Thread: Drug law reform
View Single Post
Old 11-12-2012, 17:33   #35
Qtx
Inactive
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Probably outside the M25
Services: Sky Fibre Unlimited 40/10
Posts: 3,473
Qtx has a bronzed appealQtx has a bronzed appeal
Qtx has a bronzed appealQtx has a bronzed appealQtx has a bronzed appealQtx has a bronzed appealQtx has a bronzed appealQtx has a bronzed appealQtx has a bronzed appealQtx has a bronzed appealQtx has a bronzed appealQtx has a bronzed appealQtx has a bronzed appealQtx has a bronzed appealQtx has a bronzed appealQtx has a bronzed appealQtx has a bronzed appealQtx has a bronzed appealQtx has a bronzed appealQtx has a bronzed appealQtx has a bronzed appealQtx has a bronzed appeal
Re: Drug law reform

Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh View Post
The article i quoted just serves to prove how hard it is to find unbiased and accurate info .
I don't agree with the term harmless though ,i think some cause so little harm as to be insignificant but they can cause harm .Lets face it we apply acceptable losses to life every day ,we accept that we could get knocked over by a car but the risk is actually negligible so we don't ban cars but there is still a risk ,the same with just about everything ,It's also why we have different categories for drugs
True. I misspoke with harmless. It was just very low on the level of 'harm' that Prof Nutts team had published. Below alcohol and other substances. The scale didn't just go by damage to the body but included the social issues and impact of the drugs.

Agree with Maggy in most respects.
Qtx is offline   Reply With Quote