So have we all lost friends and family to lung cancer . But again you are falling back on the argument that just because one dangerous is legal then they all should be ! Anyway the way things are going you might get your wish about cigs being "upgraded" . So how would that fit in with your plans for the hard drugs to go the other way and be downgraded . Sorry about your friend by the way ; it's not a pleasant thing to go through .

It is also simplistic to believe that the new suppliers would simply take over the reigns of distribution without a hitch and would do the job cheaper than , for example , the local Asians in Blackburn with their connections . (Unless the government would produce "substitute" drugs - which I reckon might not get the nod of approval , quality wise , from the "customer" ! ) I believe you Yankies are convinced that the market system always provides cheaper and better goods than any nationalised industry . Why should the drugs trade be any different ? Also , have you seen the price of ciggies in this country ? Maybe the government should take over the industry and start giving them away or provide them in the NHS - I'm sure that would help the cancer problem . If they did the same with that other drug , alcohol , I might even register as an addict myself ...

On the contrary ; the blockage in understanding is entirely with those , like yourself , who study the problem in theory only . Tell me the last time you saw kids wandering the streets stoned out of their heads . When drug use and the accompanying chaos it causes in society begins to plague the streets of Valetta I'll start to take you seriously . Consider the practicalities of legalising ALL drugs - perhaps you could address the following points you have thus far managed to ignore . Who pays for the drugs ? If 90% of heroin users for example don't work then I doubt they're going to start simply because of a change of supplier. The tax payer will simply subsidise a lifetime of oblivion for those who decide that is an acceptable way of life for themselves . Are the drugs to be subject to taxation ? If so then they're going to be more expensive than at present . At what age will people be able to buy/be given/prescribed hard drugs ? Do you really think that the government should be dishing hard drugs out to kids ? Or do you think kids are going to wait until they're 18 before starting ? How much success have the government had in curbing alcohol abuse amongst the young ? How much success do you honestly think they would have in discouraging "inappropiate use" amongst substances that are far , far more addictive - and which they themselves have just supplied ? How will the government even manage to control the supply and distribution routes of heroin for example ? Deal with the Taliban ? The war lords in Pakistan ? It would take an army to do so with any success ; our own army collaborating in the drug trade with the intent to poison our own kids . If you suggest that heroin "substitutes" be used do you really think the punters will go through all the trouble of registering and going on schemes and sitting having talks with well meaning social workers ? They'll simply take what's on offer , sleep through the sermons and carry on making the lives of honest people a misery . To counter all that , I'm afraid the only arguments you've put forward is that the government should start a few anti drug schemes alongside some propoganda slogans . All the evidence shows this hasn't worked with drink let alone drugs ! If legalised alcohol causes our town centres to be no go zones at weekends then it's absolute madness to suggest we can curb that whilst legalising crack and heroin ! Your argument that the government already indulges in shady practices with regard to alcohol and so might as well apply them to drugs needs no further discrediting - it's just plain barmy and has not the trace of any logic to support it. No offence , Philip , but I fear your views are stuck in the past when the drug trade was largely confined to the relatively harmless stuff . Time has moved on and now it's not just a few students fighting the system by having a spliff ; whole communities have been blighted by crack and heroin and the scum who supply it . It's immoral to do anything other than criminalising anyone involved in the trade .

Alcohol is nowhere near as instantly addictive as many of the substances you wish to see legalised - the comparison is foolish . I've already mentioned earlier that 90% of heroin addicts do not work . Unless they are somehow rich to begin with then they are simply a drain on society. Getting them OFF drugs is the desired result ....giving them "quality controlled" drugs merely keeps them dependant on the tax-payer . You could argue (and no doubt will) that schemes should be funded to wean them off drugs . That has never proved to be cost effective and legalising hard drugs just sends out the signal that government has given up even trying . Who could take a government seriously that is in the business of getting people off drugs whilst silmultaneously making them legal ........ I can just about see the argument that mild forms of cannabis could be given the green light (or substances on a par with alcohol ) but the users of that aren't as great a threat to society as the crack and heroin addicts . As for the argument that the state already colludes in killing its citizens ; well that could be true to a certain extent but is that really a sensible reason for further adding to that list ? It's as daft as saying that we should invade Iran because we've already invaded their neighbour Iraq ......

You seem to be falling back on the illogical argument that because certain harmful substances are already legal then equally and more harmful substances should likewise be made legal . It just doesn't make sense . It would make more sense if the whole bloody lot were made illegal - cultural and historical realities make that impossible . Oh ....and I like the bit about "quality control " . I'd just love to know how you could subject crack cocaine and heroin to quality control whilst reconciling that to the war currently being waged on the humble ciggy and high strength lager from the "nanny state" . Do you see quality control as a means of diluting the hardest type of drugs ? If so the druggies would simply go back to the street dealers . If you mean that they should remain "pure" and as addictive as they are at present then you are advocating that the state colludes with killing its own citizens . Nothing more , nothing less . Like I said the logic of your argument just isn't there .

