John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 09:15:56 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:27:21 -0400, WangoTango
wrote:

We outlaw dangerous drugs and dangerous products. Do you object to
that too?
What is at question here is why you think you know better what a person
does with THEIR money, nothing more.
You didn't answer the question.

Actually we don't outlaw all dangerous drugs. Alcohol and tobacco do way
more harm to the public than either ecstacy or cannabis. Potentially
very dangerous and addictive drugs like cocaine are relatively benign in
their unrefined state as used in tea at high altitudes. UK toxicologists
made this point fairly recently and were rounded on by politicians for
telling the truth.

You didn't answer the question either.

OK. Then for the purposes of clarity provided that they do not endanger
other people I do not see the point in criminalising users of addictive
substances. So yes I would make them legal and tax them accordingly -
based on the harm done and expected cost of treatment. Switzerland seem
to work this model very effectively. Drugs that make bouncers and body
builders dangerously violent might need tighter controls.

It would also provide a useful outlet for the poppy farmers in
Afghanistan. I find it very ironic that when street heroin is cheap and
dealers are holding back a mountain of the stuff to control prices the
supply of legal medical opiate painkillers is dreadfully short!

Driving whilst intoxicated would still be a very serious offence. And
these days our analytical instruments are up to the task (which was not
true in the 80's and 90's). Roadside tests would be tricky though.

I wouldn't seek to ban solo free climbing either.

Regards,
Martin Brown