The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
G®åpô²ºº² wrote:
> Dr Giblets wrote:
>
> The law is not always right.
>
> nor are you
True. :P
> Dr Giblets wrote:
>
> The law is not always right.
>
> nor are you
True. :P
Light wrote:
> Because, of course, you know all about it. Would you care to quote
> your sources to back up the sneering, non-existant point you made?
> Because, right now, you're looking rather childish by taking a well
> thought out post (the content of which I personally don't entirely
> agree with) and responding with cheap, secondhand wisecracks.
Because Light, if you could be ar$ed to get out of your oh so high ivory tower and bother reading information about it, or even watching programmes, then you'd know. Wisecracks eh ? So anyone disagreeing with you is making wisecracks ? Wow you're going ot be seeing a lot of them in 2003 then.
> Bwah ha ha ha!! So sayeth the man who has never taken drugs! How does
> someone so teetotal know about this stuff?
Again, anyone who knows about drugs enough knows only morons use them. Generally drugs users know not a great deal about the drugs trade they are involved in.
)Listen mate; you seem to
> assume that every dealer is some sort of criminal overlord in the
> making. Alas, you're wrong. Many of them are suburban types looking to
> make a little extra cash.
Crap, that's what you white suburban types tell yourselves to make you feel better about what you're doing. Drugs = crime unless you grow your own for your own use, end of story, stop deluding yourself.
>As there are so many of them, it is in their
> best interests to provide decent gear. That said, I agree up to a
> point about trusting the source of the drug. Which is why the point
> was made about free testing, which negates your point. Do you see?
Morelike as there are so many of them - in your words anyway - they need to make as much profit from each sale as possible, and these little suburban friendly sellers you seem to believe exist get the drugs from another source anyway. Free testing ? That's surrender plain and simple to legalisation. If people want to take drugs let them risk their lives and not waste the majority, non drug using, taxpayers money on it.
> I note as well that you're still trying the "I'm right, and if
> anyone says different then they're wrong!" approach. A shame, as
> you make some good assertions here yet fail to back them up with any
> evidence beyond "This is what I think".
Yada yada yada....this is your usual, already tired, argument Light, not thought of anything better to do yet ? Strangely enough the forums are about what people think, if you want fully referenced essays then go read some University papers on the net eh ? You expect me, and others, to fall in line with you're, "we're all right and nobody is wrong" idea where we all accept everyones ideas. Welcome to the real world Light, if someone does a post on something I disagree with then I will post whatever response I wish to, and you'll just have to live with that - and you're not exactly mister referencing and sources yourself - as your original topic proves.
> I can tell you right now that, as a fairly regular dope smoker,
> occasional E, speed and charlie user, I have NEVER jumped someone for
> their gear. Nor have any of my friends. And nor have any of us
> committed a crime (apart, of course, from possession) whilst under the
> influence of drugs other than alcohol. As to the crime; well, happily
> I used to be a solicitor and so I take great pleasure in pointing out
> to you that well over 3/4 of ALL criminal cases I dealt with (be they
> assault, criminal damage, GBH, ABH, theft, robbery, domestic
> battery...you get the idea I'm sure) were as a result of drunkenness.
And this proves what ? That you're biased because your a drugs user trying to defend an illegal passtime, that you only dealth with small time cases as a solicitor, and your friends and you are not likely to admit to committing a criminal offence anyway, in fact you are sounding more and more like the kind of person who is responsible for the whole drugs problem - male class idiots convinced they are doing no harm and that they have the freedom to do as they wish.
> Sad to say that your assertion that drug related crime goes unreported
> is, at best, pure conjecture. Of course, if you can provide me with
> any stats to back it up then I'm all ears.
Police stats estimate tons of crime goes unreported, again I'm not your personal fact finder so have a look here for an overview; http://www.sociologyonline.co.uk/ rime_essays/Iceberg.htm then bother actually reading about crime e.t.c on sites, in the news.
> Teetotal eh? Well good for you. Of course, that means all your
> opinions concerning drugs can safely be given the same weight that I
> give the Pope when he talks about contraception.
And same goes for you.
> You say drug use leads to abuse; always? In some cases (perhaps even
> many cases) it does. I am saying give people the freedom of choice to
> find out.
When people have the ability to be responsible for their actions and implications of their choices then fine, give them the choice, until then we have a big enough problem with alcohol and cigarettes. Freedom is not the ability to do whatever you want.
> Oh, and thanks for the laugh; the idea of a man who's biggest daily
> challenge is to stop kids shoplifting the pick n mix telling people
> that they need to get lives is somewhere beyond the far rim of
> hilarious.
Er this shows you're hilarious idea of just how much crime there is in just one small town store. Want a recount of Christmas Eve's "kids shoplifting pick and mix" ? Firstly, about 8:15am, guy walks in, goes straight to large chocolate bars, grabs about twenty, and runs out - guy is known drug user and shoplifter, chocolate is currently the main target of drugs users in the town at the moment because of easy resale and it's supposedly the #1 thing to have after a session. 10am ish Police called when another known shoplifter enters and refuses to leave after swearing and being aggressive to other people in the shop - later found to be on E. Other highlights include 2 instances of staff being physically threatened by known offenders, as well as 5 known shopliftings - none by kids and all by adults. Coincidentally kids are rarely shoplifters in the store, and seeing as you (used to be ? ) a solicitor then your just about as qualified as me, less so if you take drugs anyway.
> That said, Happy New Year. I hope that you'll learn to start fighting
> your corner without resorting to schoolyard abuse and ill founded
> assertions of superiority. I recall I was about 17 before I learnt to
> do the same, so with any luck you too will grow up and place a value
> on your life beyond "Hey, I can insult people! Aren't I
> great!"
Yawn, you really are tedious Light, still my word count will go up a little and make up for my absence eh ? Maybe you'll learn to make points without seeing persecution where there is none, and if you think being called and idiot or moron is abuse then I pity you ! Solicitors get called much worse... :P You're about the most ill founded statement making person on here, and seem desperate to prove your own total knowledge and put down everyone who disagrees.
Methinks its going to be a long year....
> Because, of course, you know all about it. Would you care to quote
> your sources to back up the sneering, non-existant point you made?
> Because, right now, you're looking rather childish by taking a well
> thought out post (the content of which I personally don't entirely
> agree with) and responding with cheap, secondhand wisecracks.
Because Light, if you could be ar$ed to get out of your oh so high ivory tower and bother reading information about it, or even watching programmes, then you'd know. Wisecracks eh ? So anyone disagreeing with you is making wisecracks ? Wow you're going ot be seeing a lot of them in 2003 then.
> Bwah ha ha ha!! So sayeth the man who has never taken drugs! How does
> someone so teetotal know about this stuff?
Again, anyone who knows about drugs enough knows only morons use them. Generally drugs users know not a great deal about the drugs trade they are involved in.
)Listen mate; you seem to
> assume that every dealer is some sort of criminal overlord in the
> making. Alas, you're wrong. Many of them are suburban types looking to
> make a little extra cash.
Crap, that's what you white suburban types tell yourselves to make you feel better about what you're doing. Drugs = crime unless you grow your own for your own use, end of story, stop deluding yourself.
>As there are so many of them, it is in their
> best interests to provide decent gear. That said, I agree up to a
> point about trusting the source of the drug. Which is why the point
> was made about free testing, which negates your point. Do you see?
Morelike as there are so many of them - in your words anyway - they need to make as much profit from each sale as possible, and these little suburban friendly sellers you seem to believe exist get the drugs from another source anyway. Free testing ? That's surrender plain and simple to legalisation. If people want to take drugs let them risk their lives and not waste the majority, non drug using, taxpayers money on it.
> I note as well that you're still trying the "I'm right, and if
> anyone says different then they're wrong!" approach. A shame, as
> you make some good assertions here yet fail to back them up with any
> evidence beyond "This is what I think".
Yada yada yada....this is your usual, already tired, argument Light, not thought of anything better to do yet ? Strangely enough the forums are about what people think, if you want fully referenced essays then go read some University papers on the net eh ? You expect me, and others, to fall in line with you're, "we're all right and nobody is wrong" idea where we all accept everyones ideas. Welcome to the real world Light, if someone does a post on something I disagree with then I will post whatever response I wish to, and you'll just have to live with that - and you're not exactly mister referencing and sources yourself - as your original topic proves.
> I can tell you right now that, as a fairly regular dope smoker,
> occasional E, speed and charlie user, I have NEVER jumped someone for
> their gear. Nor have any of my friends. And nor have any of us
> committed a crime (apart, of course, from possession) whilst under the
> influence of drugs other than alcohol. As to the crime; well, happily
> I used to be a solicitor and so I take great pleasure in pointing out
> to you that well over 3/4 of ALL criminal cases I dealt with (be they
> assault, criminal damage, GBH, ABH, theft, robbery, domestic
> battery...you get the idea I'm sure) were as a result of drunkenness.
And this proves what ? That you're biased because your a drugs user trying to defend an illegal passtime, that you only dealth with small time cases as a solicitor, and your friends and you are not likely to admit to committing a criminal offence anyway, in fact you are sounding more and more like the kind of person who is responsible for the whole drugs problem - male class idiots convinced they are doing no harm and that they have the freedom to do as they wish.
> Sad to say that your assertion that drug related crime goes unreported
> is, at best, pure conjecture. Of course, if you can provide me with
> any stats to back it up then I'm all ears.
Police stats estimate tons of crime goes unreported, again I'm not your personal fact finder so have a look here for an overview; http://www.sociologyonline.co.uk/ rime_essays/Iceberg.htm then bother actually reading about crime e.t.c on sites, in the news.
> Teetotal eh? Well good for you. Of course, that means all your
> opinions concerning drugs can safely be given the same weight that I
> give the Pope when he talks about contraception.
And same goes for you.
> You say drug use leads to abuse; always? In some cases (perhaps even
> many cases) it does. I am saying give people the freedom of choice to
> find out.
When people have the ability to be responsible for their actions and implications of their choices then fine, give them the choice, until then we have a big enough problem with alcohol and cigarettes. Freedom is not the ability to do whatever you want.
> Oh, and thanks for the laugh; the idea of a man who's biggest daily
> challenge is to stop kids shoplifting the pick n mix telling people
> that they need to get lives is somewhere beyond the far rim of
> hilarious.
Er this shows you're hilarious idea of just how much crime there is in just one small town store. Want a recount of Christmas Eve's "kids shoplifting pick and mix" ? Firstly, about 8:15am, guy walks in, goes straight to large chocolate bars, grabs about twenty, and runs out - guy is known drug user and shoplifter, chocolate is currently the main target of drugs users in the town at the moment because of easy resale and it's supposedly the #1 thing to have after a session. 10am ish Police called when another known shoplifter enters and refuses to leave after swearing and being aggressive to other people in the shop - later found to be on E. Other highlights include 2 instances of staff being physically threatened by known offenders, as well as 5 known shopliftings - none by kids and all by adults. Coincidentally kids are rarely shoplifters in the store, and seeing as you (used to be ? ) a solicitor then your just about as qualified as me, less so if you take drugs anyway.
> That said, Happy New Year. I hope that you'll learn to start fighting
> your corner without resorting to schoolyard abuse and ill founded
> assertions of superiority. I recall I was about 17 before I learnt to
> do the same, so with any luck you too will grow up and place a value
> on your life beyond "Hey, I can insult people! Aren't I
> great!"
Yawn, you really are tedious Light, still my word count will go up a little and make up for my absence eh ? Maybe you'll learn to make points without seeing persecution where there is none, and if you think being called and idiot or moron is abuse then I pity you ! Solicitors get called much worse... :P You're about the most ill founded statement making person on here, and seem desperate to prove your own total knowledge and put down everyone who disagrees.
Methinks its going to be a long year....
Bah, if you do drugs you do drugs. If you dont, you dont. Whats all the big mumbo-jumbo arguments for?
*Grins*
*Grins*
Or even move on.
I must stay off the tixylix.
I must stay off the tixylix.
Well its gonna be a fun new years eve for you lot then...
No drugs? Sheesh what you kids gonna do?!
Play safe. Do what you are comfortable with, dont feel pressured. It is supposed to be about enjoying yourselves after all so when the fun stops its time to move one.
No drugs? Sheesh what you kids gonna do?!
Play safe. Do what you are comfortable with, dont feel pressured. It is supposed to be about enjoying yourselves after all so when the fun stops its time to move one.
Belldandy wrote:
> Marijuana may be very harmful after prolonged use.
>
> Understatement of the year eh ?
Because, of course, you know all about it. Would you care to quote your sources to back up the sneering, non-existant point you made? Because, right now, you're looking rather childish by taking a well thought out post (the content of which I personally don't entirely agree with) and responding with cheap, secondhand wisecracks.
>
> Ecstasy is fairly safe. Priority is to make sure you know where it
> came from.
>
> Because your supplier really does want to give you high grade (less
> profit for them) stuff ? You cannot trust the source of this drug no
> matter what anyone says, even if someone has some from the same
> batch.
Bwah ha ha ha!! So sayeth the man who has never taken drugs! How does someone so teetotal know about this stuff? Listen mate; you seem to assume that every dealer is some sort of criminal overlord in the making. Alas, you're wrong. Many of them are suburban types looking to make a little extra cash. As there are so many of them, it is in their best interests to provide decent gear. That said, I agree up to a point about trusting the source of the drug. Which is why the point was made about free testing, which negates your point. Do you see?
I note as well that you're still trying the "I'm right, and if anyone says different then they're wrong!" approach. A shame, as you make some good assertions here yet fail to back them up with any evidence beyond "This is what I think".
>
> Alcohol. The biggest killer of any of the most common available
> drugs.
> Responsible for more crime and crime than all of the other drugs put
> together.
>
> But what kinds of crime ? And how much committed goes on file anyway ?
> Alcohol related crime is more obvious - drunken brawls e.t.c whereas
> drug users / dealers related crime often goes unreported or there is
> no willingness to report it. Say one user jumps another for their
> gear, he/she cannot report that.
I can tell you right now that, as a fairly regular dope smoker, occasional E, speed and charlie user, I have NEVER jumped someone for their gear. Nor have any of my friends. And nor have any of us committed a crime (apart, of course, from possession) whilst under the influence of drugs other than alcohol. As to the crime; well, happily I used to be a solicitor and so I take great pleasure in pointing out to you that well over 3/4 of ALL criminal cases I dealt with (be they assault, criminal damage, GBH, ABH, theft, robbery, domestic battery...you get the idea I'm sure) were as a result of drunkenness. The only crimes I dealt with in relation to dope and E were possession. Heroin was a different matter; there was an awful lot of theives who were on smack. Also, dealers involved with heroin were an altogether nastier and more profit driven bunch.
Sad to say that your assertion that drug related crime goes unreported is, at best, pure conjecture. Of course, if you can provide me with any stats to back it up then I'm all ears.
>
>
> Drug use does kill, because it leads to abuse. If you need drugs to
> get pleasure or see clearly or whatever sad excuse people can think of
> then it's time to get a life - and before anyone shouts alcohol or
> cigarettes I use neither.
Teetotal eh? Well good for you. Of course, that means all your opinions concerning drugs can safely be given the same weight that I give the Pope when he talks about contraception.
You say drug use leads to abuse; always? In some cases (perhaps even many cases) it does. I am saying give people the freedom of choice to find out.
Oh, and thanks for the laugh; the idea of a man who's biggest daily challenge is to stop kids shoplifting the pick n mix telling people that they need to get lives is somewhere beyond the far rim of hilarious.
That said, Happy New Year. I hope that you'll learn to start fighting your corner without resorting to schoolyard abuse and ill founded assertions of superiority. I recall I was about 17 before I learnt to do the same, so with any luck you too will grow up and place a value on your life beyond "Hey, I can insult people! Aren't I great!"
> Marijuana may be very harmful after prolonged use.
>
> Understatement of the year eh ?
Because, of course, you know all about it. Would you care to quote your sources to back up the sneering, non-existant point you made? Because, right now, you're looking rather childish by taking a well thought out post (the content of which I personally don't entirely agree with) and responding with cheap, secondhand wisecracks.
>
> Ecstasy is fairly safe. Priority is to make sure you know where it
> came from.
>
> Because your supplier really does want to give you high grade (less
> profit for them) stuff ? You cannot trust the source of this drug no
> matter what anyone says, even if someone has some from the same
> batch.
Bwah ha ha ha!! So sayeth the man who has never taken drugs! How does someone so teetotal know about this stuff? Listen mate; you seem to assume that every dealer is some sort of criminal overlord in the making. Alas, you're wrong. Many of them are suburban types looking to make a little extra cash. As there are so many of them, it is in their best interests to provide decent gear. That said, I agree up to a point about trusting the source of the drug. Which is why the point was made about free testing, which negates your point. Do you see?
I note as well that you're still trying the "I'm right, and if anyone says different then they're wrong!" approach. A shame, as you make some good assertions here yet fail to back them up with any evidence beyond "This is what I think".
>
> Alcohol. The biggest killer of any of the most common available
> drugs.
> Responsible for more crime and crime than all of the other drugs put
> together.
>
> But what kinds of crime ? And how much committed goes on file anyway ?
> Alcohol related crime is more obvious - drunken brawls e.t.c whereas
> drug users / dealers related crime often goes unreported or there is
> no willingness to report it. Say one user jumps another for their
> gear, he/she cannot report that.
I can tell you right now that, as a fairly regular dope smoker, occasional E, speed and charlie user, I have NEVER jumped someone for their gear. Nor have any of my friends. And nor have any of us committed a crime (apart, of course, from possession) whilst under the influence of drugs other than alcohol. As to the crime; well, happily I used to be a solicitor and so I take great pleasure in pointing out to you that well over 3/4 of ALL criminal cases I dealt with (be they assault, criminal damage, GBH, ABH, theft, robbery, domestic battery...you get the idea I'm sure) were as a result of drunkenness. The only crimes I dealt with in relation to dope and E were possession. Heroin was a different matter; there was an awful lot of theives who were on smack. Also, dealers involved with heroin were an altogether nastier and more profit driven bunch.
Sad to say that your assertion that drug related crime goes unreported is, at best, pure conjecture. Of course, if you can provide me with any stats to back it up then I'm all ears.
>
>
> Drug use does kill, because it leads to abuse. If you need drugs to
> get pleasure or see clearly or whatever sad excuse people can think of
> then it's time to get a life - and before anyone shouts alcohol or
> cigarettes I use neither.
Teetotal eh? Well good for you. Of course, that means all your opinions concerning drugs can safely be given the same weight that I give the Pope when he talks about contraception.
You say drug use leads to abuse; always? In some cases (perhaps even many cases) it does. I am saying give people the freedom of choice to find out.
Oh, and thanks for the laugh; the idea of a man who's biggest daily challenge is to stop kids shoplifting the pick n mix telling people that they need to get lives is somewhere beyond the far rim of hilarious.
That said, Happy New Year. I hope that you'll learn to start fighting your corner without resorting to schoolyard abuse and ill founded assertions of superiority. I recall I was about 17 before I learnt to do the same, so with any luck you too will grow up and place a value on your life beyond "Hey, I can insult people! Aren't I great!"
mothballed wrote:
> Marijuana may be very harmful after prolonged use.
Understatement of the year eh ?
> Ecstasy is fairly safe. Priority is to make sure you know where it
> came from.
Because your supplier really does want to give you high grade (less profit for them) stuff ? You cannot trust the source of this drug no matter what anyone says, even if someone has some from the same batch.
> Alcohol. The biggest killer of any of the most common available drugs.
> Responsible for more crime and crime than all of the other drugs put
> together.
But what kinds of crime ? And how much committed goes on file anyway ? Alcohol related crime is more obvious - drunken brawls e.t.c whereas drug users / dealers related crime often goes unreported or there is no willingness to report it. Say one user jumps another for their gear, he/she cannot report that.
> Drug use doesn't kill people. Drug abuse does.
Drug use does kill, because it leads to abuse. If you need drugs to get pleasure or see clearly or whatever sad excuse people can think of then it's time to get a life - and before anyone shouts alcohol or cigarettes I use neither.
> Marijuana may be very harmful after prolonged use.
Understatement of the year eh ?
> Ecstasy is fairly safe. Priority is to make sure you know where it
> came from.
Because your supplier really does want to give you high grade (less profit for them) stuff ? You cannot trust the source of this drug no matter what anyone says, even if someone has some from the same batch.
> Alcohol. The biggest killer of any of the most common available drugs.
> Responsible for more crime and crime than all of the other drugs put
> together.
But what kinds of crime ? And how much committed goes on file anyway ? Alcohol related crime is more obvious - drunken brawls e.t.c whereas drug users / dealers related crime often goes unreported or there is no willingness to report it. Say one user jumps another for their gear, he/she cannot report that.
> Drug use doesn't kill people. Drug abuse does.
Drug use does kill, because it leads to abuse. If you need drugs to get pleasure or see clearly or whatever sad excuse people can think of then it's time to get a life - and before anyone shouts alcohol or cigarettes I use neither.
Marijuana is not addictive.
Anyone who tries to compare the smoking of weed to alcoholism is either very naive or totally blind to reality.
Marijuana may be very harmful after prolonged use. Recent studies have shown that lung damage is far worse in cannabis smokers as opposed to regular smokers, and that long term use may be responsible for the worrying increase in mental health problems in the population.
LSD has been proven to trigger Schizophrenia but only in those individuals who had the genetic propensity to develop it in the first place. It has it's place but steer clear if you have any worries in your life whatsoever. It will magnify them and bum you out big time.
Ecstasy is fairly safe. Priority is to make sure you know where it came from. It is also better is you know someone who has had one from the same batch. The main danger is what the MDMA has been cut with. Free purity testing in clubs would be a very good thing. Long term effects are still unknown. From my own experience I have known someone who's face went green and blotchy for 2 weeks, someone who collapsed after drinking too much water to prevent over heating and someone who's Alevel grades got far better around the time he started using E regularly - he did, however, lose touch with reality and couldn't stop his mouth from involuntary spasms.
Cocaine. Not addictive with non regular use. I have found that leaving a month or so between usage negates the addictive qualities of coke. Obviously, any regular use leads to all consuming addiction - see Westbrook septum photo!!
Speed. In my experience (and i seem to remmember - backed up by doctors) actually the most harmful of any of the most common drugs. Causing mental problems, kidney and liver damage, ulcers, etc etc.
Heroin. No personal experience. Have known people who have tried it and loved it but never got addicted. Impurity & accidental overdose are most common causes of illness & mortality.
Alcohol. The biggest killer of any of the most common available drugs. Responsible for more crime and crime than all of the other drugs put together.
Drug use doesn't kill people. Drug abuse does.
Anyone who tries to compare the smoking of weed to alcoholism is either very naive or totally blind to reality.
Marijuana may be very harmful after prolonged use. Recent studies have shown that lung damage is far worse in cannabis smokers as opposed to regular smokers, and that long term use may be responsible for the worrying increase in mental health problems in the population.
LSD has been proven to trigger Schizophrenia but only in those individuals who had the genetic propensity to develop it in the first place. It has it's place but steer clear if you have any worries in your life whatsoever. It will magnify them and bum you out big time.
Ecstasy is fairly safe. Priority is to make sure you know where it came from. It is also better is you know someone who has had one from the same batch. The main danger is what the MDMA has been cut with. Free purity testing in clubs would be a very good thing. Long term effects are still unknown. From my own experience I have known someone who's face went green and blotchy for 2 weeks, someone who collapsed after drinking too much water to prevent over heating and someone who's Alevel grades got far better around the time he started using E regularly - he did, however, lose touch with reality and couldn't stop his mouth from involuntary spasms.
Cocaine. Not addictive with non regular use. I have found that leaving a month or so between usage negates the addictive qualities of coke. Obviously, any regular use leads to all consuming addiction - see Westbrook septum photo!!
Speed. In my experience (and i seem to remmember - backed up by doctors) actually the most harmful of any of the most common drugs. Causing mental problems, kidney and liver damage, ulcers, etc etc.
Heroin. No personal experience. Have known people who have tried it and loved it but never got addicted. Impurity & accidental overdose are most common causes of illness & mortality.
Alcohol. The biggest killer of any of the most common available drugs. Responsible for more crime and crime than all of the other drugs put together.
Drug use doesn't kill people. Drug abuse does.
Dr Giblets wrote:
> The law is not always right.
nor are you
> The law is not always right.
nor are you
To be blunt, I find the opinions of Stardust and Vice pretty blind and far too extreme. Keep an open mind people!!! I'm not saying that drugs are good, but you're talking about them like everyone who goes near them is pure evil! Just chill, guys....have a reefer.....
It's very easy to get drugs anyhow, and if they were legalized then the only difference would be the quality and the price, which may if anything help with the use of pills and the like, as they're would be no risk of getting a bad pill, which are what cause many drug-related deaths anyhow.
Get out more....... :P
It's very easy to get drugs anyhow, and if they were legalized then the only difference would be the quality and the price, which may if anything help with the use of pills and the like, as they're would be no risk of getting a bad pill, which are what cause many drug-related deaths anyhow.
Get out more....... :P
Page: