From: Jack Hollis on
On Fri, 07 May 2010 12:01:06 -0500, bknight(a) wrote:

>It's insane to give such freedom when you are assured that it will, in
>fact, cause harm to others. Your opinion would be different if a
>loved one was killed by someone driving a car while high on cocaine.
>If not, you're certainly in the minority.

Just because cocaine is legal doesn't mean that driving under the
influence of cocaine would be legal. Alcohol is legal.
From: Howard Brazee on
On Thu, 06 May 2010 20:24:14 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)>

>>There is no doubt in my mind that the Supreme Court would throw that
>>out without a Constitutional Amendment.
>Not necessarily. The original intent of this provision of the 14th
>Amendment was to protect freed slaves from being denied citizenship.
>Many legal scholars feel that an act pf Congress would be sufficient
>to clarify the law.

They don't need the 14th amendment. The Supreme Court finds stuff
which I don't see in the Constitution (privacy). They won't allow
people born in this country to law breakers into non-citizens. It
just won't happen.

"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison
From: Alan Baker on
In article <9ea9u5lt0233slp5n8lniu7rq427kerpq2(a)>,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)> wrote:

> On Thu, 06 May 2010 22:34:26 -0700, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)>
> wrote:
> >And being a synthetic opioid does *not* make it synthetic heroin.
> Of course it does. Heroin is a non-synthetic opioid.

Jack, that is nonsense.

Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
From: Alan Baker on
In article <22d9u5p6vjeupjfdpkeot2g5h89oc7ns9j(a)>,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)> wrote:

> On Fri, 07 May 2010 11:30:25 -0500, bknight(a) wrote:
> >So open the flood gate of legal drugs TO MILLIONS WHO MIGHT THEN DO
> It's an assumption that legalization would increase drug use. Fact is
> that drugs are easily available to anyone who wants them. Right now,
> it's easier for a High School kid to get illegal drugs than alcohol.
> So the idea that legalization would increase drug use is by no means a
> proven hypothesis. And even if it did, most people who try drugs, or
> alcohol, never develop a problem.


And currently, almost every seller of alcohol has a strong incentive not
to sell to minors: the threat of losing one's license to sell alcohol.

Drug sellers have no such incentive not to sell to children.

Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
From: Jack Hollis on
On Fri, 07 May 2010 10:23:16 -0700, Don Kirkman <donsno2(a)>

>Actually, in the late 18th century before the US drug laws outlawed
>it, morphine was widely used among middle class professionals. Doctors
>and nurses may have been using it in greater numbers than other
>groups. Some well-known medical professionals of the time were
>addicted--and no effect on their work was ever noticed by their peers.
>I can't put my fingers on the paper I wrote forty years ago proposing
>legalization (as England had already done) to provide names and
>citations , but the situation is far more complex that most people
>want to believe..

The most likely opium addict in 18th Century America was a middle
class housewife. They had a redily available cheap supply and most
suffered very few negative consequences. In reality, an opium addict
who has drugs is harmless. However, one who doesn't have drugs is
very dangerous. Cocaine was sold over the counter in Coca Cola and
society didn't fall apart.

Again, most of the negative aspects of drugs are due to the fact that
they're illegal.