From: Jack Hollis on
On Sat, 08 May 2010 18:30:05 -0700, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net>
wrote:

>"synthetic opiod" is not equivalent to "synthetic heroin".

Sure it is.
From: Jack Hollis on
On Sat, 08 May 2010 21:02:28 -0500, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote:

>On Sat, 08 May 2010 21:34:49 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 07 May 2010 20:13:39 -0500, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote:
>>
>>>>On Fri, 07 May 2010 12:01:06 -0500, bknight(a)conramp.net 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>BK
>>>>
>>>>Just because cocaine is legal doesn't mean that driving under the
>>>>influence of cocaine would be legal. Alcohol is legal.
>>>
>>>You aren't thinking very straight. Driving under the influence of
>>>either is illegal now. Why would that change?
>>>
>>>BK
>>
>>You were inferring that my opinion on legalization would be different
>>if a loved one were killed by someone under the influence of cocaine.
>>But to me it's irrelevant because driving under the influence of all
>>drugs would still be illegal. Tens of thousands of people are killed
>>every year in the US by people driving under the influence of alcohol
>>and I don't think that alcohol should be illegal. Why should any
>>other drugs be different?
>
>What part of " driving under the influence of
>either is illegal now. Why would that change?" did you not
>understand?
>
>BK

I understand that you're confused.

You said, "Your opinion would be different if a loved one was killed
by someone driving a car while high on cocaine."

And I'm saying that it would not alter my opinion a bit.
From: Jack Hollis on
On Sat, 08 May 2010 21:05:16 -0500, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote:

>>Once drugs were legal, those dangerous organizations would be out of
>>the drug business.
>
>Why? Their overhead would be lower, as would their profit, but the
>client base would grow. Just because it would be legal wouldn't stop
>them from doing business. They already have the connections.
>
>BK

I suppose that they would do about as well as bootleggers did after
they repealed prohibition. If the price was kept at a reasonable
level the drug dealers would be out of business.
From: Alan Baker on
In article <enudu555hcneaq4s25ihnmciigtuiu6uhh(a)4ax.com>,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 08 May 2010 18:30:05 -0700, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >"synthetic opiod" is not equivalent to "synthetic heroin".
>
> Sure it is.

No, Jack, it's not.

They are both members of the class "opiod", but being members of the
same class doesn't make them the same thing.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Jack Hollis on
On Sat, 08 May 2010 21:07:37 -0500, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote:

>>I can honestly say that my life has been more enjoyable because of
>>alcohol and drugs.
>
>I prefer to be sober.

These days, so do I.