The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Now, occasionally something swims through the news channels and grabs me like a shark through a haemophiliac’s swimming pool. For me, I can always sense it's approach because one simply knows that it will be a Daily Mail headline within a few days, and that letters beginning "Sir, I read your paper yesterday and was appalled...." will not be far behind. For the record, I am referring to the study that states that many children aged 11-16 are drug users.
I should throw my cards on the table before I go any further. I take the Bill Hicks approach to this (and many other) topics. I think drugs have done some great things for mankind. Alexander Graham Bell was a cocaine user and he invented the telephone (makes sense I suppose; you'd have to be high on something to come up with the concept of talking to someone far away by using copper wires...). Anyone can tell you about the vast drug intake of pretty much any musician who has ever lived (Jesus, even S Club 7 are getting in on the act). There are theories (ones that are actually well supported by evidence as opposed to my usual "bloke said down the pub" sources) that one of the driving forces of early civilisation was drugs. Early man was a hunter-gatherer but clearly changed his habits at some point to start predominantly agricultural settlements. One of the possible reasons for this was to cultivate hallucinogens for the warrior class of people. And don't get me started about the "morally superior" Victorians, addicted as they were to opium, laudanum, cocaine (as endorsed by Sherlock Holmes), cannabis, tobacco, and so on and so forth.
However, I also think drugs do need regulating. Our legal drugs (tobacco and alcohol) are theoretically not available to anyone below 16 or 18 and for good reason. One should be an adult before making an informed decision on whether to drink or smoke (yes, I know I'm being a hypocrite, but try to forget that you know me for a minute...). And at least one also has the benefit of being able to be well informed about booze and fags should one choose to be.
With drugs, we have no such choice. Let's concentrate on cannabis for the moment. This is a drug that has been used by man since at least 3000 BC (it was mentioned in the records of the Chinese Emperor of the time; curiously it was reputed to be a good cure for absentmindedness...), is or has been used by a huge cross section of the public, and yet public information is limited at best. I'm sure we've all heard about medical journals pointing out the medicinal benefits of cannabis for MS sufferers, or findings that cannabis is less harmful to humans than alcohol or tobacco, or that it is not physically addictive. That is all well and good, but this information tends to be tucked away on page 11 whenever reported and so we still have the ludicrous sight of Ann Widdecombe denouncing it as purest evil whilst a multitude of rabid blue rinsed fanatics applaud her rancid demagoguery.
This lack of information allows certain politicians and pressure groups to make political capital from the "menace of soft drugs". They will tell us that they always lead onto harder drugs. Really? Okay then, firstly where is your evidence for that, and secondly if that is the case then could we not say exactly the same thing about alcohol or tobacco?
By the same token, the pro-drugs lobby can misuse this lack of information in much the same way. For years I laboured under the impression that it was good for asthma because the smoke cleaned out the lungs and that it has no effect or impairment upon ones driving ability.
All, some, or none of the above may be true. As drugs now play a part in the lives of many people, wouldn't it be perhaps useful to explore the effects in the short and long term? I personally think that we'll find that the positive effects will almost certainly outweigh the negative, but if this is not so then I damn well want to know about it. And yet curiously the most vociferous opponents of an in depth study into the effects of cannabis are the very people who oppose its decriminalisation. Either they know something I don't, or ignorance really is bliss and they're happy to continue to fear something that they don't understand. Fine, but I resent them inflicting their fears on everyone else.
Now then, I'd like if I may to have a look at the harder drugs by which I mean Cocaine, Ecstacy, Heroin, etc. These drugs never receive the benefit of any positive publicity. Indeed, their only mention in the media is when they are coupled with death or degradation, and we are constantly told tales of woe due to the horror of addiction to these drugs, hence their illegality. It is the duty of any society, we are told, to protect people from these drugs.
Why is it anybody else's business what someone chooses to do to their body?
If someone chooses to take these drugs based on the (once again) limited information available, why should they be criminals? I am assured repeatedly by the media that hard drug users end up committing criminal acts. I'd say that bearing in mind mere possession of these drugs is illegal, then it's pretty much inevitable! But of course, that is a nitpicky sort of point to make. The reference is clearly to the criminal gangs that provide the drugs and the petty thievery that arises amongst addicts to ensure they can get the vastly overpriced and substandard narcotics available.
The last time a situation such as this one arose, it was the American Prohibition of Alcohol laws. The current anti drugs laws have much in common with Prohibition in that they do not work, provide criminal organisations with a vast source of income, and tie up police resources with the pointless arrest and imprisonment of the end users. Nowadays, alcohol provides a massive amount of revenue for the government, there are formal and informal laws in place to deal with it's consumption (no-one can seriously expect to hold down a job whilst being permanently drunk, but you can't easily get drunk on a regular basis without a job; funny how people, when left to their own devices, figure this sort of thing out for themselves without having to be told by a minister isn't it?)
The doomsayers in the thirties were absolutely convinced that the legalisation of Alcohol would lead to the destruction of families and the breakdown of American society. Seventy years on and that has thus far failed to materialise (I live in hope though...) I don't want to belabour the point, but I think you can see what I'm getting at.
If we were to decriminalise and regulate all drugs then crime would have lost a huge amount of money whilst the government gets more and it's no more or less immoral than duty on tobacco and alcohol. I'm sure there would be a brief upsurge in the use of many drugs, but as the Post-Prohibition years showed, that would soon level out at a constant. The regulation would also be able to control quality of drug so there would be far less risk of overdose, or tragic deaths due to immensely strong ecstacy tablets.
I don't know what you're thinking whilst reading this, but I find that I'm imagine the splutters of horror that dear Miss Widdecombe or any of her ultra right wing ilk would utter at the above notion. With their protest of "We know what's best for you" they will ignore every point made. So let me put it this way for them; they fear a nation where drugs are freely available because it will cause the breakdown of civilisation. If the nation is made up of high, mellow individuals, then they're not going to be too concerned at whatever the government is up to. Therefore politicians can exercise their power in whatever manner they see fit; safe in the knowledge that everybody is too stoned to argue with them. I wonder if that argument will carry any weight with them....
I should throw my cards on the table before I go any further. I take the Bill Hicks approach to this (and many other) topics. I think drugs have done some great things for mankind. Alexander Graham Bell was a cocaine user and he invented the telephone (makes sense I suppose; you'd have to be high on something to come up with the concept of talking to someone far away by using copper wires...). Anyone can tell you about the vast drug intake of pretty much any musician who has ever lived (Jesus, even S Club 7 are getting in on the act). There are theories (ones that are actually well supported by evidence as opposed to my usual "bloke said down the pub" sources) that one of the driving forces of early civilisation was drugs. Early man was a hunter-gatherer but clearly changed his habits at some point to start predominantly agricultural settlements. One of the possible reasons for this was to cultivate hallucinogens for the warrior class of people. And don't get me started about the "morally superior" Victorians, addicted as they were to opium, laudanum, cocaine (as endorsed by Sherlock Holmes), cannabis, tobacco, and so on and so forth.
However, I also think drugs do need regulating. Our legal drugs (tobacco and alcohol) are theoretically not available to anyone below 16 or 18 and for good reason. One should be an adult before making an informed decision on whether to drink or smoke (yes, I know I'm being a hypocrite, but try to forget that you know me for a minute...). And at least one also has the benefit of being able to be well informed about booze and fags should one choose to be.
With drugs, we have no such choice. Let's concentrate on cannabis for the moment. This is a drug that has been used by man since at least 3000 BC (it was mentioned in the records of the Chinese Emperor of the time; curiously it was reputed to be a good cure for absentmindedness...), is or has been used by a huge cross section of the public, and yet public information is limited at best. I'm sure we've all heard about medical journals pointing out the medicinal benefits of cannabis for MS sufferers, or findings that cannabis is less harmful to humans than alcohol or tobacco, or that it is not physically addictive. That is all well and good, but this information tends to be tucked away on page 11 whenever reported and so we still have the ludicrous sight of Ann Widdecombe denouncing it as purest evil whilst a multitude of rabid blue rinsed fanatics applaud her rancid demagoguery.
This lack of information allows certain politicians and pressure groups to make political capital from the "menace of soft drugs". They will tell us that they always lead onto harder drugs. Really? Okay then, firstly where is your evidence for that, and secondly if that is the case then could we not say exactly the same thing about alcohol or tobacco?
By the same token, the pro-drugs lobby can misuse this lack of information in much the same way. For years I laboured under the impression that it was good for asthma because the smoke cleaned out the lungs and that it has no effect or impairment upon ones driving ability.
All, some, or none of the above may be true. As drugs now play a part in the lives of many people, wouldn't it be perhaps useful to explore the effects in the short and long term? I personally think that we'll find that the positive effects will almost certainly outweigh the negative, but if this is not so then I damn well want to know about it. And yet curiously the most vociferous opponents of an in depth study into the effects of cannabis are the very people who oppose its decriminalisation. Either they know something I don't, or ignorance really is bliss and they're happy to continue to fear something that they don't understand. Fine, but I resent them inflicting their fears on everyone else.
Now then, I'd like if I may to have a look at the harder drugs by which I mean Cocaine, Ecstacy, Heroin, etc. These drugs never receive the benefit of any positive publicity. Indeed, their only mention in the media is when they are coupled with death or degradation, and we are constantly told tales of woe due to the horror of addiction to these drugs, hence their illegality. It is the duty of any society, we are told, to protect people from these drugs.
Why is it anybody else's business what someone chooses to do to their body?
If someone chooses to take these drugs based on the (once again) limited information available, why should they be criminals? I am assured repeatedly by the media that hard drug users end up committing criminal acts. I'd say that bearing in mind mere possession of these drugs is illegal, then it's pretty much inevitable! But of course, that is a nitpicky sort of point to make. The reference is clearly to the criminal gangs that provide the drugs and the petty thievery that arises amongst addicts to ensure they can get the vastly overpriced and substandard narcotics available.
The last time a situation such as this one arose, it was the American Prohibition of Alcohol laws. The current anti drugs laws have much in common with Prohibition in that they do not work, provide criminal organisations with a vast source of income, and tie up police resources with the pointless arrest and imprisonment of the end users. Nowadays, alcohol provides a massive amount of revenue for the government, there are formal and informal laws in place to deal with it's consumption (no-one can seriously expect to hold down a job whilst being permanently drunk, but you can't easily get drunk on a regular basis without a job; funny how people, when left to their own devices, figure this sort of thing out for themselves without having to be told by a minister isn't it?)
The doomsayers in the thirties were absolutely convinced that the legalisation of Alcohol would lead to the destruction of families and the breakdown of American society. Seventy years on and that has thus far failed to materialise (I live in hope though...) I don't want to belabour the point, but I think you can see what I'm getting at.
If we were to decriminalise and regulate all drugs then crime would have lost a huge amount of money whilst the government gets more and it's no more or less immoral than duty on tobacco and alcohol. I'm sure there would be a brief upsurge in the use of many drugs, but as the Post-Prohibition years showed, that would soon level out at a constant. The regulation would also be able to control quality of drug so there would be far less risk of overdose, or tragic deaths due to immensely strong ecstacy tablets.
I don't know what you're thinking whilst reading this, but I find that I'm imagine the splutters of horror that dear Miss Widdecombe or any of her ultra right wing ilk would utter at the above notion. With their protest of "We know what's best for you" they will ignore every point made. So let me put it this way for them; they fear a nation where drugs are freely available because it will cause the breakdown of civilisation. If the nation is made up of high, mellow individuals, then they're not going to be too concerned at whatever the government is up to. Therefore politicians can exercise their power in whatever manner they see fit; safe in the knowledge that everybody is too stoned to argue with them. I wonder if that argument will carry any weight with them....
Page:
Now, occasionally something swims through the news channels and grabs me like a shark through a haemophiliac’s swimming pool. For me, I can always sense it's approach because one simply knows that it will be a Daily Mail headline within a few days, and that letters beginning "Sir, I read your paper yesterday and was appalled...." will not be far behind. For the record, I am referring to the study that states that many children aged 11-16 are drug users.
I should throw my cards on the table before I go any further. I take the Bill Hicks approach to this (and many other) topics. I think drugs have done some great things for mankind. Alexander Graham Bell was a cocaine user and he invented the telephone (makes sense I suppose; you'd have to be high on something to come up with the concept of talking to someone far away by using copper wires...). Anyone can tell you about the vast drug intake of pretty much any musician who has ever lived (Jesus, even S Club 7 are getting in on the act). There are theories (ones that are actually well supported by evidence as opposed to my usual "bloke said down the pub" sources) that one of the driving forces of early civilisation was drugs. Early man was a hunter-gatherer but clearly changed his habits at some point to start predominantly agricultural settlements. One of the possible reasons for this was to cultivate hallucinogens for the warrior class of people. And don't get me started about the "morally superior" Victorians, addicted as they were to opium, laudanum, cocaine (as endorsed by Sherlock Holmes), cannabis, tobacco, and so on and so forth.
However, I also think drugs do need regulating. Our legal drugs (tobacco and alcohol) are theoretically not available to anyone below 16 or 18 and for good reason. One should be an adult before making an informed decision on whether to drink or smoke (yes, I know I'm being a hypocrite, but try to forget that you know me for a minute...). And at least one also has the benefit of being able to be well informed about booze and fags should one choose to be.
With drugs, we have no such choice. Let's concentrate on cannabis for the moment. This is a drug that has been used by man since at least 3000 BC (it was mentioned in the records of the Chinese Emperor of the time; curiously it was reputed to be a good cure for absentmindedness...), is or has been used by a huge cross section of the public, and yet public information is limited at best. I'm sure we've all heard about medical journals pointing out the medicinal benefits of cannabis for MS sufferers, or findings that cannabis is less harmful to humans than alcohol or tobacco, or that it is not physically addictive. That is all well and good, but this information tends to be tucked away on page 11 whenever reported and so we still have the ludicrous sight of Ann Widdecombe denouncing it as purest evil whilst a multitude of rabid blue rinsed fanatics applaud her rancid demagoguery.
This lack of information allows certain politicians and pressure groups to make political capital from the "menace of soft drugs". They will tell us that they always lead onto harder drugs. Really? Okay then, firstly where is your evidence for that, and secondly if that is the case then could we not say exactly the same thing about alcohol or tobacco?
By the same token, the pro-drugs lobby can misuse this lack of information in much the same way. For years I laboured under the impression that it was good for asthma because the smoke cleaned out the lungs and that it has no effect or impairment upon ones driving ability.
All, some, or none of the above may be true. As drugs now play a part in the lives of many people, wouldn't it be perhaps useful to explore the effects in the short and long term? I personally think that we'll find that the positive effects will almost certainly outweigh the negative, but if this is not so then I damn well want to know about it. And yet curiously the most vociferous opponents of an in depth study into the effects of cannabis are the very people who oppose its decriminalisation. Either they know something I don't, or ignorance really is bliss and they're happy to continue to fear something that they don't understand. Fine, but I resent them inflicting their fears on everyone else.
Now then, I'd like if I may to have a look at the harder drugs by which I mean Cocaine, Ecstacy, Heroin, etc. These drugs never receive the benefit of any positive publicity. Indeed, their only mention in the media is when they are coupled with death or degradation, and we are constantly told tales of woe due to the horror of addiction to these drugs, hence their illegality. It is the duty of any society, we are told, to protect people from these drugs.
Why is it anybody else's business what someone chooses to do to their body?
If someone chooses to take these drugs based on the (once again) limited information available, why should they be criminals? I am assured repeatedly by the media that hard drug users end up committing criminal acts. I'd say that bearing in mind mere possession of these drugs is illegal, then it's pretty much inevitable! But of course, that is a nitpicky sort of point to make. The reference is clearly to the criminal gangs that provide the drugs and the petty thievery that arises amongst addicts to ensure they can get the vastly overpriced and substandard narcotics available.
The last time a situation such as this one arose, it was the American Prohibition of Alcohol laws. The current anti drugs laws have much in common with Prohibition in that they do not work, provide criminal organisations with a vast source of income, and tie up police resources with the pointless arrest and imprisonment of the end users. Nowadays, alcohol provides a massive amount of revenue for the government, there are formal and informal laws in place to deal with it's consumption (no-one can seriously expect to hold down a job whilst being permanently drunk, but you can't easily get drunk on a regular basis without a job; funny how people, when left to their own devices, figure this sort of thing out for themselves without having to be told by a minister isn't it?)
The doomsayers in the thirties were absolutely convinced that the legalisation of Alcohol would lead to the destruction of families and the breakdown of American society. Seventy years on and that has thus far failed to materialise (I live in hope though...) I don't want to belabour the point, but I think you can see what I'm getting at.
If we were to decriminalise and regulate all drugs then crime would have lost a huge amount of money whilst the government gets more and it's no more or less immoral than duty on tobacco and alcohol. I'm sure there would be a brief upsurge in the use of many drugs, but as the Post-Prohibition years showed, that would soon level out at a constant. The regulation would also be able to control quality of drug so there would be far less risk of overdose, or tragic deaths due to immensely strong ecstacy tablets.
I don't know what you're thinking whilst reading this, but I find that I'm imagine the splutters of horror that dear Miss Widdecombe or any of her ultra right wing ilk would utter at the above notion. With their protest of "We know what's best for you" they will ignore every point made. So let me put it this way for them; they fear a nation where drugs are freely available because it will cause the breakdown of civilisation. If the nation is made up of high, mellow individuals, then they're not going to be too concerned at whatever the government is up to. Therefore politicians can exercise their power in whatever manner they see fit; safe in the knowledge that everybody is too stoned to argue with them. I wonder if that argument will carry any weight with them....
I should throw my cards on the table before I go any further. I take the Bill Hicks approach to this (and many other) topics. I think drugs have done some great things for mankind. Alexander Graham Bell was a cocaine user and he invented the telephone (makes sense I suppose; you'd have to be high on something to come up with the concept of talking to someone far away by using copper wires...). Anyone can tell you about the vast drug intake of pretty much any musician who has ever lived (Jesus, even S Club 7 are getting in on the act). There are theories (ones that are actually well supported by evidence as opposed to my usual "bloke said down the pub" sources) that one of the driving forces of early civilisation was drugs. Early man was a hunter-gatherer but clearly changed his habits at some point to start predominantly agricultural settlements. One of the possible reasons for this was to cultivate hallucinogens for the warrior class of people. And don't get me started about the "morally superior" Victorians, addicted as they were to opium, laudanum, cocaine (as endorsed by Sherlock Holmes), cannabis, tobacco, and so on and so forth.
However, I also think drugs do need regulating. Our legal drugs (tobacco and alcohol) are theoretically not available to anyone below 16 or 18 and for good reason. One should be an adult before making an informed decision on whether to drink or smoke (yes, I know I'm being a hypocrite, but try to forget that you know me for a minute...). And at least one also has the benefit of being able to be well informed about booze and fags should one choose to be.
With drugs, we have no such choice. Let's concentrate on cannabis for the moment. This is a drug that has been used by man since at least 3000 BC (it was mentioned in the records of the Chinese Emperor of the time; curiously it was reputed to be a good cure for absentmindedness...), is or has been used by a huge cross section of the public, and yet public information is limited at best. I'm sure we've all heard about medical journals pointing out the medicinal benefits of cannabis for MS sufferers, or findings that cannabis is less harmful to humans than alcohol or tobacco, or that it is not physically addictive. That is all well and good, but this information tends to be tucked away on page 11 whenever reported and so we still have the ludicrous sight of Ann Widdecombe denouncing it as purest evil whilst a multitude of rabid blue rinsed fanatics applaud her rancid demagoguery.
This lack of information allows certain politicians and pressure groups to make political capital from the "menace of soft drugs". They will tell us that they always lead onto harder drugs. Really? Okay then, firstly where is your evidence for that, and secondly if that is the case then could we not say exactly the same thing about alcohol or tobacco?
By the same token, the pro-drugs lobby can misuse this lack of information in much the same way. For years I laboured under the impression that it was good for asthma because the smoke cleaned out the lungs and that it has no effect or impairment upon ones driving ability.
All, some, or none of the above may be true. As drugs now play a part in the lives of many people, wouldn't it be perhaps useful to explore the effects in the short and long term? I personally think that we'll find that the positive effects will almost certainly outweigh the negative, but if this is not so then I damn well want to know about it. And yet curiously the most vociferous opponents of an in depth study into the effects of cannabis are the very people who oppose its decriminalisation. Either they know something I don't, or ignorance really is bliss and they're happy to continue to fear something that they don't understand. Fine, but I resent them inflicting their fears on everyone else.
Now then, I'd like if I may to have a look at the harder drugs by which I mean Cocaine, Ecstacy, Heroin, etc. These drugs never receive the benefit of any positive publicity. Indeed, their only mention in the media is when they are coupled with death or degradation, and we are constantly told tales of woe due to the horror of addiction to these drugs, hence their illegality. It is the duty of any society, we are told, to protect people from these drugs.
Why is it anybody else's business what someone chooses to do to their body?
If someone chooses to take these drugs based on the (once again) limited information available, why should they be criminals? I am assured repeatedly by the media that hard drug users end up committing criminal acts. I'd say that bearing in mind mere possession of these drugs is illegal, then it's pretty much inevitable! But of course, that is a nitpicky sort of point to make. The reference is clearly to the criminal gangs that provide the drugs and the petty thievery that arises amongst addicts to ensure they can get the vastly overpriced and substandard narcotics available.
The last time a situation such as this one arose, it was the American Prohibition of Alcohol laws. The current anti drugs laws have much in common with Prohibition in that they do not work, provide criminal organisations with a vast source of income, and tie up police resources with the pointless arrest and imprisonment of the end users. Nowadays, alcohol provides a massive amount of revenue for the government, there are formal and informal laws in place to deal with it's consumption (no-one can seriously expect to hold down a job whilst being permanently drunk, but you can't easily get drunk on a regular basis without a job; funny how people, when left to their own devices, figure this sort of thing out for themselves without having to be told by a minister isn't it?)
The doomsayers in the thirties were absolutely convinced that the legalisation of Alcohol would lead to the destruction of families and the breakdown of American society. Seventy years on and that has thus far failed to materialise (I live in hope though...) I don't want to belabour the point, but I think you can see what I'm getting at.
If we were to decriminalise and regulate all drugs then crime would have lost a huge amount of money whilst the government gets more and it's no more or less immoral than duty on tobacco and alcohol. I'm sure there would be a brief upsurge in the use of many drugs, but as the Post-Prohibition years showed, that would soon level out at a constant. The regulation would also be able to control quality of drug so there would be far less risk of overdose, or tragic deaths due to immensely strong ecstacy tablets.
I don't know what you're thinking whilst reading this, but I find that I'm imagine the splutters of horror that dear Miss Widdecombe or any of her ultra right wing ilk would utter at the above notion. With their protest of "We know what's best for you" they will ignore every point made. So let me put it this way for them; they fear a nation where drugs are freely available because it will cause the breakdown of civilisation. If the nation is made up of high, mellow individuals, then they're not going to be too concerned at whatever the government is up to. Therefore politicians can exercise their power in whatever manner they see fit; safe in the knowledge that everybody is too stoned to argue with them. I wonder if that argument will carry any weight with them....
" Why is it anybody else's business what someone chooses to do to their body? "
Exactly
Everything grows on the bloody planet...
" Oh know it's the Devil's sweets "
Yep
Exactly
Everything grows on the bloody planet...
" Oh know it's the Devil's sweets "
Yep
The bit about Prohibition was a bloody good point as well.
Light wrote:
> (Jesus, even S Club 7 are getting in on the act).
Jesus was a musician? And S Club 7 don't really count as they don't write their own music.
> cocaine (as endorsed by Sherlock Holmes)
But he wasn't real, was he...
> This lack of information allows certain politicians and pressure
> groups to make political capital from the "menace of soft
> drugs". They will tell us that they always lead onto harder
> drugs. Really? Okay then, firstly where is your evidence for that, and
> secondly if that is the case then could we not say exactly the same
> thing about alcohol or tobacco?
Good point, we could say exactly the same about either.
> All, some, or none of the above may be true. As drugs now play a part
> in the lives of many people, wouldn't it be perhaps useful to explore
> the effects in the short and long term? I personally think that we'll
> find that the positive effects will almost certainly outweigh the
> negative, but if this is not so then I damn well want to know about
> it.
There are more negative effects than you first think - people tell us that cannabis will just send you on a "trip", but have no long term effects like tobacco. Wrong. When people are trapped in a burning house they usually diw of smoke inhalation, not the flames - when you smoke cannabis you inhale smoke, so it's still bad for you. Secondly, did anyone see the programme about cannabis psychosis the other night? Probably only a small risk of developing very bad symptoms, but that doesn't mean you won't get it - there's only a small chance of getting BSE, and lots of people still got it.
> Why is it anybody else's business what someone chooses to do to their
> body?
Well the government's job is to do the best for the people they have power over - I suppose the view is that if you get really addicted you'll want to get rid of it forever, so they don't give you the power to get addicted in the first place.
> substandard narcotics
Sorry, had to laugh at that.
> If we were to decriminalise and regulate all drugs then crime would
> have lost a huge amount of money whilst the government gets more and
> it's no more or less immoral than duty on tobacco and alcohol
Crime would lose a lot of money? Who exactly is crime? I see what you're getting at though, and I'm surprised that they haven't already decriminalised some of these drugs so that they can pile shedloads of taxes onto them when they enter the country.
> (Jesus, even S Club 7 are getting in on the act).
Jesus was a musician? And S Club 7 don't really count as they don't write their own music.
> cocaine (as endorsed by Sherlock Holmes)
But he wasn't real, was he...
> This lack of information allows certain politicians and pressure
> groups to make political capital from the "menace of soft
> drugs". They will tell us that they always lead onto harder
> drugs. Really? Okay then, firstly where is your evidence for that, and
> secondly if that is the case then could we not say exactly the same
> thing about alcohol or tobacco?
Good point, we could say exactly the same about either.
> All, some, or none of the above may be true. As drugs now play a part
> in the lives of many people, wouldn't it be perhaps useful to explore
> the effects in the short and long term? I personally think that we'll
> find that the positive effects will almost certainly outweigh the
> negative, but if this is not so then I damn well want to know about
> it.
There are more negative effects than you first think - people tell us that cannabis will just send you on a "trip", but have no long term effects like tobacco. Wrong. When people are trapped in a burning house they usually diw of smoke inhalation, not the flames - when you smoke cannabis you inhale smoke, so it's still bad for you. Secondly, did anyone see the programme about cannabis psychosis the other night? Probably only a small risk of developing very bad symptoms, but that doesn't mean you won't get it - there's only a small chance of getting BSE, and lots of people still got it.
> Why is it anybody else's business what someone chooses to do to their
> body?
Well the government's job is to do the best for the people they have power over - I suppose the view is that if you get really addicted you'll want to get rid of it forever, so they don't give you the power to get addicted in the first place.
> substandard narcotics
Sorry, had to laugh at that.
> If we were to decriminalise and regulate all drugs then crime would
> have lost a huge amount of money whilst the government gets more and
> it's no more or less immoral than duty on tobacco and alcohol
Crime would lose a lot of money? Who exactly is crime? I see what you're getting at though, and I'm surprised that they haven't already decriminalised some of these drugs so that they can pile shedloads of taxes onto them when they enter the country.
*print*
Although I really am not sure about legalization of things. Firstly, although you say alcohol has sorted itself out - it hasn't really, has it? I mean, it hasn't caused a breakdown of sociaty, but a lot of people still have problems with it. My sisters boyfriends mum is an alcoholic, and it isn't pretty. Nor are the numbers of drunk people trying to start fights.
Secondly, I don't know about cannebis being 'harmless'. It can make people slow and stupid. I've watched it happen, and it again isn't nice. I actually know (in a far off way) two people who smoked pot as teens who have both spent periods in mental hospitals.
Although I really am not sure about legalization of things. Firstly, although you say alcohol has sorted itself out - it hasn't really, has it? I mean, it hasn't caused a breakdown of sociaty, but a lot of people still have problems with it. My sisters boyfriends mum is an alcoholic, and it isn't pretty. Nor are the numbers of drunk people trying to start fights.
Secondly, I don't know about cannebis being 'harmless'. It can make people slow and stupid. I've watched it happen, and it again isn't nice. I actually know (in a far off way) two people who smoked pot as teens who have both spent periods in mental hospitals.
Light wrote:
>
> I should throw my cards on the table before I go any further. I take
> the Bill Hicks approach to this (and many other) topics. I think drugs
> have done some great things for mankind. Alexander Graham Bell was a
> cocaine user and he invented the telephone
Yeah, and he realised he needed someone to talk to in one of those 'bathroom with a stranger' moments.
Early man was a
> hunter-gatherer but clearly changed his habits at some point to start
> predominantly agricultural settlements. One of the possible reasons
> for this was to cultivate hallucinogens for the warrior class of
> people.
Possible being the word. Stopping people from being 'hunter/gatherers' was not, perhaps, such a good idea anyway. The effects of the drugs would have mostly been used for getting in touch with the spirit world/gods. You think, perhaps, that we should go back to this?
And don't get me started about the "morally
> superior" Victorians, addicted as they were to opium, laudanum,
> cocaine (as endorsed by Sherlock Holmes), cannabis, tobacco, and so on
> and so forth.
So we should go back to this? Perhaps we could bring back the workhouse too?
>
> However, I also think drugs do need regulating. Our legal drugs
> (tobacco and alcohol) are theoretically not available to anyone below
> 16 or 18 and for good reason.
Still doesn't work, more so with Alchohol than fags.
>
> Let's concentrate on cannabis for
> the moment..yet public information is limited at best.
Nope, lots of leaflets and articles in popular magazines such as FHM etc. Soft drugs only lead on to harder drugs through the contacts people make, rather than their use, but it does happen, just not all the time.
Cannabis does have its side effects and scientists, some individually, not paid by any committee, are coming up with some frightening long term effects. It doesn't have as bad short term effects as alcohol of course, but the mental long-term effects I don't need. Of course, tests are still being done both of the good and bad side-effects.
I'd say that bearing in mind mere possession of these
> drugs is illegal, then it's pretty much inevitable! But of course,
> that is a nitpicky sort of point to make. The reference is clearly to
> the criminal gangs that provide the drugs and the petty thievery that
> arises amongst addicts to ensure they can get the vastly overpriced
> and substandard narcotics available.
Now who's being narrow-minded? People do steal to get money for addictive drugs, it's happened to me and people I know and the people who have been caught admit their motive. A lot of them don't want to do it, but find the need so compelling and some have sold everything they've ever owned to pay for the habit.
> The last time a situation such as this one arose, it was the American
> Prohibition of Alcohol laws. The current anti drugs laws have much in
> common with Prohibition in that they do not work, provide criminal
> organisations with a vast source of income, and tie up police
> resources with the pointless arrest and imprisonment of the end users.
> Nowadays, alcohol provides a massive amount of revenue for the
> government....
So making money for the government is good? Good, we can keep the arms race going then. Yes, making these drugs illegal does cause problems, but making them legal causes other problems, to the end user it's little difference, just buying from a shop rather than a dealer. They still pay (maybe slightly less..) and still get addicted to hard drugs.
>
> The doomsayers in the thirties were absolutely convinced that the
> legalisation of Alcohol would lead to the destruction of families and
> the breakdown of American society. Seventy years on and that has thus
> far failed to materialise...
It's different, not with drugs and alcohol, but the reasons why hard drugs are not being legalised. It's not because the world's governments fear the social breakdown of their countries, but that they are providing something proved to be harmful and poisonous as legal commodities.
>
> If we were to decriminalise and regulate all drugs then crime would
> have lost a huge amount of money whilst the government gets more and
> it's no more or less immoral than duty on tobacco and alcohol.
Are you sure? Why then are the government here putting more pressure on Tobacco companies to stop ALL advertising? (it won't make much difference, as Dennis Leary says "You could put a big F**&&* skull and crossbones on the front and call them Tumours, but people would still buy them...").
The goverment might be too 'right wing' about it, but have you stopped to think how much 'left wing' you sound? There is always a middle ground and over-reacting either way leads to more problems. I'm not anti-drugs, but I know for every 10 responsible people who would handle them there would be at least 1 who would find their lives wrecked or wreck the lives of others. Cannabis should be legalised once the scientists are sure of the effects (both positive and negative) and can provide them to the public, but hard drugs? Well, if there's a way to give them to responsible people, perhaps, but do you know any responsible people who use them?
>
> I should throw my cards on the table before I go any further. I take
> the Bill Hicks approach to this (and many other) topics. I think drugs
> have done some great things for mankind. Alexander Graham Bell was a
> cocaine user and he invented the telephone
Yeah, and he realised he needed someone to talk to in one of those 'bathroom with a stranger' moments.
