On 25 Apr 2007 12:37:34 GMT, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute"
wrote:

In message , Short Wave
Sportfishing sprach forth the following:

On 24 Apr 2007 16:49:38 GMT, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute"
wrote:

In message , Short Wave
Sportfishing sprach forth the following:

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:50:49 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JimH" wrote in message
...

"Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote in
message ...
In message
ups.com, Tim
sprach forth the following:

Your tax dollars at work!

Who cares if someone is hurting themselves?

Because drug use often results in crimes on others to obtain money to
support the habit, especially with hard drugs like cocaine.

Quiz time, Jim. Think about violence related to the manufacture,
transport and sale of alcoholic beverages. When is the last time you
heard of that kind of violence SPECIFICALLY related to booze?

I'd say that the high incidence of drunk driving accidents and
associated mayhem and deaths, in addition to the health problems
associated with alcohol are pretty violent, wouldn't you?

So you endorse reinstatement of the 18th Amendment?

In a way I do, yes.

Doing the same thing twice with the expectation of a different result is a
prognosis for insanity.

For instance, I would like to see life imprisonment for anybody
convicted of driving drunk (or impaired by other means/drugs) where a
life is lost.

"Driving drunk" != "manufacture, transport and sale of alcohol".

I could go on, but I won't.

Of course, because nothing you wrote is relevant to the discussion of the
legality of the manufacture, transport, sale or consumption of any
particular substance.

I said in a way.

You restrict manufacture, transport, sales and consumption in the
fashion of expectations - I expect the use of it to be controlled by
modifying behaviors in the form of severe restrictions if the
substance is abused. We can compartmentalize until we're blue in the
face by isolating the production, marketing and sales of any substance
from the abuse of same, but the simple fact is that they are
inexorably linked - supply and demand.

The only way to alter that equation is to remove one - which to me,
would be the disciplinary actions to curtail use and abuse rather than
prohibit the production and sales. If you can't sell it, you can't
continue to make it.

To me, severe penalties for abuse would accomplish that.

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:58:34 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

To me, severe penalties for abuse would accomplish that.

The prison system is already full and overflowing, many for drug
related crime. Not to trivialize the drug abuse issue, but I'd rather
see those cells reserved for perpetrators of violent crime, property
crime and fraud. Better treatment programs are a better bet in my
opinion, along with legalized access for the incurably addicted.

Like you said, as long as the demand is there, supply will follow.

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:38:18 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:58:34 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

To me, severe penalties for abuse would accomplish that.

The prison system is already full and overflowing, many for drug
related crime. Not to trivialize the drug abuse issue, but I'd rather
see those cells reserved for perpetrators of violent crime, property
crime and fraud. Better treatment programs are a better bet in my
opinion, along with legalized access for the incurably addicted.

Like you said, as long as the demand is there, supply will follow.

I don't disagree with that. I don't argue for incarceration. Rather
removal of privileges is suitable to my way of thinking.

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 15:38:21 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

I don't disagree with that. I don't argue for incarceration. Rather
removal of privileges is suitable to my way of thinking.

It's a good thought but "removing privileges" requires enforcement,
etc. If you have a sub-culture that is already breaking the law by
abusing drugs, is it any more likely that they will voluntarily abide
by a "loss of privilege"? As an example, there are incredible
statistics about the number of people still driving with suspended or
revoked drivers licenses. Unless you go to a total police state with
embedded ID chips and constant checkpoints, it's not likely to work in
my opinion, and let's be careful what we ask for... :-)

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:05:57 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 15:38:21 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

I don't disagree with that. I don't argue for incarceration. Rather
removal of privileges is suitable to my way of thinking.

It's a good thought but "removing privileges" requires enforcement,
etc. If you have a sub-culture that is already breaking the law by
abusing drugs, is it any more likely that they will voluntarily abide
by a "loss of privilege"? As an example, there are incredible
statistics about the number of people still driving with suspended or
revoked drivers licenses. Unless you go to a total police state with
embedded ID chips and constant checkpoints, it's not likely to work in
my opinion, and let's be careful what we ask for... :-)

Good point.

Prohibition it is then. :)