Booze deregulation leads to 11% drop in violent crime

It won't make much difference - smoking tobacco is still legal. The tobacco smokers will just have to congregate outside, just like the cannabis smokers do now.

It's not so much a case of increasing prohibition - smoking is still legal. It's increasing education and the removal of the "macho" status. James Bond no longer orders his shaken but not stirred with a cigarette dangling out of his mouth, like he did when I was young and impressionable.

If you look at the films from the 1950s and early 60s all the sophisticates smoked.

I'd disagree that it's unique to alcohol. Other CNS depressants have the same effect. GHB, for example.

Another good example.

And I thought that their prediction was a load of old baloney but one month's worth of data doesn't prove anything - one way or the other.

But they haven't said that. They have said that it is too early to say, which it is.

violence is only a problem with anabolic steroids if the person has been using them for prolonged periods of time, it doesn't happen after short periods of use, certainly not within a few hours of first use.

"Of all psychoactive substances, alcohol is the only one whose consumption has been shown to commonly increase aggression. After large doses of amphetamines, cocaine, LSD, and PCP, certain individuals may experience violent outbursts, probably because of preexisting psychosis. Research is needed on the pharmacological effects of crack, which enters the brain more directly than cocaine used in other forms."

"Alcohol drinking and violence are linked through pharmacological effects on behavior, through expectations that heavy drinking and violence go together in certain settings, and through patterns of binge drinking and fighting that sometimes develop in adolescence."

"Illegal drugs and violence are linked primarily through drug marketing: disputes among rival distributors, arguments and robberies involving buyers and sellers, property crimes committed to raise drug money and, more speculatively, social and economic interactions between the illegal markets and the surrounding communities."

Source: Psychoactive Substances and Violence by Jeffrey A. Roth

Series: Research in Brief, US Dept. of Justice

Published: February 1994

Nit-picking.

In the context of drugs, normally "prohibition" means making the drug contraband and illegal to possess.

Local prohibitions, such as in pubs, restaurants, public area, are simply quite sensible alternatives to total prohibition.

Should I be able to bring in a burning stick of incense into a pub and set it down next to me because I like the smell?

Right, that's a local prohibition, not the same thing as making it totally contraband.

There's a BIG difference.

And that's as it should be. You should not force other people to enjoy your habit.

-Pete Zakel ( snipped-for-privacy@seeheader.nospam)

"The new Congressmen say they're going to turn the government around. I hope I don't get run over again."

Yes, almost all drugs have unique properties. For example, cannabis seems to be unique in that it doesn't seem to be able to cause a fatal overdose.

Alcohol appears to be unique in its propensity to cause violence in users.

Almost all the studies of anabolic steroid use have shown that "roid rage" is a myth and doesn't actually occur.

-Pete Zakel ( snipped-for-privacy@seeheader.nospam)

"You worry too much about your job. Stop it. You are not paid enough to worry."

I feel more aggressive after drinking caffine. Alcohol relaxes me, I feel less aggressive after drinking alcohol.

So other drugs do cause violence then.

So they don't know then.

In other words, alcohol only results in violence when combined with specific other factors. In particular - when people go out *expecting* a fight, or looking for one, alcohol can reduce their inhibitions and so give them the balls to do what they wanted to do anyway.

It's never caused me to be violent. And I've been in close contact with thousands of people who have consumed alcohol, often in large quantities, and I've never been a victim of violence from those people. I've only ever even witnessed violence as a (probable) result of alcohol 2 or 3 times.

The vast majority of adults in the UK use alcohol, and only a very tiny minority are violent as a result.

Indeed. Obviously any black market activity will be likely to have violence associated with it. That's a separate issue to whether a drug causes violence.

-- Andy

In your use of the term, yes. I and my wife prohibit tobacco smoking in our house. We don't support making tobacco illegal.

We also prohibit playing of cricket, rugby, soccer (football), football (American football), basketball and most other sports in our house. We prohibit driving of cars in our house. We prohibit shooting of firearms in our house.

I imaging most pubs also prohibit shooting of guns on the premises, and lots of other things. Why should prohibition of smoking of tobacco in a pubs be seen as a dire thing?

-Pete Zakel ( snipped-for-privacy@seeheader.nospam)

Non-Reciprocal Laws of Expectations: Negative expectations yield negative results. Positive expectations yield negative results.

Nope - it's correct modern day usage of the word.

No, that's only used by people who want to draw a parallel between what was generally referred to "prohibition" (illegality of alcohol in the US about 80 years ago), and the illegality of other drugs now.

I only ever hear it used in your context by people who campaign for legalisation of currently illegal drugs.

Prohibitions are usually local. There's a sign in the local car park saying "ball games prohibited". That doesn't mean it's illegal to play ball games anywhere in the country, it refers to the car park only. There a notice on the bus saying "smoking prohibited". Doesn't mean you can't smoke in the street.

Of course. Prohibition in the context of Al Capone's time is not how the word is usually used today.

Quite. So you're in favour of prohibition then....

-- Andy

Because it should be up to the owner of the premises, or would you be in favour of banning smoking in my house?

Well you give so little reason why you're a prohibitionist that one must infer what you believe, from things you say.

For instance, prior to the recent negative findings (for a small minority) about cannabis you're never told us why it was such a dangerous class B drug (It's Schedule 1 in the USA). So come on and tell us - what were your reasons for supporting cannabis prohibition 30 years ago?

You are a fool.

I don't post to the group to inflame anyone. Those people who are looking for an excuse to be inflamed can pick an feeble excuse they want - something will always inflame them.

The cross-posting is there because you are not the only user of this newsgroup. It does not belong to you. Even if there is just one regular user who is interested in alcohol related news then that's OK by me.

If my posts annoy you then just ignore them - as if they weren't there - is it too hard for you to do? Or are you just looking for something (anything) to vent your spleen over?

Not if the article posted is about alcohol.

In private premises it should be up to the owner.

In places open to the public, I am in favor of banning smoking.

-Pete Zakel ( snipped-for-privacy@seeheader.nospam)

"Modern man is the missing link between apes and human beings."

Why shouldn't a landlord be allowed to permit smoking on his premises? he owns the pub, the public doesn't have to come in if it doesn't want to. On buses and trains yes it should be banned, but only because people need to use them, and shouldn't be forced to inhale smoke, but no one is forcing anyone to go in to a pub, and as for staff if they don't want to work in a smokey environment they don't have to work in a pub that allows smoking.

Plus if there is such a big demand for non smoking pubs how come there are so few given the current situation where landlords can choose to be non smoking if they want.

But that in itself doesn't indicate a correlation. Like with football matches, certain pub/clubs might be a venue which people set on violence go. And as those places serve alcohol, people are more likely to be drunk.

It's a bit like saying more violence occurs at night than in the day, therefore sunlight reduces violence.

did

Very rarely.

Not my experience. Mostly people having fun. Occasional shouting match, very occasional violence.

That's what I see anyway...

The vast majority I'd say. Alcohol doesn't turn people violent, but it might reduce the inhibitions of those who are violent anyway.

-- Andy

you are a *single* data point -- thus irrelevant to the overall picture.

"preexisting psychosis" -- kind of rare ya know.

no, it says quite plainly that alcohol and violence are linked

good for you1 and the same applies to most of us. that in no negates the *proven* ability of alcohol (all by itself) to increase agression in some number of its users.

and the exact same thing applies to other drugs: even if there is some purported link between drug 'x' and agression, it is evidenced by only a small number of users.

i didn't write the stuff -- merely pointed people to it.