Depresion wrote:
 > "PeterE" <peter@xyz_ringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
 > news:berqmi$c9p$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
 >
 >
 >> I find it fascinating how many "Guardian" type pundits are prepared
 >> at the same time to support increased restrictions on tobacco and
 >> alcohol use, but advocate the liberalisation of the law on other
 >> drugs.
 >>
 >
 >
 > Sounds reasonable to me why discriminate between alcohol & tobacco
 > and other soft recreational drugs? Stronger controls on tobacco and
 > alcohol could be the same as those for the likes of marijuana, by
 > separating the point of sale of the most commonly used soft
 > recreational drugs from harder more addictive drugs you reduce the
 > chances of people working there way up the ladder. Considering that
 > marijuana is beloved to be less addictive and harmful than tobacco
 > you don't hear of people saying that cigarettes lead to the use of
 > heroin or cocaine do you?
 >
Alcohol is the biggest gateway drug of all, if you think about it.
People are more likely to be persuaded to do things they otherwise
wouldn't when they are under the influence of alcohol. It's nothing to 
do with availability. Some people become drug addicts and others don't. 
It's a bit like drivers, some are a danger on the road, others are not. 
Regulation makes little or no difference.

Anyway, who said tobacco and alcohol were "soft" drugs? They kill more 
people than all the other drugs and road accidents combined.

-- 
I may be tolerant, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.