Early man was a
> hunter-gatherer but clearly changed his habits at some point to start
> predominantly agricultural settlements. One of the possible reasons
> for this was to cultivate hallucinogens for the warrior class of
> people.
Possible being the word. Stopping people from being 'hunter/gatherers' was not, perhaps, such a good idea anyway. The effects of the drugs would have mostly been used for getting in touch with the spirit world/gods. You think, perhaps, that we should go back to this?
And don't get me started about the "morally
> superior" Victorians, addicted as they were to opium, laudanum,
> cocaine (as endorsed by Sherlock Holmes), cannabis, tobacco, and so on
> and so forth.
So we should go back to this? Perhaps we could bring back the workhouse too?
>
> However, I also think drugs do need regulating. Our legal drugs
> (tobacco and alcohol) are theoretically not available to anyone below
> 16 or 18 and for good reason.
Still doesn't work, more so with Alchohol than fags.
>
> Let's concentrate on cannabis for
> the moment..yet public information is limited at best.
Nope, lots of leaflets and articles in popular magazines such as FHM etc. Soft drugs only lead on to harder drugs through the contacts people make, rather than their use, but it does happen, just not all the time.
Cannabis does have its side effects and scientists, some individually, not paid by any committee, are coming up with some frightening long term effects. It doesn't have as bad short term effects as alcohol of course, but the mental long-term effects I don't need. Of course, tests are still being done both of the good and bad side-effects.
I'd say that bearing in mind mere possession of these
> drugs is illegal, then it's pretty much inevitable! But of course,
> that is a nitpicky sort of point to make. The reference is clearly to
> the criminal gangs that provide the drugs and the petty thievery that
> arises amongst addicts to ensure they can get the vastly overpriced
> and substandard narcotics available.
Now who's being narrow-minded? People do steal to get money for addictive drugs, it's happened to me and people I know and the people who have been caught admit their motive. A lot of them don't want to do it, but find the need so compelling and some have sold everything they've ever owned to pay for the habit.
> The last time a situation such as this one arose, it was the American
> Prohibition of Alcohol laws. The current anti drugs laws have much in
> common with Prohibition in that they do not work, provide criminal
> organisations with a vast source of income, and tie up police
> resources with the pointless arrest and imprisonment of the end users.
> Nowadays, alcohol provides a massive amount of revenue for the
> government....
So making money for the government is good? Good, we can keep the arms race going then. Yes, making these drugs illegal does cause problems, but making them legal causes other problems, to the end user it's little difference, just buying from a shop rather than a dealer. They still pay (maybe slightly less..) and still get addicted to hard drugs.
>
> The doomsayers in the thirties were absolutely convinced that the
> legalisation of Alcohol would lead to the destruction of families and
> the breakdown of American society. Seventy years on and that has thus
> far failed to materialise...
It's different, not with drugs and alcohol, but the reasons why hard drugs are not being legalised. It's not because the world's governments fear the social breakdown of their countries, but that they are providing something proved to be harmful and poisonous as legal commodities.
>
> If we were to decriminalise and regulate all drugs then crime would
> have lost a huge amount of money whilst the government gets more and
> it's no more or less immoral than duty on tobacco and alcohol.
Are you sure? Why then are the government here putting more pressure on Tobacco companies to stop ALL advertising? (it won't make much difference, as Dennis Leary says "You could put a big F**&&* skull and crossbones on the front and call them Tumours, but people would still buy them...").
The goverment might be too 'right wing' about it, but have you stopped to think how much 'left wing' you sound? There is always a middle ground and over-reacting either way leads to more problems. I'm not anti-drugs, but I know for every 10 responsible people who would handle them there would be at least 1 who would find their lives wrecked or wreck the lives of others. Cannabis should be legalised once the scientists are sure of the effects (both positive and negative) and can provide them to the public, but hard drugs? Well, if there's a way to give them to responsible people, perhaps, but do you know any responsible people who use them?
I disagree that the drugs problem has not led to a breakdown in society. It has, and not just in America but also the United Kingdom, Europe, Russia - everywhere. Not to mention those countries who grow the product in the first place and who find themselves being attacked, and facing various sanctions/trade barriers, for supplying a product to the supposedly developed nations, who are the sames ones telling these countries not to grow the product in the first place.
I think you only have to look at the numbers of people claiming drugs do no harm, and should be reclassified and made acceptable like alcohol and nicotine, to see that the problem is growing.
New studies are finding all the time that Cannabis - the "no harm" drug, is far from being of no harm to users;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2419713.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2118426.stm
So, people can do what they like with their bodies, but those same people will more than likely require medical treatment at some point in their lives for a condition attributable to drug use, and the tax payers have to foot the bill, all of them. So, people can argue that the same is true for smokers, and alcoholics can't they ? Of course it is, but show me a smoker in the land who will swear blindly that using cigarettes does no harm whatsoever - most just ignore it. Alcoholics may swear their drug does no harm, but they have a medical condition which affects their point of view on that, so they aren't exactly reliable.
What is worse is that users assume their 'soft' drugs are not part of the bigger picture, that they are not linked to organised crime, and worse, that because it's only class C then it's part of a nice happy industry where nothing bad happens.
I think you only have to look at the numbers of people claiming drugs do no harm, and should be reclassified and made acceptable like alcohol and nicotine, to see that the problem is growing.
New studies are finding all the time that Cannabis - the "no harm" drug, is far from being of no harm to users;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2419713.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2118426.stm
So, people can do what they like with their bodies, but those same people will more than likely require medical treatment at some point in their lives for a condition attributable to drug use, and the tax payers have to foot the bill, all of them. So, people can argue that the same is true for smokers, and alcoholics can't they ? Of course it is, but show me a smoker in the land who will swear blindly that using cigarettes does no harm whatsoever - most just ignore it. Alcoholics may swear their drug does no harm, but they have a medical condition which affects their point of view on that, so they aren't exactly reliable.
What is worse is that users assume their 'soft' drugs are not part of the bigger picture, that they are not linked to organised crime, and worse, that because it's only class C then it's part of a nice happy industry where nothing bad happens.
sorry i posted my post after you stardust but i agree with you totally
pb wrote:
>
> Early man was a
> hunter-gatherer but clearly changed his habits at some point to
> start
> predominantly agricultural settlements. One of the possible reasons
> for this was to cultivate hallucinogens for the warrior class of
> people.
>
> Possible being the word. Stopping people from being 'hunter/gatherers'
> was not, perhaps, such a good idea anyway. The effects of the drugs
> would have mostly been used for getting in touch with the spirit
> world/gods. You think, perhaps, that we should go back to this?
