The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I have made up my mind, after years of being Liberal I am going to vote Labour at the elections next Thursday. Reason are way to many to list but in short, since Labour took over I have bought my own home, we have a good life style we want for little and in general for me at least every thing is tickety Boo just now.
Page:
kevstar wrote:
> You could call it
> ignorance, but there you go, you live and learn.
Indeed. I got torn a new one numerous times in arguments when I first went to Uni. After 3 solid years of having my ass handed to me on a plate over and over again, I took the approach I do now of making damn sure I know what the arguments on both sides are.
> You could call it
> ignorance, but there you go, you live and learn.
Indeed. I got torn a new one numerous times in arguments when I first went to Uni. After 3 solid years of having my ass handed to me on a plate over and over again, I took the approach I do now of making damn sure I know what the arguments on both sides are.
Credit for making me think twice, i'm still against drugs personally but I will take other views into consideration before letting loose. My problem is saying what I think is right instead of perhaps listening to both sides as in this instance. You could call it ignorance, but there you go, you live and learn.
kevstar wrote:
> Out of interest, did you vote the Lib Dems?
Yup. Libdem in the election, and Libdem and Labour in the mayoral election.
> Out of interest, did you vote the Lib Dems?
Yup. Libdem in the election, and Libdem and Labour in the mayoral election.
No problem, but to me this just shows how divided people are on drugs, there doesn't seem to be any middle ground. I know I was talking about my own events which is why i'm personally against them. However there is valid points you made thier regarding the way dealers are the only people to actually benefit. You could say i'm a hypocrtite for drinking myself as it's still a drug as for smoking, but I guess it's the way life is today. If anything it seems it's the goverment that's the hypocrite, but arn't all pollititions.
Out of interest, did you vote the Lib Dems?
Out of interest, did you vote the Lib Dems?
kevstar wrote:
> Hmmmm, the fact is you do have some valid points regarding drugs and
> the lagality of the stuff, but what your saying I just find imoral
> and dangerous. Now, your take up on dope is the one and only drug I
> can accept as a substance that could be morally acceptable. But even
> so it would have to be done thought and a trail run first. Any other
> drugs no, things like anti-depressants shouldn't be prescribed, you
> ask the doctors and the majority would agree to the dangers they
> bring.
Personally, I feel that what you say (trial run etc) could be applied to absolutely any drug. If for no other reason that it would obliterate huge chunks of revenue for organised crime. I genuinely believe that the only people who benefit from the banning of drugs are the criminals who sell them. The appetite for mind-altering substances will always be there. As a society, I'd say we'd be foolish not to legalise and regulate it. That way, society benefits from both the taxation, and the increased ease of access to help for people who go too far and get addicted. They'll get the help without the stigma of being labelled a "junkie".
>
> Your right though, maybee I was thinking of myself when asked about
> the drugs but thats what you would call experence in the field, i'm
> just saying what i've been through and how i've seen the dangers they
> bring, but what do you wan't me to do, go round and promote the stuff
> knowing it hasn't done me any good? The fact is for me, there no good
> and do not see it ethically right to start saying that they do some
> good knowing I would be talking rubbish. Sure it may do some good,
> but you could say that to just about anything.
Fair enough; you're talking about what you see from your own viewpoint, which I can't argue with. My argument is when you attempt to impose that viewpoint as the only legitimate and correct one (it may seem that I do the same; I swear to God, I'm open to a reasoned argument to change my mind. It has been done before...).
Once again I find myself somewhat shamefaced by your being the first one to talk in a reasonable tone. Apologies.
> Hmmmm, the fact is you do have some valid points regarding drugs and
> the lagality of the stuff, but what your saying I just find imoral
> and dangerous. Now, your take up on dope is the one and only drug I
> can accept as a substance that could be morally acceptable. But even
> so it would have to be done thought and a trail run first. Any other
> drugs no, things like anti-depressants shouldn't be prescribed, you
> ask the doctors and the majority would agree to the dangers they
> bring.
Personally, I feel that what you say (trial run etc) could be applied to absolutely any drug. If for no other reason that it would obliterate huge chunks of revenue for organised crime. I genuinely believe that the only people who benefit from the banning of drugs are the criminals who sell them. The appetite for mind-altering substances will always be there. As a society, I'd say we'd be foolish not to legalise and regulate it. That way, society benefits from both the taxation, and the increased ease of access to help for people who go too far and get addicted. They'll get the help without the stigma of being labelled a "junkie".
>
> Your right though, maybee I was thinking of myself when asked about
> the drugs but thats what you would call experence in the field, i'm
> just saying what i've been through and how i've seen the dangers they
> bring, but what do you wan't me to do, go round and promote the stuff
> knowing it hasn't done me any good? The fact is for me, there no good
> and do not see it ethically right to start saying that they do some
> good knowing I would be talking rubbish. Sure it may do some good,
> but you could say that to just about anything.
Fair enough; you're talking about what you see from your own viewpoint, which I can't argue with. My argument is when you attempt to impose that viewpoint as the only legitimate and correct one (it may seem that I do the same; I swear to God, I'm open to a reasoned argument to change my mind. It has been done before...).
Once again I find myself somewhat shamefaced by your being the first one to talk in a reasonable tone. Apologies.
Hmmmm, the fact is you do have some valid points regarding drugs and the lagality of the stuff, but what your saying I just find imoral and dangerous. Now, your take up on dope is the one and only drug I can accept as a substance that could be morally acceptable. But even so it would have to be done thought and a trail run first. Any other drugs no, things like anti-depressants shouldn't be prescribed, you ask the doctors and the majority would agree to the dangers they bring.
Your right though, maybee I was thinking of myself when asked about the drugs but thats what you would call experence in the field, i'm just saying what i've been through and how i've seen the dangers they bring, but what do you wan't me to do, go round and promote the stuff knowing it hasn't done me any good? The fact is for me, there no good and do not see it ethically right to start saying that they do some good knowing I would be talking rubbish. Sure it may do some good, but you could say that to just about anything.
Your right though, maybee I was thinking of myself when asked about the drugs but thats what you would call experence in the field, i'm just saying what i've been through and how i've seen the dangers they bring, but what do you wan't me to do, go round and promote the stuff knowing it hasn't done me any good? The fact is for me, there no good and do not see it ethically right to start saying that they do some good knowing I would be talking rubbish. Sure it may do some good, but you could say that to just about anything.
Fair enough; I'll edit and remove the insults. Apologies.
Please don't resort to name-calling etc. in the Life forum. This is actually a good topic and I don't want to have to close it or anything.
Thanks.
Thanks.
kevstar wrote:
>
> What, so are you saying that all drugs should be legalised because
> it's up to that individual to do what they wan't to thier body, cos
> thats what it sounds like?
Pretty much, yeah. Legalised, regulated, taxed...can you explain to me why it's any of your business what another human being does with their body so long as they don't harm another whilst doing it?
> So you know it's not fine for everyone, then why are you sounding
> like you wan't them legalised. The only argument you have is to say
> that because alchohol and cigaretts are legal, then so should other
> stuff. This is a weak argument by anyones standards, do you just
> quash all the moral arguments against it just because theres other
> drugs already legalised.
No it's not. And alcohol isn't fine for everyone. Cigarettes aren't fine for anyone. You're saying "That's your only argument". Even if that were the case, it's a pretty damn good one. Moral arguments against it? Why don't you enlighten me as to these moral arguments kevstar? After all, I took apart your "They're already legal, and have been around for ages" argument (I note you fail to even address that...). I'm happy to dismantle any of the other things you'd care to put to me.
> Cannabis was first mentioned by the Chinese in 3000BC. It wasn't
> known to do harm. Yet it's still banned. Cocaine has been used by
> tribes in South America for as long as they've existed. Yet it's
> still banned. Opiates have long formed a part of the culture of
> numerous tribes in South East Asia. Yet it's still banned.
>
> All of these drugs were once legal in this country (Queen Victoria
> had a wicked charlie and smack habit...). Yet now they're banned.
>
> Under the logic you're using to say that alcohol is great and should
> be left alone, so should the other drugs I've mentioned.
>
> And as for the protests...well, I seem to recall you didn't care one
> bit about people protesting at them having to work longer to get a
> later pension. Why the sudden social conscience here?
>
> Well as I mentioned last time people now live longer than they did
> when the pension system was first introduced. What about in another
> 50 years time when people will li9ve even longer? Do you think it
> will still be the same then. The fact is a pension was designed for
> the last 10-15 years of your life, thats not the case anymore with
> peopole living longer. Do you think it should stay at the age it is
> now or be increased.
Pensions? Personally I think the pensionable age should be increased.
But anyway, I must congratulate you on a sterling effort to avoid addressing the point; you once said that protests wouldn't matter. Now you're using public protest as one of your sole arguments. So why the difference? Why are protests no reason to stop one policy, and the sole reason to stop another?
Oh, and why did you run away from addressing the points about how much longer other drugs have been around than alcohol?
> Is that the same common sense that tells you "just because
> there
> are no recorded cases of cannabis deaths, doesn't mean it doesn't
> happen"?
>
> Yes
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAahahahahahahahaaaaa!! Bless you kevstar; when you're not demanding evidence from me, you're slithering away from having to provide any for your own views.
>
> Or is it the same common sense that told you "If I
> don't vote, then I'm making a difference"?
>
> Certainly
>
> Could it perhaps be
> that common sense that led you to congratulate The Sun and Veritas
> for "telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
> truth"?
> They were all true storys wearn't they.
Were they indeed? So Veritas only give the complete unvarnished truth, and The Sun have never exaggerated the scale of immigration? Ri-ight...
>
> Maybe it's the common sense that led you to post a
> lengthy diatribe about the countries joining the EU this year...when
> they actually joined last year.
>
> Ok so I got that wrong, but only because I was pasting a quote to
> show a point.
Yes, you paste a lot of quotes don't you kevstar?
> You always find a lot of things don't you, mostly incorrect but you
> can't be right on everything can you.
Nope, you're absolutely right; I cannot be, and am not, right on everything. However, thus far all the evidence favours me. You've resored to "I have common sense and don't need any evidence". In other words, you have your opinion and you'll hold to it no matter how wrong it's shown to be. Which is fair enough; if you want to remain insular, ignorant, and an object of derision, that's your choice.
> Sex and drugs are not exactly in the same class now are they.
Really? You've not heard of "Sex and drugs and rock n roll" then? So you're saying it's perfectly okay to talk about group sex in front of kids now? Yet earlier in this post, you talk of "moral objections" to drugs. What kind of morality is this, where deviant sexual practices are everyday conversational topics, but even mentioning drugs is frowned upon
> No, not at all, but the majority of drinkers don't abuse alchohol,
> it's mainly taken in moderation.
Guess what kevstar? The majority of drug takers don't abuse drugs. They're done in moderation.
> It's the clubs who have a lot to
> blame as it's them who are selling the stuff for next to nothing. I'm
> not saying drink isn't a problem because it is, but to make other
> drugs more sccesable will only escilate the problem further.
Whilst banning them works? Yeah, cos that worked in Prohibition era America for drink....oh.
> I'd agree, drink has got a problem at the moment and I would welcome
> some change to try and stop the drunken yobs on a Saturday night, but
> not by making the stuff illegal.
So what would you do? If you're banning other drugs for "social problems", why aren't you wanting to ban alcohol? Why one rule for it, and one rule for everything else?
>
> Paranoid? Yup, it does indeed do that. So does caffeine. Any danger
> of you wanting that banned? Or will you assume that, since it's
> acceptible in todays society, it's therefore okay?
>
> Why don't you just emigrate to Holland and everyone will be happy.
Heheheheh. Not an answer to the question is it? Still, no matter; I've learned that, whenever you post a petulant wail in response to a query, it's because you have no answer of value to give. Which further means your argument is falling apart.
>
> Lazy? Yup. No question about it. So does valium, yet that's
> available
> on prescription. Any chance you'll be leading a crusade against it?
>
> Indeed, why not, it's known to be addictive and aggresive if taken
> with drink which is mainly the case. Valium, prozac and any other
> anti-depressant.
So thus far you're against dope and valium because they make you paranoid and depressed, but you're all for drink which does the same, and you don't mind caffiene even though it also causes paranoia? Not very consistent, are you? Sounds like the only things you want banned are the things you personally don't indulge in. Rather selfish of you, no?
> No, not really, when I have a drink I prefer not to go out on
> weekends anymore although I used to I certainly didn't have many
> fights
Okay, fair enough.
> Well, as it was drink that led me to try different drugs...oh, and
> as
> every person I've ever known who took drugs, took 'em after they'd
> tried drink first, don't you think that legalised drink makes kids
> more vulnerable to try other intoxicants?
No answer to this one kevstar?
> So...because you personally made mistakes, and because you
> personally
> found it bad for you, EVERYONE should abide by your findings? You
> don't think that's rather selfish of you?
>
> Not really, I just find that drugs seem to do more harm that it does
> good.
YOU find that, that's the point. You're taking no account of what others find. Which is selfish.
>
>
> Mm, so you keep saying. On the other hand, you've yet to confirm
> that
> you've burned your entire music collection, being as how almost
> every
> musician who's ever recorded were REAL high on drugs.
>
> Ok, this is probably the best point you made. Just because someone
> made good music when there high doesn't make it good reason to
> legalise it does it.
Which doesn't answer the question. You acknowledge they were on drugs, but you're saying you want the drugs banned. So are you willing to destroy all your music collection to prove your dedication to this point? Or are you saying some people should be allowed drugs?
>
> Nor have you yet said anything about banning alcohol, nicotine,
> caffeine, salt, or sugar. Can they destroy families? Well, if one
> has
> high blood pressure from excessive salt intake and dies as a result,
> couldn't that destroy a family just as quickly as drugs?
>
> Whats your point, that we should make salt illegal? Your comparing
> drugs that don't make you do stupids things to feed a habit. Have you
> ever heard of anyone robbing someone to get there caffine buzz?
No. You know why I've never heard of that? Because those substances are legal and readily available. Maybe...maybe if the others were, then we wouldn't see drugs related robberies?
Anyway, the point was...you keep saying drugs destroy families and cite the case of your friend to back it up. I'm saying one could apply your argument to any substance if taken to excess.
>
> What, so are you saying that all drugs should be legalised because
> it's up to that individual to do what they wan't to thier body, cos
> thats what it sounds like?
Pretty much, yeah. Legalised, regulated, taxed...can you explain to me why it's any of your business what another human being does with their body so long as they don't harm another whilst doing it?
> So you know it's not fine for everyone, then why are you sounding
> like you wan't them legalised. The only argument you have is to say
> that because alchohol and cigaretts are legal, then so should other
> stuff. This is a weak argument by anyones standards, do you just
> quash all the moral arguments against it just because theres other
> drugs already legalised.
No it's not. And alcohol isn't fine for everyone. Cigarettes aren't fine for anyone. You're saying "That's your only argument". Even if that were the case, it's a pretty damn good one. Moral arguments against it? Why don't you enlighten me as to these moral arguments kevstar? After all, I took apart your "They're already legal, and have been around for ages" argument (I note you fail to even address that...). I'm happy to dismantle any of the other things you'd care to put to me.
> Cannabis was first mentioned by the Chinese in 3000BC. It wasn't
> known to do harm. Yet it's still banned. Cocaine has been used by
> tribes in South America for as long as they've existed. Yet it's
> still banned. Opiates have long formed a part of the culture of
> numerous tribes in South East Asia. Yet it's still banned.
>
> All of these drugs were once legal in this country (Queen Victoria
> had a wicked charlie and smack habit...). Yet now they're banned.
>
> Under the logic you're using to say that alcohol is great and should
> be left alone, so should the other drugs I've mentioned.
>
> And as for the protests...well, I seem to recall you didn't care one
> bit about people protesting at them having to work longer to get a
> later pension. Why the sudden social conscience here?
>
> Well as I mentioned last time people now live longer than they did
> when the pension system was first introduced. What about in another
> 50 years time when people will li9ve even longer? Do you think it
> will still be the same then. The fact is a pension was designed for
> the last 10-15 years of your life, thats not the case anymore with
> peopole living longer. Do you think it should stay at the age it is
> now or be increased.
Pensions? Personally I think the pensionable age should be increased.
But anyway, I must congratulate you on a sterling effort to avoid addressing the point; you once said that protests wouldn't matter. Now you're using public protest as one of your sole arguments. So why the difference? Why are protests no reason to stop one policy, and the sole reason to stop another?
Oh, and why did you run away from addressing the points about how much longer other drugs have been around than alcohol?
> Is that the same common sense that tells you "just because
> there
> are no recorded cases of cannabis deaths, doesn't mean it doesn't
> happen"?
>
> Yes
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAahahahahahahahaaaaa!! Bless you kevstar; when you're not demanding evidence from me, you're slithering away from having to provide any for your own views.
>
> Or is it the same common sense that told you "If I
> don't vote, then I'm making a difference"?
>
> Certainly
>
> Could it perhaps be
> that common sense that led you to congratulate The Sun and Veritas
> for "telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
> truth"?
> They were all true storys wearn't they.
Were they indeed? So Veritas only give the complete unvarnished truth, and The Sun have never exaggerated the scale of immigration? Ri-ight...
>
> Maybe it's the common sense that led you to post a
> lengthy diatribe about the countries joining the EU this year...when
> they actually joined last year.
>
> Ok so I got that wrong, but only because I was pasting a quote to
> show a point.
Yes, you paste a lot of quotes don't you kevstar?
> You always find a lot of things don't you, mostly incorrect but you
> can't be right on everything can you.
Nope, you're absolutely right; I cannot be, and am not, right on everything. However, thus far all the evidence favours me. You've resored to "I have common sense and don't need any evidence". In other words, you have your opinion and you'll hold to it no matter how wrong it's shown to be. Which is fair enough; if you want to remain insular, ignorant, and an object of derision, that's your choice.
> Sex and drugs are not exactly in the same class now are they.
Really? You've not heard of "Sex and drugs and rock n roll" then? So you're saying it's perfectly okay to talk about group sex in front of kids now? Yet earlier in this post, you talk of "moral objections" to drugs. What kind of morality is this, where deviant sexual practices are everyday conversational topics, but even mentioning drugs is frowned upon
> No, not at all, but the majority of drinkers don't abuse alchohol,
> it's mainly taken in moderation.
Guess what kevstar? The majority of drug takers don't abuse drugs. They're done in moderation.
> It's the clubs who have a lot to
> blame as it's them who are selling the stuff for next to nothing. I'm
> not saying drink isn't a problem because it is, but to make other
> drugs more sccesable will only escilate the problem further.
Whilst banning them works? Yeah, cos that worked in Prohibition era America for drink....oh.
> I'd agree, drink has got a problem at the moment and I would welcome
> some change to try and stop the drunken yobs on a Saturday night, but
> not by making the stuff illegal.
So what would you do? If you're banning other drugs for "social problems", why aren't you wanting to ban alcohol? Why one rule for it, and one rule for everything else?
>
> Paranoid? Yup, it does indeed do that. So does caffeine. Any danger
> of you wanting that banned? Or will you assume that, since it's
> acceptible in todays society, it's therefore okay?
>
> Why don't you just emigrate to Holland and everyone will be happy.
Heheheheh. Not an answer to the question is it? Still, no matter; I've learned that, whenever you post a petulant wail in response to a query, it's because you have no answer of value to give. Which further means your argument is falling apart.
>
> Lazy? Yup. No question about it. So does valium, yet that's
> available
> on prescription. Any chance you'll be leading a crusade against it?
>
> Indeed, why not, it's known to be addictive and aggresive if taken
> with drink which is mainly the case. Valium, prozac and any other
> anti-depressant.
So thus far you're against dope and valium because they make you paranoid and depressed, but you're all for drink which does the same, and you don't mind caffiene even though it also causes paranoia? Not very consistent, are you? Sounds like the only things you want banned are the things you personally don't indulge in. Rather selfish of you, no?
> No, not really, when I have a drink I prefer not to go out on
> weekends anymore although I used to I certainly didn't have many
> fights
Okay, fair enough.
> Well, as it was drink that led me to try different drugs...oh, and
> as
> every person I've ever known who took drugs, took 'em after they'd
> tried drink first, don't you think that legalised drink makes kids
> more vulnerable to try other intoxicants?
No answer to this one kevstar?
> So...because you personally made mistakes, and because you
> personally
> found it bad for you, EVERYONE should abide by your findings? You
> don't think that's rather selfish of you?
>
> Not really, I just find that drugs seem to do more harm that it does
> good.
YOU find that, that's the point. You're taking no account of what others find. Which is selfish.
>
>
> Mm, so you keep saying. On the other hand, you've yet to confirm
> that
> you've burned your entire music collection, being as how almost
> every
> musician who's ever recorded were REAL high on drugs.
>
> Ok, this is probably the best point you made. Just because someone
> made good music when there high doesn't make it good reason to
> legalise it does it.
Which doesn't answer the question. You acknowledge they were on drugs, but you're saying you want the drugs banned. So are you willing to destroy all your music collection to prove your dedication to this point? Or are you saying some people should be allowed drugs?
>
> Nor have you yet said anything about banning alcohol, nicotine,
> caffeine, salt, or sugar. Can they destroy families? Well, if one
> has
> high blood pressure from excessive salt intake and dies as a result,
> couldn't that destroy a family just as quickly as drugs?
>
> Whats your point, that we should make salt illegal? Your comparing
> drugs that don't make you do stupids things to feed a habit. Have you
> ever heard of anyone robbing someone to get there caffine buzz?
No. You know why I've never heard of that? Because those substances are legal and readily available. Maybe...maybe if the others were, then we wouldn't see drugs related robberies?
Anyway, the point was...you keep saying drugs destroy families and cite the case of your friend to back it up. I'm saying one could apply your argument to any substance if taken to excess.
Light wrote:
>
> You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that I believe
> drugs don't harm ones body. Balls. I'm saying that it's up to the
> individual to choose what they do to their body. Apart from "I
> don't like drugs", you've not said much to dissuade me.
What, so are you saying that all drugs should be legalised because it's up to that individual to do what they wan't to thier body, cos thats what it sounds like?
>
>
> So in other words, I've said it's fine for me. I've specifically
> stated I don't think that it's fine for everyone, and that drugs do
> harm to the body.
So you know it's not fine for everyone, then why are you sounding like you wan't them legalised. The only argument you have is to say that because alchohol and cigaretts are legal, then so should other stuff. This is a weak argument by anyones standards, do you just quash all the moral arguments against it just because theres other drugs already legalised.
>
> Please kevstar; if you're going to misquote when you flatter to
> deceive, make sure you've actually read what I've said.
>
> Cannabis was first mentioned by the Chinese in 3000BC. It wasn't
> known to do harm. Yet it's still banned. Cocaine has been used by
> tribes in South America for as long as they've existed. Yet it's
> still banned. Opiates have long formed a part of the culture of
> numerous tribes in South East Asia. Yet it's still banned.
>
> All of these drugs were once legal in this country (Queen Victoria
> had a wicked charlie and smack habit...). Yet now they're banned.
>
> Under the logic you're using to say that alcohol is great and should
> be left alone, so should the other drugs I've mentioned.
>
> And as for the protests...well, I seem to recall you didn't care one
> bit about people protesting at them having to work longer to get a
> later pension. Why the sudden social conscience here?
Well as I mentioned last time people now live longer than they did when the pension system was first introduced. What about in another 50 years time when people will li9ve even longer? Do you think it will still be the same then. The fact is a pension was designed for the last 10-15 years of your life, thats not the case anymore with peopole living longer. Do you think it should stay at the age it is now or be increased.
>
>
>
> As I keep saying; do you really think it's wise that someone of such
> obviously low intelligence as yourself should continue to call
> others
> stupid?
>
> I thought it was called common sense to me.
>
> Is that the same common sense that tells you "just because there
> are no recorded cases of cannabis deaths, doesn't mean it doesn't
> happen"?
Yes
Or is it the same common sense that told you "If I
> don't vote, then I'm making a difference"?
Certainly
Could it perhaps be
> that common sense that led you to congratulate The Sun and Veritas
> for "telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
> truth"?
They were all true storys wearn't they.
Maybe it's the common sense that led you to post a
> lengthy diatribe about the countries joining the EU this year...when
> they actually joined last year.
Ok so I got that wrong, but only because I was pasting a quote to show a point.
>
> Common sense? Amazingly, I always find that "common sense"
> is the last argument used by people with absolutely no evidence to
> back them up, no real desire to learn anything in debate, and not
> much in the way of intellect to support them.
You always find a lot of things don't you, mostly incorrect but you can't be right on everything can you.
>
> Still, since you're trying the "Please, SOMEONE think of the
> children!!" line of argument, tell me; do you think it's
> appropriate for someone to boast that they've had group sex on a
> website viewed by children? You weren't so concerned about 'em then,
> were you?
Sex and drugs are not exactly in the same class now are they.
>
>
> As I mentioned above, it's to risky for the goverment, and do you
> not
> think he's happy with the tax he's making of it. Alchohol is also
> legal in practically every Country in the world which makes it
> widley
> acceptable.
>
> Ah, I see! This is another chapter in your "it's okay to pick on
> minorities" school of thinking? Okay...
>
> However, as all the drugs you mention were once legal in practically
> every country in the world, doesn't that rather ruin your argument?
> Are you saying that you're fine with people being depressed, as long
> as it's alcohol causing it?
No, not at all, but the majority of drinkers don't abuse alchohol, it's mainly taken in moderation. It's the clubs who have a lot to blame as it's them who are selling the stuff for next to nothing. I'm not saying drink isn't a problem because it is, but to make other drugs more sccesable will only escilate the problem further.
>
> By the way, have you considered the availability and
> decriminalisation of cannabis in Holland? And parts of Spain? And
> parts of Australia?
>
> Canabis is different, it makes you paranoid, lazy and bad
> tempered(from what I remember of it anyway).
>
> Bad tempered? As opposed to the violence caused every Friday and
> Saturday night by drunkards? I have NEVER seen anyone stoned starting
> a fight. Yet drunkards getting violent? Costs the country a fortune
> (far more than any immigrant...)
I'd agree, drink has got a problem at the moment and I would welcome some change to try and stop the drunken yobs on a Saturday night, but not by making the stuff illegal.