It would be a bit tedious to analyse and categorise the term "drug dealers" every time I post . Read through the thread and you'll get the general idea of the kind I'm referring to . It may require a bit of concentration on your part ..........

Obviously some things in society have to be subject to "prohibition" . Others don't . It's a matter of opinion . But to put them all in the same bracket and lump them all in alongside the phrase "nanny state" is just plain daft .

Really ? Do you execute large scale drug dealers over there ? Or double the sentences every time a drug ridden criminal is convicted ? Or have solitary confinement for addicts ? In drug free prisons ?

An absurd generalisation ......

Since drugs became a real and widespread menace "tougher action and sentences " have not even been tried ; we've merely gone further and further down the road of leniency and liberalism . Result ? The problem gets worse , standards in society get lower . I could guarantee you that if the prisons were cleaned up and made drug free , and all prisoners with drug problems were kept in solitary until the poison had left their systems then things would improve . If more prisons are necessary then we should build them - basic cheap and cost productive wooden barracks could be thrown up in no time at all . Repeat offenders using drugs as an excuse for their crimes should have their sentences doubled (and doubled again ) until such a time that they are either pemanently incarcerated or , preferably , see the error of their ways and stop taking drugs and committing crime . Obviously such scumbags would need post prison rehabilitation in order that they may take their place in society once again . I'm sure that a frontline posting in Iraq would do the job perfectly ............

The difference being that AESF provides links to support his own well written and argued opinions . Links provided on their own are just a lazy and intellectually sterile means of making a point . It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that you find them impressive .

"Neither do I ".............says Phil in his most sincere voice . "......and may I express my gratitude to the medical services at this point "

Oh God - another link ! Are you totally incapable of formulating and expressing your own opinions ? If I could be ar$ed I could provide hundreds of links to support the opposite theory . Read through this thread and you'll find I prefer to do it myself . Why don't you do try the same for once in your life ....it's not as if you don't have the time

Correct , Flops ; we all speed . Glad you've finally admitted to it yourself ... But what we don't need here is lecture after lecture after lecture from someone who is probably just as guilty as the rest of us . Sometimes you get the role of moderator mixed up with that of a kindergarten school mistress .

...and the driving above the speed limit , Flopmod ? Looks like the p1$$ taking will have to continue

Sometimes , Philip , I think you must be on drugs . There can be no other explanation as to how you post on here 24 hours every bleedin' day

Personally I don't even believe the weather report on BBC Radio 4 . It's not going to snow .....

I think this thread has run its course if it's becoming just a "links" diverter ..... More reasoned debate .....less links......better threads !

Well they can't afford to incur the wrath of the natives , CLB , with negative publicity .........as well as the many idiots who might complain about "tabloid" or Daily Mail style headlines . It's a fine line they have to tread these days .......

"People drive fast, people have admitted to speeding on this board and you know what, if they are speeding they are just as likely to cause an accident which might seriously injure someone. Why? BECAUSE THE FASTER YOU GO THE LONGER IT TAKES TO REACT, FOR THE VEHICLE TO STOP AND THE MORE ENERGY YOU WILL PASS TO WHOEVER YOU HIT. There are also issues on people misjudging oncoming speed and pulling out in front of you. Their fault, but if you were going slower, you'ld be able to stop in time or at least reduce the impact damage......" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The above irrelevant load of tripe is typical ... Go on , Flopsy ...tell me you've never drove above the speed limit and then I'll stop taking the pi$$ out of your sanctimonious drivel

AESF's posts are always a good read ....... eloquently written with a wonderful turn of phrase. But the best thing about them are the responses they provoke from the Guardian brigade .........hysterical foaming-at-the-mouth disagreement purely for the sake of it

Who ? Flopsy , Le Chuck ..or Tony Gale's Dic ....?

They don't need to in our society ....kids get the stuff easily enough via their older mates or even themselves - difficult to tell who's 18 or not these days . So how will legalising drugs stop the flow to the underage brigade ? Can you really see the kind of people who supplied the Ipswich pro's with heroin at the age of 15 and 16 suddenly going out of business due to some fancy-dan "regulation" of drugs ? Sorry , Gareth ....I can see your argument with the soft cannabis stuff , but there'll always be money to be made out of the hard stuff - and it'll always be in someone's interest to get kids hooked on them . The hard stuff is pure evil , it destroys lives of addicts and their families - and appeasing evil never works .

The best place by far in Clitheroe is The New Inn - wondeful real pub full of wonderful real ale . THIS explains in a little more detail . (You may or may not care to use the services of the site's advertisers ; I chose not to ..... )

Yes , yes ........but what's its ISBN ?