Nope. Just making the point that there is a valid theory that civilisation began because of drugs. Not a 100% provable theory, but then again, what theory is?
>
> And don't get me started about the "morally
> superior" Victorians, addicted as they were to opium, laudanum,
> cocaine (as endorsed by Sherlock Holmes), cannabis, tobacco, and so
> on
> and so forth.
>
> So we should go back to this? Perhaps we could bring back the
> workhouse too?
And child brothels? Heh; the point I'm making here is that a lot of the anti-drugs brigade are the same people who praise the moral fibre of the Victorians
>
>
> However, I also think drugs do need regulating. Our legal drugs
> (tobacco and alcohol) are theoretically not available to anyone
> below
> 16 or 18 and for good reason.
>
> Still doesn't work, more so with Alchohol than fags.
Agreed. Hence I say "theoretically".
>
>
> Let's concentrate on cannabis for
> the moment..yet public information is limited at best.
>
> Nope, lots of leaflets and articles in popular magazines such as FHM
> etc. Soft drugs only lead on to harder drugs through the contacts
> people make, rather than their use, but it does happen, just not all
> the time.
Whenever I've tried a drug for the first time, I've been drunk. Yet you don't hear alcohol condemned as a gateway drug. I've habitually smoked dope for half of my life, yet I'm not a smackhead and I hold down a good job. But I accept your point; people can and do move onto harder drugs. I believe that this will happen whether legalised or not. At least if it's legalised these people can be helped rather than imprisoned.
>
> Cannabis does have its side effects and scientists, some individually,
> not paid by any committee, are coming up with some frightening long
> term effects. It doesn't have as bad short term effects as alcohol of
> course, but the mental long-term effects I don't need. Of course,
> tests are still being done both of the good and bad side-effects.
There are long term effects with any drug of any kind. I'm not going to try and say that any drug is mana from heaven; there are risks involved. And I agree with you that more research should be done into side effects. However, the anti drugs lobby will simply tell you that they should be banned, and to hell with the research.
>
> I'd say that bearing in mind mere possession of these
> drugs is illegal, then it's pretty much inevitable! But of course,
> that is a nitpicky sort of point to make. The reference is clearly
> to
> the criminal gangs that provide the drugs and the petty thievery
> that
> arises amongst addicts to ensure they can get the vastly overpriced
> and substandard narcotics available.
>
> Now who's being narrow-minded? People do steal to get money for
> addictive drugs, it's happened to me and people I know and the people
> who have been caught admit their motive. A lot of them don't want to
> do it, but find the need so compelling and some have sold everything
> they've ever owned to pay for the habit.
Umm....that's pretty much what I said. Hence saying "...nitpicky point". I think perhaps you took that line a little more seriously than it was meant.
>
>
> The last time a situation such as this one arose, it was the
> American
> Prohibition of Alcohol laws. The current anti drugs laws have much
> in
> common with Prohibition in that they do not work, provide criminal
> organisations with a vast source of income, and tie up police
> resources with the pointless arrest and imprisonment of the end
> users.
> Nowadays, alcohol provides a massive amount of revenue for the
> government....
>
> So making money for the government is good? Good, we can keep the
> arms race going then. Yes, making these drugs illegal does cause
> problems, but making them legal causes other problems, to the end user
> it's little difference, just buying from a shop rather than a dealer.
> They still pay (maybe slightly less..) and still get addicted to hard
> drugs.
I disagree entirely with that assertion (that they get addicted). Some people get addicted, some don't. I'm saying give them the choice.
>
>
> The doomsayers in the thirties were absolutely convinced that the
> legalisation of Alcohol would lead to the destruction of families
> and
> the breakdown of American society. Seventy years on and that has
> thus
> far failed to materialise...
>
> It's different, not with drugs and alcohol, but the reasons why hard
> drugs are not being legalised. It's not because the world's
> governments fear the social breakdown of their countries, but that
> they are providing something proved to be harmful and poisonous as
> legal commodities.
>
>
> If we were to decriminalise and regulate all drugs then crime would
> have lost a huge amount of money whilst the government gets more and
> it's no more or less immoral than duty on tobacco and alcohol.
>
> Are you sure? Why then are the government here putting more pressure
> on Tobacco companies to stop ALL advertising? (it won't make much
> difference, as Dennis Leary says "You could put a big
> F**&&* skull and crossbones on the front and call them
> Tumours, but people would still buy them...").
>
> The goverment might be too 'right wing' about it, but have you stopped
> to think how much 'left wing' you sound? There is always a middle
> ground and over-reacting either way leads to more problems. I'm not
> anti-drugs, but I know for every 10 responsible people who would
> handle them there would be at least 1 who would find their lives
> wrecked or wreck the lives of others. Cannabis should be legalised
> once the scientists are sure of the effects (both positive and
> negative) and can provide them to the public, but hard drugs? Well,
> if there's a way to give them to responsible people, perhaps, but do
> you know any responsible people who use them?
Yup. I know a lot of irresponsible ones too. The fact is, people's lives can get wrecked in all manner of different ways. If not drugs, then alcohol. If not alcohol, gambling. If not gambling, petty crime. If not petty crime, prostitution. I'm not saying legalising drugs will make all the problems go away. But it will at least bring the problems out in the open to be addressed, rather than swept under the rug like a dirty little secret.
Whatever you or I (or anyone) thinks of drugs, their legality or otherwise, people do and will continue to take them. Lives will get wrecked, or not, no matter what the laws are. Hence I think they should be legalised as the benefits of such a move outweigh the disadvantages.
You've given me some food for thought though.
>
> Early man was a
> hunter-gatherer but clearly changed his habits at some point to
> start
> predominantly agricultural settlements. One of the possible reasons
> for this was to cultivate hallucinogens for the warrior class of
> people.
>
> Possible being the word. Stopping people from being 'hunter/gatherers'
> was not, perhaps, such a good idea anyway. The effects of the drugs
> would have mostly been used for getting in touch with the spirit
> world/gods. You think, perhaps, that we should go back to this?
Nope. Just making the point that there is a valid theory that civilisation began because of drugs. Not a 100% provable theory, but then again, what theory is?
>
> And don't get me started about the "morally
> superior" Victorians, addicted as they were to opium, laudanum,
> cocaine (as endorsed by Sherlock Holmes), cannabis, tobacco, and so
> on
> and so forth.
>
> So we should go back to this? Perhaps we could bring back the
> workhouse too?
And child brothels? Heh; the point I'm making here is that a lot of the anti-drugs brigade are the same people who praise the moral fibre of the Victorians
>
>
> However, I also think drugs do need regulating. Our legal drugs
> (tobacco and alcohol) are theoretically not available to anyone
> below
> 16 or 18 and for good reason.
>
> Still doesn't work, more so with Alchohol than fags.
Agreed. Hence I say "theoretically".
>
>
> Let's concentrate on cannabis for
> the moment..yet public information is limited at best.
>
> Nope, lots of leaflets and articles in popular magazines such as FHM
> etc. Soft drugs only lead on to harder drugs through the contacts
> people make, rather than their use, but it does happen, just not all
> the time.
Whenever I've tried a drug for the first time, I've been drunk. Yet you don't hear alcohol condemned as a gateway drug. I've habitually smoked dope for half of my life, yet I'm not a smackhead and I hold down a good job. But I accept your point; people can and do move onto harder drugs. I believe that this will happen whether legalised or not. At least if it's legalised these people can be helped rather than imprisoned.
>
> Cannabis does have its side effects and scientists, some individually,
> not paid by any committee, are coming up with some frightening long
> term effects. It doesn't have as bad short term effects as alcohol of
> course, but the mental long-term effects I don't need. Of course,
> tests are still being done both of the good and bad side-effects.
There are long term effects with any drug of any kind. I'm not going to try and say that any drug is mana from heaven; there are risks involved. And I agree with you that more research should be done into side effects. However, the anti drugs lobby will simply tell you that they should be banned, and to hell with the research.
>
> I'd say that bearing in mind mere possession of these
> drugs is illegal, then it's pretty much inevitable! But of course,
> that is a nitpicky sort of point to make. The reference is clearly
> to
> the criminal gangs that provide the drugs and the petty thievery
> that
> arises amongst addicts to ensure they can get the vastly overpriced
> and substandard narcotics available.
>
> Now who's being narrow-minded? People do steal to get money for
> addictive drugs, it's happened to me and people I know and the people
> who have been caught admit their motive. A lot of them don't want to
> do it, but find the need so compelling and some have sold everything
> they've ever owned to pay for the habit.
Umm....that's pretty much what I said. Hence saying "...nitpicky point". I think perhaps you took that line a little more seriously than it was meant.
>
>
> The last time a situation such as this one arose, it was the
> American
> Prohibition of Alcohol laws. The current anti drugs laws have much
> in
> common with Prohibition in that they do not work, provide criminal
> organisations with a vast source of income, and tie up police
> resources with the pointless arrest and imprisonment of the end
> users.
> Nowadays, alcohol provides a massive amount of revenue for the
> government....
>
> So making money for the government is good? Good, we can keep the
> arms race going then. Yes, making these drugs illegal does cause
> problems, but making them legal causes other problems, to the end user
> it's little difference, just buying from a shop rather than a dealer.
> They still pay (maybe slightly less..) and still get addicted to hard
> drugs.
I disagree entirely with that assertion (that they get addicted). Some people get addicted, some don't. I'm saying give them the choice.
>
>
> The doomsayers in the thirties were absolutely convinced that the
> legalisation of Alcohol would lead to the destruction of families
> and
> the breakdown of American society. Seventy years on and that has
> thus
> far failed to materialise...
>
> It's different, not with drugs and alcohol, but the reasons why hard
> drugs are not being legalised. It's not because the world's
> governments fear the social breakdown of their countries, but that
> they are providing something proved to be harmful and poisonous as
> legal commodities.
>
>
> If we were to decriminalise and regulate all drugs then crime would
> have lost a huge amount of money whilst the government gets more and
> it's no more or less immoral than duty on tobacco and alcohol.
>
> Are you sure? Why then are the government here putting more pressure
> on Tobacco companies to stop ALL advertising? (it won't make much
> difference, as Dennis Leary says "You could put a big
> F**&&* skull and crossbones on the front and call them
> Tumours, but people would still buy them...").
>
> The goverment might be too 'right wing' about it, but have you stopped
> to think how much 'left wing' you sound? There is always a middle
> ground and over-reacting either way leads to more problems. I'm not
> anti-drugs, but I know for every 10 responsible people who would
> handle them there would be at least 1 who would find their lives
> wrecked or wreck the lives of others. Cannabis should be legalised
> once the scientists are sure of the effects (both positive and
> negative) and can provide them to the public, but hard drugs? Well,
> if there's a way to give them to responsible people, perhaps, but do
> you know any responsible people who use them?
Yup. I know a lot of irresponsible ones too. The fact is, people's lives can get wrecked in all manner of different ways. If not drugs, then alcohol. If not alcohol, gambling. If not gambling, petty crime. If not petty crime, prostitution. I'm not saying legalising drugs will make all the problems go away. But it will at least bring the problems out in the open to be addressed, rather than swept under the rug like a dirty little secret.
Whatever you or I (or anyone) thinks of drugs, their legality or otherwise, people do and will continue to take them. Lives will get wrecked, or not, no matter what the laws are. Hence I think they should be legalised as the benefits of such a move outweigh the disadvantages.
You've given me some food for thought though.
Vice wrote:
> Personally i'm against the use of drugs. But i do hope that one day a
> government will come in and completely legalise drugs so the 'idiots'
> (in my opinion) who want to use it can. And this will hopefully lead
> to a dramatic increase in usage and abuse and death rates from the
> drugs so then people will start to be put off by it. I think that the
> only draw (excuse the pun) drugs has on society is due to it's
> illegitimacy. I'm sure if it was made legal people will stop using it
> anyway because they might realise it causes the body to bloat and
> cause disease and cause more harm than good.
I have to be honest and say that I find yours and Stardust's opinions a little prudish. Plus you've made the assumption that, because I'm not anti drugs, I think that they're wonderful things that only lead to fun. They're not; they can cause major health and mental problems. I merely think people should be given the choice.
I do agree that a lot of the appeal of drugs lies in their illegality, and that legalising them will stop that. Which is kind of my point; legalising will lower drug use in the long term, so if you're anti drugs then surely that is a good thing?
> Personally i'm against the use of drugs. But i do hope that one day a
> government will come in and completely legalise drugs so the 'idiots'
> (in my opinion) who want to use it can. And this will hopefully lead
> to a dramatic increase in usage and abuse and death rates from the
> drugs so then people will start to be put off by it. I think that the
> only draw (excuse the pun) drugs has on society is due to it's
> illegitimacy. I'm sure if it was made legal people will stop using it
> anyway because they might realise it causes the body to bloat and
> cause disease and cause more harm than good.
I have to be honest and say that I find yours and Stardust's opinions a little prudish. Plus you've made the assumption that, because I'm not anti drugs, I think that they're wonderful things that only lead to fun. They're not; they can cause major health and mental problems. I merely think people should be given the choice.
I do agree that a lot of the appeal of drugs lies in their illegality, and that legalising them will stop that. Which is kind of my point; legalising will lower drug use in the long term, so if you're anti drugs then surely that is a good thing?
Page: