JaKiri

You won't be able to get any meaningful figures from the atomic blasts, working like that. For instance, the curies released would depend on the time of the blast (as it increases with time), the type of warhead and the size of the warhead. In addition, almost all of the radiation will not be absorbed by man; the atomic tests were done well out of the way of most society, which means that if you just did -> curies/(curie danger level (although strictly speaking there is no safe level)), you'd get a figure which was inflated by thousands if not millions.

If you're talking .wma files, Winamp 2.91 plays them perfectly well.

What do you mean, too general?

It's a fallacy to hold up Galileo as an example of someone being a martyr to the truth, because, whilst in some extracted sense he was killed for having the belief in orbital motion, in a more literal sense he angered the pope by breaking with the agreement they had made. It's more an example of 'don't annoy the most powerful man in the world' than anything else.

He's been actively ignoring the site

What do you have against string?

I'd believe that, given the prevalence for individual choice.

Cannabis has (in britain at least) traditionally been a more working class drug. Cocaine, upper (or at least the very rich) and heroin lower or working classes, so it's hard to say. I'd suspect that there may be more drugs use from the very rich and the very poor.

Yep. Decriminilisation, if anything, makes things worse. ps. Reply to my 'Universal health' post

I find shelves more efficient.

Meerschaum: That's mostly a criticism of the prison service, rather than drug policy.

Then I'm genius. WHY AM I SO AMAZING?

Most exterior ice will be because of frozen dew, or what have you. The freezing that damages in inside the pipe. Probably.

22.3 hours?

I'm liking the possible move into national health in general, rather than specifically drugs policy, because it's something that hasn't been discussed for 13 pages already.

WARNING, ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE Quite a few people I know have said that the only reason they don't do drugs is fear of getting caught.

Do you support nationalised health care, and, if you had to, would you implement the drugs policy to the exclusion of national health, or vice versa?

Hard luck for american addicts then

Given that your stance of 'education education education' appears to be basically 'not lie to the children', which is identical to mine, I don't see how comments on scare tactics distinguishes.

Given I live in a country with nationalised health care, I'd think that would be a given for me.

Your position has become 'give everyone free herion' has it? Given that those statistics would probably be ghosted if the people concerned were on a course of methadone, I don't see how it distinguishes between our positions at all. Oh, and people's money problems disappearing because their most expensive outlay has been made free? There's a shock! Pay my rent for me each month and I'll have more money too.

Estimates vary between 1/10,000 and 1/2,000. It may be 'low', but 172 people died last year in the UK alone from ecstacy, and it's likely that they'd still be alive if they hadn't taken the drug. I do not condone the legalisation of something that is generally being pushed for legalisation because the people who use it illegally don't want to have to bother with the law. And you're STILL STRAWMANNING. MY POSITION ISN'T THE SAME AS THE US (or UK) GOVERNMENT; REALISE THIS

I'd say almost all of that was fairly obvious. 'People won't use illicit heroin if they can get it for free'. I don't really know what to say to that kind of statement.

I've linked to evidence (for instance) that cocaine is dangerous, that there is a significant death rate (especially for first time users) connected with ecstacy (that may have been on a parallel discussion on another forum though), whilst you've, on the whole, brought up irrelevencies and misrepresented or mispresented statistics.

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave a minute ago (that you quoted) on THIS VERY SUBJECT.