>
> Paranoid? Yup, it does indeed do that. So does caffeine. Any danger
> of you wanting that banned? Or will you assume that, since it's
> acceptible in todays society, it's therefore okay?
Why don't you just emigrate to Holland and everyone will be happy.
>
> Lazy? Yup. No question about it. So does valium, yet that's available
> on prescription. Any chance you'll be leading a crusade against it?
Indeed, why not, it's known to be addictive and aggresive if taken with drink which is mainly the case. Valium, prozac and any other anti-depressant.
>
>
> As a side note, I'm guessing that you're no stranger to the Friday
> and Saturday night drunken brawling fraternity. Would I be right in
> that? Are you a typical Gateshead lad?
No, not really, when I have a drink I prefer not to go out on weekends anymore although I used to I certainly didn't have many fights
>
> And if they did get dope
> legalised, do you not think it would make kids more vunerable to try
> other class c drugs, more vunerable than if they didn't legalise it?
>
> Well, as it was drink that led me to try different drugs...oh, and as
> every person I've ever known who took drugs, took 'em after they'd
> tried drink first, don't you think that legalised drink makes kids
> more vulnerable to try other intoxicants?
>
>
> And I'd be truly touched if you would answer;
Yes, maybee I agree to a point, but whats your point, that we should make it illegal.
>
> So...because you personally made mistakes, and because you personally
> found it bad for you, EVERYONE should abide by your findings? You
> don't think that's rather selfish of you?
Not really, I just find that drugs seem to do more harm that it does good.
>
> Mm, so you keep saying. On the other hand, you've yet to confirm that
> you've burned your entire music collection, being as how almost every
> musician who's ever recorded were REAL high on drugs.
Ok, this is probably the best point you made. Just because someone made good music when there high doesn't make it good reason to legalise it does it.
>
> Nor have you yet said anything about banning alcohol, nicotine,
> caffeine, salt, or sugar. Can they destroy families? Well, if one has
> high blood pressure from excessive salt intake and dies as a result,
> couldn't that destroy a family just as quickly as drugs?
Whats your point, that we should make salt illegal? Your comparing drugs that don't make you do stupids things to feed a habit. Have you ever heard of anyone robbing someone to get there caffine buzz?
>
> You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that I believe
> drugs don't harm ones body. Balls. I'm saying that it's up to the
> individual to choose what they do to their body. Apart from "I
> don't like drugs", you've not said much to dissuade me.
What, so are you saying that all drugs should be legalised because it's up to that individual to do what they wan't to thier body, cos thats what it sounds like?
>
>
> So in other words, I've said it's fine for me. I've specifically
> stated I don't think that it's fine for everyone, and that drugs do
> harm to the body.
So you know it's not fine for everyone, then why are you sounding like you wan't them legalised. The only argument you have is to say that because alchohol and cigaretts are legal, then so should other stuff. This is a weak argument by anyones standards, do you just quash all the moral arguments against it just because theres other drugs already legalised.
>
> Please kevstar; if you're going to misquote when you flatter to
> deceive, make sure you've actually read what I've said.
>
> Cannabis was first mentioned by the Chinese in 3000BC. It wasn't
> known to do harm. Yet it's still banned. Cocaine has been used by
> tribes in South America for as long as they've existed. Yet it's
> still banned. Opiates have long formed a part of the culture of
> numerous tribes in South East Asia. Yet it's still banned.
>
> All of these drugs were once legal in this country (Queen Victoria
> had a wicked charlie and smack habit...). Yet now they're banned.
>
> Under the logic you're using to say that alcohol is great and should
> be left alone, so should the other drugs I've mentioned.
>
> And as for the protests...well, I seem to recall you didn't care one
> bit about people protesting at them having to work longer to get a
> later pension. Why the sudden social conscience here?
Well as I mentioned last time people now live longer than they did when the pension system was first introduced. What about in another 50 years time when people will li9ve even longer? Do you think it will still be the same then. The fact is a pension was designed for the last 10-15 years of your life, thats not the case anymore with peopole living longer. Do you think it should stay at the age it is now or be increased.
>
>
>
> As I keep saying; do you really think it's wise that someone of such
> obviously low intelligence as yourself should continue to call
> others
> stupid?
>
> I thought it was called common sense to me.
>
> Is that the same common sense that tells you "just because there
> are no recorded cases of cannabis deaths, doesn't mean it doesn't
> happen"?
Yes
Or is it the same common sense that told you "If I
> don't vote, then I'm making a difference"?
Certainly
Could it perhaps be
> that common sense that led you to congratulate The Sun and Veritas
> for "telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
> truth"?
They were all true storys wearn't they.
Maybe it's the common sense that led you to post a
> lengthy diatribe about the countries joining the EU this year...when
> they actually joined last year.
Ok so I got that wrong, but only because I was pasting a quote to show a point.
>
> Common sense? Amazingly, I always find that "common sense"
> is the last argument used by people with absolutely no evidence to
> back them up, no real desire to learn anything in debate, and not
> much in the way of intellect to support them.
You always find a lot of things don't you, mostly incorrect but you can't be right on everything can you.
>
> Still, since you're trying the "Please, SOMEONE think of the
> children!!" line of argument, tell me; do you think it's
> appropriate for someone to boast that they've had group sex on a
> website viewed by children? You weren't so concerned about 'em then,
> were you?
Sex and drugs are not exactly in the same class now are they.
>
>
> As I mentioned above, it's to risky for the goverment, and do you
> not
> think he's happy with the tax he's making of it. Alchohol is also
> legal in practically every Country in the world which makes it
> widley
> acceptable.
>
> Ah, I see! This is another chapter in your "it's okay to pick on
> minorities" school of thinking? Okay...
>
> However, as all the drugs you mention were once legal in practically
> every country in the world, doesn't that rather ruin your argument?
> Are you saying that you're fine with people being depressed, as long
> as it's alcohol causing it?
No, not at all, but the majority of drinkers don't abuse alchohol, it's mainly taken in moderation. It's the clubs who have a lot to blame as it's them who are selling the stuff for next to nothing. I'm not saying drink isn't a problem because it is, but to make other drugs more sccesable will only escilate the problem further.
>
> By the way, have you considered the availability and
> decriminalisation of cannabis in Holland? And parts of Spain? And
> parts of Australia?
>
> Canabis is different, it makes you paranoid, lazy and bad
> tempered(from what I remember of it anyway).
>
> Bad tempered? As opposed to the violence caused every Friday and
> Saturday night by drunkards? I have NEVER seen anyone stoned starting
> a fight. Yet drunkards getting violent? Costs the country a fortune
> (far more than any immigrant...)
I'd agree, drink has got a problem at the moment and I would welcome some change to try and stop the drunken yobs on a Saturday night, but not by making the stuff illegal.
>
> Paranoid? Yup, it does indeed do that. So does caffeine. Any danger
> of you wanting that banned? Or will you assume that, since it's
> acceptible in todays society, it's therefore okay?
Why don't you just emigrate to Holland and everyone will be happy.
>
> Lazy? Yup. No question about it. So does valium, yet that's available
> on prescription. Any chance you'll be leading a crusade against it?
Indeed, why not, it's known to be addictive and aggresive if taken with drink which is mainly the case. Valium, prozac and any other anti-depressant.
>
>
> As a side note, I'm guessing that you're no stranger to the Friday
> and Saturday night drunken brawling fraternity. Would I be right in
> that? Are you a typical Gateshead lad?
No, not really, when I have a drink I prefer not to go out on weekends anymore although I used to I certainly didn't have many fights
>
> And if they did get dope
> legalised, do you not think it would make kids more vunerable to try
> other class c drugs, more vunerable than if they didn't legalise it?
>
> Well, as it was drink that led me to try different drugs...oh, and as
> every person I've ever known who took drugs, took 'em after they'd
> tried drink first, don't you think that legalised drink makes kids
> more vulnerable to try other intoxicants?
>
>
> And I'd be truly touched if you would answer;
Yes, maybee I agree to a point, but whats your point, that we should make it illegal.
>
> So...because you personally made mistakes, and because you personally
> found it bad for you, EVERYONE should abide by your findings? You
> don't think that's rather selfish of you?
Not really, I just find that drugs seem to do more harm that it does good.
>
> Mm, so you keep saying. On the other hand, you've yet to confirm that
> you've burned your entire music collection, being as how almost every
> musician who's ever recorded were REAL high on drugs.
Ok, this is probably the best point you made. Just because someone made good music when there high doesn't make it good reason to legalise it does it.
>
> Nor have you yet said anything about banning alcohol, nicotine,
> caffeine, salt, or sugar. Can they destroy families? Well, if one has
> high blood pressure from excessive salt intake and dies as a result,
> couldn't that destroy a family just as quickly as drugs?
Whats your point, that we should make salt illegal? Your comparing drugs that don't make you do stupids things to feed a habit. Have you ever heard of anyone robbing someone to get there caffine buzz?
Page: