospam Zakel

us quite happy, and it is quite legal.

It has not always been legal to do so in the UK, I remember

when it

Post by Pete nospam Zakel
was not. Distillation at home (though astonishingly easy)

remains

Post by Pete nospam Zakel
illegal, even now. Is that a public health measure or a

protection

Post by Pete nospam Zakel
of tax measure, debate.

prolly bit of both ... and whilst it is "easy", it is also

"easy" to

f*** up ... you could either end up drinking methanol, *or*

putting

your garden shed into orbit ...
IMHO at least the prohibition on home distilling has some "public
safety" merit to it.

Exactly and the regulations on other drugs have similar objectives

Really?

Claude is right - protection of public safety is an objective - the
point is that the law fails to achieve its objective. Policy makers
continue blindly on - gleefully ignoring evidence. Drug policy remains
what it's always been - "an evidence free zone".
The law makes drug use more dangerous. Imposing luxury taxes instead
would be a better way to control use and would lead to a much more
civilized society.

SNIP>
It is rather difficult to see how you can sustain that last line
argument given the massive reduction in non medicinal Opiate use in the
last 100 years or so. The international agreements have been
astonishingly successful in reducing world wide use. Legalization to
that earlier un controlled state, even with high taxes, would surely
return use to the earlier heights? If not, why not? Discuss.

firstly, there is no accurate data concerning the use rates from the
distant past.
beyond that, the past several decades of data are clear evidence that
people are not using heroin in large numbers. they know that it is
addictive and are not very attracted to it.
making heroin legal will not result in an explosion of heroin use,
simply because people don't want to be drug addicts, claude.
b

1. The same goes for methamphetamine. They've been hyping the coming
meth epidemic for 17 years now. Still no great meth epidemic. Has it
occurred to them that drug users are not idiots - that druggies don't
want to use harmful, addictive drugs? They can't even allow themselves
to think that. The meth epidemic is something they will to happen - by
the constant hyping up of the non-event.

The only reason anyone uses meth is because it's the cheapest synthetic
drug to make. (and therefore to sell). They can't allow themselves to
think that - rational evaluation of the consequences of prohibition is a
luxury they can't afford. Prohibitionist mantra says: Meth is evil - it
is addictive - addictive drugs lead to epidemics. Even soft
prohibitionists like Trace, Reuter and MacCoun sign up to the epidemic
myth.

2. Why are prohibitionists willing this non-event into becoming (the
meth 'epidemic')? Prohibitionists define themselves in terms of their
opposite - drug-abuse. Nancy Reagan's: "Just Say No" was not so much a
political slogan - more an existential stance towards the world. Such
an existential stance must be constantly renewed - by new witch hunts to
root out drug abuse - identifying new drug epidemics, abuse, abusers,
and drug-problems everywhere.

That's one of the reasons why the War on Drugs can never be a truce. If
the drug warriors stop fighting the war they've lost it. Trace, Reuter
and MacCoun et al (bless 'em) can't comprehend that - i.e. why their
"rational prohibition" doesn't seem to get anywhere in the States.

PS: That's also the reason why hard prohibitionists still identify soft
prohibitionists like Trace, Reuter and MacCoun as being in the enemy
camp - because in a sense they are - a truce isn't a truce - it's a
defeat for prohibition.

3. By definition Claude and the US prohibitionists believe that druggies
are out-of-control - the mere use of drugs proves that. Their very
terminology for drug use: 'abuse' tells us that they don't even
acknowledge the possibility of non-problematic drug use.

Claude's defining belief - the one that makes him a prohibitionist - is
his lack of faith in humanity - he thinks we can't control our own lives
- that we are, by definition (of our drug use), out-of-control. As such
the only agency able to control us is the State. It's your fundamental
bad faith that makes you a prohibitionist Claude. That essential lack of
trust in your fellows.


Claude - learn from the lessons from the Enlightenment - You're
out-of-date by over two decades.

Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's understanding without guidance from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another. Sapere Aude! [dare to know] "Have courage to use your own understanding!"--that is the motto of enlightenment.

Immanuel Kant - "What is Enlightenment? (1784)

[Jasbird]

Post by Jasbird
Claude - learn from the lessons from the Enlightenment - You're
out-of-date by over two decades.

oops, I meant two centuries. UseNet needs an editor.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed
immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's
understanding without guidance from another. This
immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in
lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and
courage to use it without guidance from another.
Sapere Aude! [dare to know] "Have courage to use your
own understanding!"--that is the motto of enlightenment.

- Immanuel Kant - "What is Enlightenment? (1784)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[brian bennett]

Post by Jasbird

*Date:* Wed, 09 Aug 2006 08:18:15 GMT

In article

01:55:51

-0700

(Pete

Post by Pete nospam Zakel
nospam

2006

Post by Pete nospam Zakel

14:38:58 -0800

"BernieM"
Why start an argument with "were canabis legal"? Cannabis

is a

Post by Pete nospam Zakel

drug. >Producing drugs is illegal. Why deny those truths? It
doesn't
mean you >agree with pathetic laws.
Producing drugs is not illegal. Producing *prohibited*

drugs is

Post by Pete nospam Zakel

illegal.
Which drugs are prohibited are completely arbitrary.

Well you may not agree with the decisions but it is most

certainly

Post by Pete nospam Zakel
not
arbitrary.

I can produce enough wine or beer for myself and my family

to keep

Post by Pete nospam Zakel

us quite happy, and it is quite legal.

It has not always been legal to do so in the UK, I remember

when it

Post by Pete nospam Zakel
was not. Distillation at home (though astonishingly easy)

remains

Post by Pete nospam Zakel
illegal, even now. Is that a public health measure or a

protection

Post by Pete nospam Zakel
of tax measure, debate.

prolly bit of both ... and whilst it is "easy", it is also

"easy" to

f*** up ... you could either end up drinking methanol, *or*

putting

your garden shed into orbit ...
IMHO at least the prohibition on home distilling has some "public
safety" merit to it.

Exactly and the regulations on other drugs have similar objectives

Really?

Claude is right - protection of public safety is an objective - the
point is that the law fails to achieve its objective. Policy makers
continue blindly on - gleefully ignoring evidence. Drug policy remains
what it's always been - "an evidence free zone".
The law makes drug use more dangerous. Imposing luxury taxes instead
would be a better way to control use and would lead to a much more
civilized society.

SNIP>
It is rather difficult to see how you can sustain that last line
argument given the massive reduction in non medicinal Opiate use in the
last 100 years or so. The international agreements have been
astonishingly successful in reducing world wide use. Legalization to
that earlier un controlled state, even with high taxes, would surely
return use to the earlier heights? If not, why not? Discuss.

firstly, there is no accurate data concerning the use rates from the
distant past.
beyond that, the past several decades of data are clear evidence that
people are not using heroin in large numbers. they know that it is
addictive and are not very attracted to it.
making heroin legal will not result in an explosion of heroin use,
simply because people don't want to be drug addicts, claude.
b

1. The same goes for methamphetamine. They've been hyping the coming
meth epidemic for 17 years now. Still no great meth epidemic. Has it
occurred to them that drug users are not idiots - that druggies don't
want to use harmful, addictive drugs? They can't even allow themselves
to think that. The meth epidemic is something they will to happen - by
the constant hyping up of the non-event.
The only reason anyone uses meth is because it's the cheapest synthetic
drug to make. (and therefore to sell). They can't allow themselves to
think that - rational evaluation of the consequences of prohibition is a
luxury they can't afford. Prohibitionist mantra says: Meth is evil - it
is addictive - addictive drugs lead to epidemics. Even soft
prohibitionists like Trace, Reuter and MacCoun sign up to the epidemic
myth.
2. Why are prohibitionists willing this non-event into becoming (the
meth 'epidemic')? Prohibitionists define themselves in terms of their
opposite - drug-abuse. Nancy Reagan's: "Just Say No" was not so much a
political slogan - more an existential stance towards the world. Such
an existential stance must be constantly renewed - by new witch hunts to
root out drug abuse - identifying new drug epidemics, abuse, abusers,
and drug-problems everywhere.
That's one of the reasons why the War on Drugs can never be a truce. If
the drug warriors stop fighting the war they've lost it. Trace, Reuter
and MacCoun et al (bless 'em) can't comprehend that - i.e. why their
"rational prohibition" doesn't seem to get anywhere in the States.
PS: That's also the reason why hard prohibitionists still identify soft
prohibitionists like Trace, Reuter and MacCoun as being in the enemy
camp - because in a sense they are - a truce isn't a truce - it's a
defeat for prohibition.
3. By definition Claude and the US prohibitionists believe that druggies
are out-of-control - the mere use of drugs proves that. Their very
terminology for drug use: 'abuse' tells us that they don't even
acknowledge the possibility of non-problematic drug use.
Claude's defining belief - the one that makes him a prohibitionist - is
his lack of faith in humanity - he thinks we can't control our own lives
- that we are, by definition (of our drug use), out-of-control. As such
the only agency able to control us is the State. It's your fundamental
bad faith that makes you a prohibitionist Claude. That essential lack of
trust in your fellows.
Claude - learn from the lessons from the Enlightenment - You're
out-of-date by over two decades.
Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's understanding without guidance from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another. Sapere Aude! [dare to know] "Have courage to use your own understanding!"--that is the motto of enlightenment.
Immanuel Kant - "What is Enlightenment? (1784)

an excellent assessment -- bravo!

b
--
citizen, patriot, stoner

Marijuana: it's nowhere near as scary as they want you to think.
truth: the Anti-drugwar http://www.briancbennett.com

Nothing will ever change if we don't stand up for ourselves:
http://cannabisconsumers.org

"Cops say legalize drugs" ask them why:
http://www.leap.cc

[Jasbird]

Post by Jasbird
Their very
terminology for drug use: 'abuse' tells us that they don't even
acknowledge the possibility of non-problematic drug use.

Au contraire, that is just about my position on alcohol. I recognise it
causes enormous harm. I do not think it can be prohibited in societies
where it is embedded already in the culture.
Is every possible substance of abuse-equal, especially those in
use by only a minority?

By definition substances which only a minority use can hardly be said to
be harmful to the wider society. We hardly notice khat use because it is
legal. We hardly noticed heroin when it was legal too.

Are some drugs worse than others in potential,

Obviously. But a criminalised drug is even worse.

is it desirable to promote the use of any possible substance-by anyone?

No. I don't think we should be promoting drug use. Not promoting drug
use does NOT equal lying about drug use to scare people. Tell people the
truth - when people know the truth about drug use they will be able to
live their lives without the "being in subserviance to another" as Kant
would say.

Has not "harm reduction" as a main driver of UK drug policy -failed
abysmally to reduce *total harm*?

Harm reduction is NOT the "main driver of UK drug policy" - prohibition
is.

Is that failure not something Stimson predicted (but he was thinking of HIV
when drug abuse is a greater problem and causes more harm?)

Drug use can be kept under control without prohibition. Prohibition and
its consequences are the main cause of harm - certainly in the case of
HIV. Just compare Swedish to Dutch policy.

he and a whole group who manipulated "harm reduction" got
it badly wrong. We reap the consequences.

Things would be even worse in this country without the passing nod we've
made to harm reduction.

See - even the Scotsman likes Kant:
<http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=1013602006>
(pure coincidence that one folks!)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed
immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's
understanding without guidance from another. This
immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in
lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and
courage to use it without guidance from another.
Sapere Aude! [dare to know] "Have courage to use your
own understanding!"--that is the motto of enlightenment.

- Immanuel Kant - "What is Enlightenment? (1784)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -