>"Aidy" wrote in message
>news:lPKdndyYiIpI9s_UnZ2dnUVZ8u6dnZ2d@bt.com...

>> "How much does medicinal morphine cost and how much does the equivalent in
>> heroin cost? Also what luxury taxes and duties are levvied on medicinal
>> morphine? Also how much is spent on advertising and packaging for
>> medicinal
>> morphine?"

>A lot of the information is difficult to obtain unless you're directly
>involved in the supply or administration of palliative care.
>There was a guy used to post here very regularly who was a nurse in the NHS
>and had access to the information, he posted some very detailed information
>about equivalent costs. The legal, medical drug was many times cheaper.
>
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15801998?dopt=Abstract
>Take note of the last two lines.
>
>Prohibition fails regardless, the gestapo's own drug war numbers show that.

>Again we are back to your silly belief that cigarettes are worse than
>heroin. As has been mentioned, it isn't just the frequency of the hit that
>is required, but the function of the person while under the influence. I
>could nip out for a cig every hour or two, or have two pints at lunch time,
>and I dare say my job would not be affected. You couldn't shoot up some
>heroin in the morning then the afternoon and expect to drive a bus all day.

> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 18:00:23 -0000, "Aidy"
> wrote:
>

>>> The government's *only* duty is to ensure that citizens have available
>>> sufficient information to be able to make an informed choice. Other
>>> than that, it should keep its nose out of anything that consenting
>>> adults choose to do unless the activity causes significant harm to
>>> non-consenting parties.

>>
>>Your political beliefs are not entirely relevant. In this country the
>>g'ment *do* legislate to save you from yourself so they *wont* allow any old
>>hard drugs to be legalised.

>
> I know what the situation *is*.
>
> That does not mean that it is correct.

> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 10:01:12 -0000, "Aidy"
> wrote:
>

>>Yes, and when one avenue is closed to the crim, another is found. Poor
>>people's living standards don't get better...

>> 7,000 dead in 2 years as a direct result of Amerikka's prohibition of
>> certain drugs.
>>
>> http://www...

> I can only express my astonishment and as I am not prepared to
> research the subject, it is only fair that I defer to your superior
> knowledge.
> I have no direct experience of addiction wrt illegal drugs but as I
> live near a large city I am aware of affect it has on the local
> populace. In my youth, my friends and I smoked constantly, got pissed
> every
> Friday and Saturday night but still held down responsible jobs and
> raised families. Most gave up smoking over the years for various
> reasons, family pressure, outrage at the taxation, health etc, and I can
> not think of
> any of them who failed a serious attempt.
> Likewise with alcohol. No one I know has become an alcoholic to my
> knowledge even after a good few years of over indulgence and then many
> years of regular intake. Beer bellies maybe but uncontrolled excess,
> not. Most have reduced their intake due to health risks and now a
> bottle or two of wine or a few beers a week are enough.
> If it is your considered and informed opinion that if the same number ...

>
> It is not noticable how addicted some people are because tobacco is
> legal, relatively cheap and easily obtainable. If it were illegal it
> would cause the same problems with some addicts as heroin currently
> does.

> I've known heroin addicts who would turn themselves in to get detoxed
> so that
> they could then start using less heroin again since once you've built
> up a
> healthy habit you also build up a healthy resistance so it costs
> quite a bit
> more to get a good buzz.
>

>> They would have little choice in the matter - the only thing that makes
>> currently illicit drugs so obscenely luctrative is your beloved
>> prohibition.

>
> And if legalised they would simply move onto other criminal activities.
> Maybe ones even more detrimental to society?
>