So fester finds a reference which disputes the opium trade.

You should read David Irving on the matter of the Holocaust fester, he would tell you that it never happened, was a hoax, a prank by those naughty Jews to slander the Nazi state.

As to the dangers of opium

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=A6lWNwuO-f0C&pg=PA248&lpg=PA248&dq=opium+trade+dangers&source=web&ots=lou4x2VflF&sig=3Xs7dPXuyIvuXPrJ8kRuqvvZO7s&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result

people almost a century ago who had seem the horrors of wide scale addiction enshrined a few laws and standards, to quote form the text

“the Dangerous Drugs Act 1920 arose directly from an international agreement about the control of narcotics which had begun with the International Opium Convention signed at the Hague in 1912.”

But fester has found a “denier”.

If I wanted to find a denier on anything, I would simply google and one would pop out.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” classic anti-semitism, (invented by the Russian Czars Secret police)

How about “Phony Moon landing” try http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?ChannelID=124

You can get “anti-everything to order” there, like a Chinese takeaway menu.

Fester, your previous posts portrayed you as someone completely lacking in credibility and this last post has just confirmed it.

Col

"I do not see the collapse of civilization as we know it."

But you later said this:

"the opium which crippled China in the late 19th century"

So what change do you see, Col? If not a collapsed civilisation, then a crippled one? And again, the latter statement is in stark contrast to what a scholar found from the available evidence.

http://www.upf.edu/materials/huma/central/historia/asiaweb/practics/0708/newman.pdf

"The depiction of the Chinese opium smoker now finds its echo in the popular image of the modern junkie, 'screwed up' by heroin into an emaciated human wreck. These mental images seem to be ineradicable,despite the fact that many chronic opiate users are indistinguishable in everyday life from their fellow citizens and despite the scientific studies which have uncovered 'either only minor injurious effects or none at all that can be traced directly to the drug'."

Fractelle,
Thanks for discussing some points from that govt site, I’ve been wanting to comment on that as well but lacked the time and now it’s been done for me- magic :)

Col,
“EVERY product or service for which there is a demand, regardless of its legal use and accessibility or otherwise, will have a parallel illegal “black market” ”
True. Glad we agree about something ;)

“a lower level of black market activity than if the government were to tolerate it.”
True also.
But not sure what you point is because legalising something doesn’t mean tolerating crooks and black markets.
GST-free plumbers will still be punished when caught, won’t they?
Unlicensed drug dealers will be punished when caught, too.
And just like licensed pubs that ignore rules and regulations, licensed drug stores will be fined and their licenses may be taken away if they don’t obey the rules, e.g. to not serve minors.

“And that is where the “success” for all anti-illegal-drug strategies lies.”
Agree that they have some success at suppressing a small portion of the black market for drugs.
But how come that the black market for everything illegal is bigger than the black market for everything legal?
We could have more success (or less failure) than we have now by legalizing drugs because a large part of the black market would automatically disappear.
Big black markets are harder to eradicate than small ones.

Fester,
thanks for your links, I will have to look at them later when time allows, but I do find the topic very interesting. I don’t know a great deal about the opium trade in China I’m afraid, but one can only learn.

Col

Didn't you say that you believed in playing the ball and not the man? Your response to R.K. Newman's work looks more like an example of the latter than the former. Perhaps you could indicate a site which challenges the evidence presented instead of another installment of your abundant flattery.

Philo,
“Drugs as recreation or abuse are used by persons who see no value or higher purpose for their life.”
I’d agree if you mean that drug addiction and abuse is worse for one’s overall health (including physical, mental, and spiritual depending how one defines the latter) than non-drug addiction and abuse.
However, depending on the drug and its quality and quantity, occasionally using certain drugs for recreation and medical reasons can add much value to one’s life and can have a positive effect on one’s health (e.g. medical cannabis, and ‘shrooms for a spiritual lift).
Even the Jesus you believe in must’ve known the value of recreational drinking otherwise he wouldn’t have been so creative with H2O ;)
Value in life and purpose for life are personal choices, meaning one man’s trash…

“It is a spiritual problem. Those that have been released from such addiction and use identify deep spiritual need as the basis for its use.”
Drug abuse could be, besides a social and health problem, a spiritual problem, I suppose.
Addiction seems to be very personal; people who are generally unhappy are more at risk of becoming addicted to anything than generally happy, balanced people. I suppose I could agree with you that you could include people who feel spiritually unfulfilled.

“The nation must educate with action on the purpose and reason for life.”
I’m not sure what the nation would have to be educated about concerning purpose and reason for life.
Everyone’s purpose is a personal choice.
And the reason for life- nobody knows what the reason for life is, one can only speculate.
I agree with US here, I don’t think that there necessarily is a reason for life. We just happen to be born and can make the best of life if we want to. We can all find our own purpose.
We all end up dead and the only thing you leave behind are memories and atoms that will forever be recycled within the universe.
Educating a nation about THE reason for life would come dangerously close to mass brainwashing, I’m afraid.

Col Rouge: << US we agree and disagree across a range of topics and whilst we argue the point both with passion and sincerity, we do not argue the person >>

Very droll, Col. I suppose you meant that in all sincerity too.

However, Usual Suspect's last post was nothing more than an ad hominem attack on Fractelle, while yours are too numerous to count, even in this single thread.

Talk about self-delusion... but thanks for the belly laugh.