That appears like poor logic to appose prohabition... The lack of prohibition on nicotine products, and the far greater devestation to peoples nicotine causes as a legal substance makes you beleive that, thus, the ilegal substances, the some of wich far more powerfull than nicotine, should also be legal... because......?
Not my position here, just pointing out you just gave an argument for prohibition as your argument against it. --- In [email protected], "Geof Gibson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "mark robert" <colowe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > You and I actually have a single common enemy, who smiles at our > > ignorance of all its forms: religious intolerance/prejudice. If > > you refuse to see drug prohibition as another form of religious > > intolerance and continue to minimize its harm and blame its > > victims, you are technically advocating terrorism yourself. > > > > > > > > I disagree that prohabition is a result of religious intolerance. I > believe it is more representative of the moral opinion that people > need to be 'saved' from themselves. I do not equate this with > intolerence. > I have never minimized the harm. The real irony is that the legal > drugs, nicotine and tobacco, are cause MORE devestation to people's > lives than the illegal. One MORE reason why I have been consistently > against prohabition for over 20 years. > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
