The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Mouldy Cheese wrote:
>
>
> I agree. People who do it a lot get slow and stupid.
Agreed, though the same could be said of any substance taken to excess. The anti-drugs lobby will always have you believe that people who are pro-drugs want EVERYONE on drugs. Which is toss of the first order.
>
>
> I agree. People who do it a lot get slow and stupid.
Agreed, though the same could be said of any substance taken to excess. The anti-drugs lobby will always have you believe that people who are pro-drugs want EVERYONE on drugs. Which is toss of the first order.
I haven't had time to read every one of the replies, but there are some excellent ones out there... but here's my two cents...
In an ideal society, the purpose of the law is to protect people's rights - making sure you're not murdered and the such like. What people do to their own bodies should be their business, so long as it doesn't infringe on other people's rights. In addition to this, the role of the Government in all of this should be to educate people to the REAL pros and cons of drugs (not the garbage I got at school). It will then be up to people, when they reach the required age, to decide whether to take the drugs or not.
I liken this to sex in Scandinavia (I'm sure I could have worded that better).... Although the age limit for concent are only 14 (or there abouts), the number of teenage pregnancies is far lower than here, and the age people first have sex is higher. This is because the taboo surrounding sex in this country doesn't exist (as much) there, and people are far better informed.
Sonic
In an ideal society, the purpose of the law is to protect people's rights - making sure you're not murdered and the such like. What people do to their own bodies should be their business, so long as it doesn't infringe on other people's rights. In addition to this, the role of the Government in all of this should be to educate people to the REAL pros and cons of drugs (not the garbage I got at school). It will then be up to people, when they reach the required age, to decide whether to take the drugs or not.
I liken this to sex in Scandinavia (I'm sure I could have worded that better).... Although the age limit for concent are only 14 (or there abouts), the number of teenage pregnancies is far lower than here, and the age people first have sex is higher. This is because the taboo surrounding sex in this country doesn't exist (as much) there, and people are far better informed.
Sonic
Dr Giblets wrote:
> As far as I have witnessed and experienced, marijuana, cannadis, weed
> or whatever you wanna call it can cause noticable damage to someone
> after a fair while of indulgent usage. I don't know much about it, but
> infrequent usage seems to do little harm - true, maybe a spot of
> forgetfullness or something similiar - but it doesn't visually or
> noticably seem to affect people who only have a bit of weed
> occasionally.
> Very regular usage however is quite a different matter. I'm talking
> about say.....3-4 times a week here, and all day on weekends, which,
> after about 2 years of this, has caused some of my friends to lose
> their wit somewhat, and talk in a slightly slurred manner. It also
> leads to a certain half-arsed nature about people. They 'can't be
> ar$ed' to do stuff lots of the time, and can grow increasingly
> lazy.........
> I'm not saying in any way that I am right here, this is just what I
> have experienced in those around me......
>
I agree. People who do it a lot get slow and stupid.
> As far as I have witnessed and experienced, marijuana, cannadis, weed
> or whatever you wanna call it can cause noticable damage to someone
> after a fair while of indulgent usage. I don't know much about it, but
> infrequent usage seems to do little harm - true, maybe a spot of
> forgetfullness or something similiar - but it doesn't visually or
> noticably seem to affect people who only have a bit of weed
> occasionally.
> Very regular usage however is quite a different matter. I'm talking
> about say.....3-4 times a week here, and all day on weekends, which,
> after about 2 years of this, has caused some of my friends to lose
> their wit somewhat, and talk in a slightly slurred manner. It also
> leads to a certain half-arsed nature about people. They 'can't be
> ar$ed' to do stuff lots of the time, and can grow increasingly
> lazy.........
> I'm not saying in any way that I am right here, this is just what I
> have experienced in those around me......
>
I agree. People who do it a lot get slow and stupid.
gerrid wrote:
> Why are they a moron if they want to heighten their enjoyment?Are you
> some sort of fanatical baptist against all forms of pleasure? Surely
> by your reckoning it is moronic to have sex purely for pleasure, or to
> drink soft drinks because you enjoy the taste?
Well lets look at your examples shall we;
Sex - pleasure from this is caused by chemicals already natural to the human body, so it's not introducing anything to the body that shouldn't be there anyway.
Soft drinks - with the exception of caffeine, the taste comes from ingredients that - whilst not natural to the body in many cases - have only very very minor effects on them, none of which cause any problems. Caffeine does effect the body, but the levels found in soft drinks containing it - really they are fizzy drinks :) - do little other than a temporary small effect.
In other words your examples suck.
As for the great "artists, musicians e.t.c use drugs so they're great" argument, well if they needed drugs to create what they did then it brings into question their talent, but more importantly they used drugs in a time when the problem was less widespread, all you socialists out there can argue that the wealth needed to buy them was confined to the upper classes I suppose..... but today the problem has gone far worse, and we can no longer pretend they are not harmful, or that their mere use does nothing to society.
Oh, whoever mentioned anti depressants; when you find yourself twisting an argument like that then you sound ever do desperate - go read the rest of the posts and it's clear we are all talking about non medical use drugs here...
*Awaits Light's fiery "thou shalt shut up and I shall throw grown up sounding insults at you whilst accusing you of the same thing" post* :)
> Why are they a moron if they want to heighten their enjoyment?Are you
> some sort of fanatical baptist against all forms of pleasure? Surely
> by your reckoning it is moronic to have sex purely for pleasure, or to
> drink soft drinks because you enjoy the taste?
Well lets look at your examples shall we;
Sex - pleasure from this is caused by chemicals already natural to the human body, so it's not introducing anything to the body that shouldn't be there anyway.
Soft drinks - with the exception of caffeine, the taste comes from ingredients that - whilst not natural to the body in many cases - have only very very minor effects on them, none of which cause any problems. Caffeine does effect the body, but the levels found in soft drinks containing it - really they are fizzy drinks :) - do little other than a temporary small effect.
In other words your examples suck.
As for the great "artists, musicians e.t.c use drugs so they're great" argument, well if they needed drugs to create what they did then it brings into question their talent, but more importantly they used drugs in a time when the problem was less widespread, all you socialists out there can argue that the wealth needed to buy them was confined to the upper classes I suppose..... but today the problem has gone far worse, and we can no longer pretend they are not harmful, or that their mere use does nothing to society.
Oh, whoever mentioned anti depressants; when you find yourself twisting an argument like that then you sound ever do desperate - go read the rest of the posts and it's clear we are all talking about non medical use drugs here...
*Awaits Light's fiery "thou shalt shut up and I shall throw grown up sounding insults at you whilst accusing you of the same thing" post* :)
Belldandy wrote:
> Tiltawhirl wrote:
> Belldandy don't you think your "all drugs users are
> morons"
> statement is just a tiny bit narrowminded?
>
> Nope, not one bit. I think anyone who feels the need to introduce a
> drug not naturally found in their body into it, for enjoyment, is a
> moron - and because of the same liberalism which has led to such wide
> drug taking I can call them all morons. Excellent eh ? And I stil
> don't give a toss about Light - he uses no sources, has more contempt
> than anyone for anyone not agreeing with him, and he's generally
> sitting on a perch 500 miles above anyone, metaphorically of course.
> :)
Well said.
> Tiltawhirl wrote:
> Belldandy don't you think your "all drugs users are
> morons"
> statement is just a tiny bit narrowminded?
>
> Nope, not one bit. I think anyone who feels the need to introduce a
> drug not naturally found in their body into it, for enjoyment, is a
> moron - and because of the same liberalism which has led to such wide
> drug taking I can call them all morons. Excellent eh ? And I stil
> don't give a toss about Light - he uses no sources, has more contempt
> than anyone for anyone not agreeing with him, and he's generally
> sitting on a perch 500 miles above anyone, metaphorically of course.
> :)
Well said.
yeah but the majority of the those painters, poets, musicians, lead tragic lives in the first place and only did drugs in order to escape reality or kill themselves. They prolly acheived these great things due to their depression and it wasn't exactly like the drugs they used helped them to acheive their goals and the drugs didn't make them who they were.
Belldandy wrote:
> Nope, not one bit. I think anyone who feels the need to introduce a
> drug not naturally found in their body into it, for enjoyment, is a
> moron
So in your mind, people who use anti depressants are morons?
People who drink alcohol are morons?
Many of the great painters, artists, musicians, poets etc etc where regular drug users. Are these people in your eyes morons too?
> Nope, not one bit. I think anyone who feels the need to introduce a
> drug not naturally found in their body into it, for enjoyment, is a
> moron
So in your mind, people who use anti depressants are morons?
People who drink alcohol are morons?
Many of the great painters, artists, musicians, poets etc etc where regular drug users. Are these people in your eyes morons too?
Why are they a moron if they want to heighten their enjoyment?Are you some sort of fanatical baptist against all forms of pleasure? Surely by your reckoning it is moronic to have sex purely for pleasure, or to drink soft drinks because you enjoy the taste?
Tiltawhirl wrote:
> Belldandy don't you think your "all drugs users are morons"
> statement is just a tiny bit narrowminded?
Nope, not one bit. I think anyone who feels the need to introduce a drug not naturally found in their body into it, for enjoyment, is a moron - and because of the same liberalism which has led to such wide drug taking I can call them all morons. Excellent eh ? And I stil don't give a toss about Light - he uses no sources, has more contempt than anyone for anyone not agreeing with him, and he's generally sitting on a perch 500 miles above anyone, metaphorically of course. :)
> Belldandy don't you think your "all drugs users are morons"
> statement is just a tiny bit narrowminded?
Nope, not one bit. I think anyone who feels the need to introduce a drug not naturally found in their body into it, for enjoyment, is a moron - and because of the same liberalism which has led to such wide drug taking I can call them all morons. Excellent eh ? And I stil don't give a toss about Light - he uses no sources, has more contempt than anyone for anyone not agreeing with him, and he's generally sitting on a perch 500 miles above anyone, metaphorically of course. :)
Ant wrote:
> I don't need drugs to have fun. That's all I have to say, really, but
> I've never been affected. None of my friends or family have ever been
> involved (I hope.)
Same here. :)
> I don't need drugs to have fun. That's all I have to say, really, but
> I've never been affected. None of my friends or family have ever been
> involved (I hope.)
Same here. :)
Page: