VF>So you have now changed your tune from the original 
VF> comment which caught my attention. Legality does not make a drug safe or 
VF> otherwise.
 JK> Your complete lack of real knowledge in this field combined with a
 JK> supercilious attitude makes it impossible to carry on any kind of
 JK> intelligent discourse with you.
Actually, your complete inability to answer a simple question the same way 
three times in a row is the reason I had to be so demanding as to what you 
were thinking this week.
As for "Supercilious", I think you might have mistaken that for "Socratic 
Method." Its a way of dealing with people who really don't know what they 
think, think they know more than they do, and don't actually know what 
they're saying. 
So, until you can be informed and consistent, I suggest you stop parading 
yourself as the answer for everything that you have. That is, until you can 
actually figure out (and keep straight) what your stance on drugs is with 
regards to (a) legal status, and (b) medical health implications.
Its people like you that drive me nuts. "ITs okay because its legal!" 
Which, of course, exposes a complete and utter lack of understanding on the 
underlying problem: that physiological, behavioural, and sociological impact 
of a material should be the sole determinant of a material's legal status.
Laws don't change a chemical's impact in the human body. Perhaps there will 
be a time when you figure that out *AND* when you can discuss such concepts 
without resorting to attacks on the person rather than the argument the 
person makes.
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------