JK> It is not the legality of any drug which makes it dangerous.  Illegal
So you have now changed your tune from the original comment which caught my 
attention. Legality does not make a drug safe or otherwise.
 JK> drugs do not have the same high standards in manufacture that legal
Well-grown pot could very well be organic. And have people sing Bob Dylan 
tunes in order to elevate the plants happines....
 JK> counterfeited.  What is claimed to be in a capsule sold on the streets
 JK> as an ampetamine may be many other things including poison.
This has nothing to do with the danger present to the chemicals themselves. 
You're confusing the function of human nature (ie: altering materials for 
profit) with the actual basis for legality. For what its worth, booze - a 
legal substance that you still haven't outright decried as unhealthy, and in 
fact suggested it is healthy because it is regulated and legal - was, and is, 
often spiked with other materials, home-brewed, and the like. Ergo, the fact 
that it is a legal substance has no effect on its potency or danger.
Aqua Velva is legal, too - and people drink that.  According to your views, 
this means that Aqua Velva is healthy, correct? 
 JK> Anyone who takes illegal drugs has only themselves to blame when
 JK> something goes very wrong. Such as the coma that Karen Ann Quinlan was
Ah. But those who get themselves drunk on Goverment-taxed Jack Daniels, and 
either drive into some pedestrians later, or go home to beat up the wife for 
the fourth time that month: well, that's okay because the product they 
consumed was legal?
 JK> in for years after a teenage party.  One dose of an illegal drug can
 JK> cause permanent paralysis or worse.
One dose of a legal drug can do the same thing. Hell, I wouldn't drive after 
a dose of Dextromethorphin. I know many people would.
 JK> Look Junior, I am getting a bit weary of your same old, same old theme.
Another ad-hominem attack? I don't believe I'd mentioned my age - so your 
attempt to belittle me on that basis is somewhat odd. Even so, it would 
simply be a matter of age-related prejudice, and utterly irellevent to the 
content of my arguments. 
The "old theme" is being raised simply because you haven't actually answered 
the critical points I have brought to bear. 
 JK> someone else, then so be it.  You will one day find out just how smart
 JK> you aren't.
There's an old chap who stated "the wise man is one who realizes he knows 
nothing." Happens to be an idol of mine. Noted for creating a method of 
inquiry designed to make people realize that what they say isn't what they 
mean, and what they mean, they don't understand. 
So. Answer me the question, and we can move onwards: Exactly what - in the 
current system of law and medicine - does the legality of a material have to 
do with its effect on the human body, and its potential social harms?
And if you fail to answer _again_, I'll merely proceed to ask the same 
question in a different manner, your lack of politeness and civility to me 
notwithstanding. You have made a claim, then countered it with the exact 
opposite, then you've gone back. I've lost track of what your actual opinion 
on legality of chemicals is, and the reasons for them.
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------