permalink for this thread : http://search.catflaporama.com/post/browse/805124
Beau Posted on 18/11/2008 14:48
Drugs: Whats your stance?

Legalise? Which ones? Punishments to people who take them fair or not?

onan Posted on 18/11/2008 14:50
Drugs: Whats your stance?

make alcohol and tobacco illegal

kills far too many

Not_Smog Posted on 18/11/2008 14:51
Drugs: Whats your stance?

Legalize the whole lot, tax them, use the money to educate.

What right a government has to tell you what you can or can't put in your own body is beyond me.

smogmeister Posted on 18/11/2008 14:53
Drugs: Whats your stance?

let them take what they want, when they want, BUT don't ask for help if it goes wrong!!

ferencpuskas Posted on 18/11/2008 14:54
Drugs: Whats your stance?

What people often forget is that taking drugs is actually bloody good fun.

rivals_oldschool Posted on 18/11/2008 14:58
Drugs: Whats your stance?

"What right a government has to tell you what you can or can't put in your own body is beyond me".

Your own ignorance.

Just the small problem that by granting people the right to take whatever drug they want, it would completely undermine the medical profession.

What reason does anybody have to listen to their doctors advice/drug companies advice if people could legally inject themselves with Ketamin just for recreational use.

kestrelboro Posted on 18/11/2008 14:59
Drugs: Whats your stance?

Have centers where Heroin addicts can go and get off there tits with CLEAN needles, keep it off the streets, Sell E's over the bar, joints inside Fag machines.

Everyone get F*****

Piggy Posted on 18/11/2008 15:00
Drugs: Whats your stance?

Feet wide apart, firmly planted is best.

You dont want to slip when leaning over the cistern.

Beau Posted on 18/11/2008 15:02
Drugs: Whats your stance?

If we let everyone take what they want though surely the whole economy would come to a stand still, would it not?

Genghis_Khan Posted on 18/11/2008 15:05
Drugs: Whats your stance?

Outlaw all red-headed ex communists from Normanby from taking drugs!

onan Posted on 18/11/2008 15:06
Drugs: Whats your stance?

"we let everyone take what they want though surely the whole economy would come to a stand still, would it not?"




a common misconception

ferencpuskas Posted on 18/11/2008 15:06
Drugs: Whats your stance?

[:)]

Beau Posted on 18/11/2008 15:07
Drugs: Whats your stance?

Explain this misconception onan?

Big_Shot Posted on 18/11/2008 15:10
Drugs: Whats your stance?

ferencpuskas actually makes a really good point. All these people getting off their tits on whatever on a Saturday are doing so because they really enjoy it. Thats the main reason why the powers thst be will never stop drug use. People like it.

Not_Smog Posted on 18/11/2008 15:12
Drugs: Whats your stance?

"Just the small problem that by granting people the right to take whatever drug they want, it would completely undermine the medical profession.

What reason does anybody have to listen to their doctors advice/drug companies advice if people could legally inject themselves with Ketamin just for recreational use."

What a load of uneducated tosh.

Why would you listen to your doctor? Maybe for the good of your health?

Duh?!

Beau Posted on 18/11/2008 15:13
Drugs: Whats your stance?

Yes like drinking and prohibition in the States. So is it better off just to let everyone get on with it and hope that they have the responsability to know when they have had enough? This does not happen with drinking though does it so why would it be different with drugs?

rivals_oldschool Posted on 18/11/2008 15:16
Drugs: Whats your stance?

Thats right, when I see smack heads and addicts what always knocks me back is how healthy they all look.

Clearly they listen to their doctors advice.

north_east_invader Posted on 18/11/2008 15:19
Drugs: Whats your stance?

Oooh, Ooooh, I know this one.

I'll accept happily and without argument that the medical profession shouldn't help out with anyone that has taken drugs (and I include drink and cigs with that) ... if the same applies to any other thing that puts someones life at risk that isn't necessary or stupid ... where do we draw the line ? When is it acceptable for the NHS to fork out on self inflicted problems and when is it not ...

* Drugs (which ones)
* Drink
* Cigs
* Skydiving
* Diving
* Hill climbing
* Boating out at sea
* running across a dual carriageway
* Speeding in your car
* Going out, looking for, and getting into a fight

Just as some examples

mm40 Posted on 18/11/2008 15:22
Drugs: Whats your stance?

"What people often forget is that taking drugs is actually bloody good fun".written for idiots by an idiot


Old_Gregg Posted on 18/11/2008 15:22
Drugs: Whats your stance?

The argument that everyone would be in a constant drug stupor if they were legalised is clearly nonsense. Clearly, if anyone wants to get drugs as it stands, it isn't particularly difficult, and many people do get in states on a weekend, but still hold down jobs.

As far as I can see, the only argument against legalising drugs is that it would be basically saying "drugs are OK" which is not a great message to send out. I have taken drugs before (and still do very occasionally), and had a bloody good time. But I wouldn't encourage anyone to take them, people have to make their own mind up, and legalisation would possibly be an encouragement to people to try them out.

made-in-uk Posted on 18/11/2008 15:24
Drugs: Whats your stance?

mm40 - have you ever taken any drugs?

stevieh Posted on 18/11/2008 15:25
Drugs: Whats your stance?

Spot on Old Gregg.

rivals_oldschool Posted on 18/11/2008 15:25
Drugs: Whats your stance?

The difference is you can get training or require a license to Skydive, sail a boat, drive a car, scale a cliff.

Not with standing mindless stupidity exactly which PhD do you have for drug prescription?

Which medical university did you go to to prescribe yourself drugs and understand what you are doing?

Don_the_Jeweller Posted on 18/11/2008 15:26
Drugs: Whats your stance?

My stance is get em in to ya !!

Beau Posted on 18/11/2008 15:26
Drugs: Whats your stance?

Good point Old_Gregg. So what would be legalised and what shouldnt be then?

mm40 Posted on 18/11/2008 15:27
Drugs: Whats your stance?

yes and I remember what a fool I was, after having seem the damage first hand and peoples lives ruined I realise its only mugs who take them.

junkyard_angel Posted on 18/11/2008 15:28
Drugs: Whats your stance?

It is beyond doubt that prohibition is the cause of the massive problems we have now, regarding drugs and drug related crime.

Pharmecutical grade Heroin should be prescribed to registered addicts, and this way they will regain their health and the strength to decide when they want to stop. This should come with the proviso that they join, and keep regular contact with a rehabilitation centre, where they can build up a relationship with a drug worker. In this way, when they do decide to go clean everything is in place for them to do so.

E and cannabis should be sold over the counter so that buyers know what strengh and quality of product they are buying.

north_east_invader Posted on 18/11/2008 15:29
Drugs: Whats your stance?

Rivals (here we are again :)) - it doesn't stop people going hill climbing without the right kit, or in the wrong conditions though, but we still spend £££ looking for them and caring for them. You definitely can't get a licence for "how to run across a motorway" or "driving in a reckless mannor".

Self medicating is not new, and (for anything outside of a prescription) happens every day in every towm/city. The label says I take 2 paracetamol up to 4 times a day, I can go with that - I could always take 20 and see what happens - should I get medical treatment ?

made-in-uk Posted on 18/11/2008 15:30
Drugs: Whats your stance?

Fair enough then. I suppose it depends on what drugs. Ive never had a bad time smoking weed and the odd E.

Ive had far worse times drinking.

Not_Smog Posted on 18/11/2008 15:32
Drugs: Whats your stance?

Education rather then ignorance is the key.

If people were educated properly about drugs then i doubt so many people would get into trouble abusing them.

mm40 Posted on 18/11/2008 15:35
Drugs: Whats your stance?

yes the problem is it starts with a bit of smoke and E, then you progress to taking it more regular and then someone offers you something a bit stronger. Not trying to preach to you but tbh my advice to anyone is stay well clear.

Old_Gregg Posted on 18/11/2008 15:37
Drugs: Whats your stance?

People constantly say the NHS shouldn't treat drug induced casualties because it's "their own fault". Clearly the NHS spends a hell of a lot more money on treating alcohol and tobacco based injuries than drug injuries. Taxes on legalised drugs would more than cover any additional work for hospitals, and probably leave a huge surplus too.

Having said that, I'm still on the fence regarding legalisation for the reasons I've said above. I think drugs that have been proven to be less harmful than already legal tobacco and alcohol (for example Ecstacy, Speed, Cannabis, Acid) should be legalised but I'm not sure about other harder drugs.

The advantage of legalising would be being able to monitor at-risk groups, such as people with mental health issues that can be aggravated by psychedelic drugs like Acid or Cannabis.

rivals_oldschool Posted on 18/11/2008 15:39
Drugs: Whats your stance?

because they're acts of stupidity. Are those the best examples you have to legalise drugs, because people also speed in cars and kill themselves?

north_east_invader Posted on 18/11/2008 15:40
Drugs: Whats your stance?

Gregg - I can't disagree with anything you say. I don't pretent to have all the answers, I am not even saying I think legalisation solves all problems.

What I do believe is that the way things are and the way it is tackled is the cause of the vast majority of the "drug related" problems that society face and it is this method and not the drugs themselves that are to blame.

What is required is a completely different approach. Look throughout history, prohibition does not work.

stevieh Posted on 18/11/2008 15:41
Drugs: Whats your stance?

In my experience, people generally do what they want whether it is legal or not - and I'm not just talking about drugs. For example, it is illegal to carry a knife let alone stab someone with it. It is also illegal to drive beyond a certain speed limit, or under the influence of alcohol. Yet every week the are stories of people being killed as a result of knife crime, assault, or dangerous driving. All illegal activities - yet all still being carried out on a regular basis.

I see hardly any stories about drug related fatalities, despite reports suggesting a few hundred thousand people take recreational drugs every weekend. They are doing it despite its illegality.

As for the argument that we would all do drugs if they were legal, well I did them anyway for 10 years but haven't done any for at least 5 years and have no intention using them again. I guess you could say I grew out of it with age, which I think is a fairly common occurence.

junkyard_angel Posted on 18/11/2008 15:41
Drugs: Whats your stance?

Old Greg, clinical grade heroin is less damaging than alcohol. It is all the crap that is cut with heroin that causes the problems. You could spend years working with somebody on clean heroin and you would never know.

north_east_invader Posted on 18/11/2008 15:44
Drugs: Whats your stance?

No rivals, not at all. Your argument is that they should not be legalised because they would burden the NHS. I am saying the NHS is burdened by stupid people all the time that cost a fortune, but it doesn't stop us doing it, or (for the main) have people suggesting that care should be withdrawn (aside from maybe the occasional anti smoking one).

All I am saying that prohibition doesn't work and I am saying that taxation would cover the cost of any care - unlike any of my other examples.

If you read my arguments I do not say that I have all the answers, I don't say that legalisation is the answer, or some magic bullet.

My simple, single argment is that the current system does not work and it will continue to not work.

Old_Gregg Posted on 18/11/2008 15:45
Drugs: Whats your stance?

"yes the problem is it starts with a bit of smoke and E, then you progress to taking it more regular and then someone offers you something a bit stronger"

That's a very simplistic view of looking at it. Does everyone who tries alcohol become an alcoholic?

rivals_oldschool Posted on 18/11/2008 15:49
Drugs: Whats your stance?

My argument is that we're expected to pick up the pieces so selfish people can legally 'dabble' in stuff they don't know about and the best argument you all have is to justify drug use because we're already burdoned by other vices.

Thats not a justification.

It's called self control. I'd like to buy a motor bike and steam down the motorway at 120 MPH, depsite the fact I don't have a license to do it.


mm40 Posted on 18/11/2008 15:51
Drugs: Whats your stance?

old gregg - the botton line is this when I walk into a pub and ask for a pint of lager that is what you get, when you buy drugs you might end up with something that may well kill you. Dealers mix drugs with all kinds of stuff to make more money, do you think they care about the end user? a pint wont kill me but a dodgy E might just.

Old_Gregg Posted on 18/11/2008 15:52
Drugs: Whats your stance?

That's the point mate, legalising drugs would remove the risk of dodgy pills as they would be manufactured to strict pharmaceutical guidelines, just like medicines.

Old_Gregg Posted on 18/11/2008 15:55
Drugs: Whats your stance?

Rivals - do you then believe that joyriders should not be treated for injuries sustained while stealing cars?

Or how about a burglar who falls out of a window while robbing a house?

rivals_oldschool Posted on 18/11/2008 15:56
Drugs: Whats your stance?

Recreational drug use and safe doesnít really go hand in hand though does it.

It's not like your taking medicine for a virus.

north_east_invader Posted on 18/11/2008 15:57
Drugs: Whats your stance?

See this is the point Gregg and one I try to make all the time that rivals either doesn't see, or ignores whenever we have this conversation.

* There is no control over what you buy from a dealer or what is in it. This is responsible for a lot of problems, not the actual drug itself.
* Drug related crime exists because criminals are in control of drugs
* Police time is used up enforcing the failing policy of prohibition where that money could be put into education, health care, rehabilitation, benefits, hell even better policing :)
* Taxation raised by proper control would take money out of the hands of the criminals and put it back into government

Our own policy is the direct cause of most (if not all, but I would say most) of our drug related problems and crimes. This is the central problem, and not the drugs themselves.

onan Posted on 18/11/2008 15:58
Drugs: Whats your stance?

"It's not like your taking medicine for a virus."



yes it is, it's street medicine for the civilization virus, man!

Old_Gregg Posted on 18/11/2008 15:59
Drugs: Whats your stance?

"Recreational drug use and safe doesnít really go hand in hand though does it."

It would if the drugs were legal, and professionally produced.

Did you know that if you give someone (who has never tried either before) a peanut and an Ecstacy pill, they are 16 times more likely to die from the peanut. And this is referring to current pills, the odds would be even lower if they were clinically produced with no impurities.

rivals_oldschool Posted on 18/11/2008 16:00
Drugs: Whats your stance?

Is that what your comparing yourself to, a burglar?

Beau Posted on 18/11/2008 16:03
Drugs: Whats your stance?

I like the thought that if they were legalised then you wouldnt get these idiots driving around in Range Rover sports and BMW x5's. Thats the reason I would legalise them for get rid of those T***s who think they are smarter than you because they deal a bit of sniff here and there.

rivals_oldschool Posted on 18/11/2008 16:05
Drugs: Whats your stance?

But medicine is given out by professionals for a reason.

What is your professionalism in drugs apart from the internet where you can find interesting anecdotes about peanuts?

offside-again Posted on 18/11/2008 16:06
Drugs: Whats your stance?

Legalise Marijuana, decriminalise the rest, also people who drink and then slag off people who take 'drugs' are bellends of the highest order.

junkyard_angel Posted on 18/11/2008 16:11
Drugs: Whats your stance?

rivals, you don't need expertese to take cannabis or E, and if heroin were prescribed it would be by an expert.

The criminals who distribute heroin and coke right now are no experts but do have a good reason to increase their customer base.

north_east_invader Posted on 18/11/2008 16:11
Drugs: Whats your stance?

rivals - you clearly have some particular issue or mental block around "medication". Whether thats the way you were bought up, or something in your life has led you to think this way, I am not sure, and I don't mind. Hell for all we know you're sat there with a massive spliff and laughing as you troll (:)). You are certainly entitled to your opinion regardless.

It is very clear and understood (and tested) what will happen if someone takes x mg of MDMA, what doseage levels are, what happens and what you should do. Just as there are for anything you can buy over the counter ... it really is no different, even if you can't see that.

The problem exists because you don't know what you're buying, therefore doesages are different, purities are different etc.

I know we will not agree, but you cannot agree that the current system works, surely, and if you do think it does - I would love to know why.

rivals_oldschool Posted on 18/11/2008 16:21
Drugs: Whats your stance?

You still donít get it.
Look up the reasons why drug prescription is given to professionals and youíll understand why giving people control because of recreational use completely undermines that reason. It doesnít matter what drug it is.

Iíve never heard such bollox that recreational users would take recreational drugs in a safe manner. What fu*king Bollox.

north_east_invader Posted on 18/11/2008 16:28
Drugs: Whats your stance?

rivals - do I need to be a doctor or medical professional to take an over the counter pain killer, a decongestant ? rub various creams on things ? an antihisthamine ? no. People have done the development and the research and determined (given the restricitons on the packet) that it is okay. Does it stop someone over medicating though ? no, people still do this all the time.

Would I need to be a doctor or a medical professional to make a diagnosis of an illness and select an appropriate medication to combat it ? yes.

Taking a recreational drug is more analogous to the 1st point than the second, whether you agree with the point or not, it still is.

I could argue the same, you still don't get it. I also note you still haven't answered my main question.

mm40 Posted on 18/11/2008 16:32
Drugs: Whats your stance?

why not tackle the issue why people need to take drugs in the first place rather than legalise them? would save a whole lot of bother.

junkyard_angel Posted on 18/11/2008 16:33
Drugs: Whats your stance?

rivals, it is you who 'don't get it.' The vast majority of recreational drug users are quite capable of taking drugs in a safe manner. I smoked my first cannabis joint in 1974 and my last one (so far) on Sunday evening. I have never been in any danger.

However, the recreational drug trade has been handed over to gangsters who actively seek new customers and would happily get our sons and daughters into prostitution in order to pay for their drugs. Is this preferable to the alternative of a doctor prescribing pure clean heroin to existing addicts?

red_shamrock Posted on 18/11/2008 16:34
Drugs: Whats your stance?

When I watched someone who was once a happy normal person change beyond recognition and eventually die from class A drugs it tended to change my stance.

Some people cannot function without Drugs or alcohol fact of life these days.

Dealers are S*** on your shoes.

rivals_oldschool Posted on 18/11/2008 16:47
Drugs: Whats your stance?

Probably because over the counter medicine is not comparable for starters.

You can't give free hand to a practise that requires professionalism without undermining that professionalism, just for the reason of fun.

Like it or lump it. If you had self control you'd do something else or refrain from it, like I refrain from things I'd like to do.
Grow up for gods sake.

junkyard_angel Posted on 18/11/2008 16:52
Drugs: Whats your stance?

Do you restrain from alcohol?

rivals_oldschool Posted on 18/11/2008 16:57
Drugs: Whats your stance?

No.

junkyard_angel Posted on 18/11/2008 16:58
Drugs: Whats your stance?

Why not?

rivals_oldschool Posted on 18/11/2008 16:59
Drugs: Whats your stance?

It's legal.

red_shamrock Posted on 18/11/2008 17:00
Drugs: Whats your stance?

Maybe because its legal and he drinks moderately .

Beau Posted on 18/11/2008 17:01
Drugs: Whats your stance?

The parents of you on here who have taken drugs in the past, how would you feel and what would you do if your son/daughter was taking drugs? I asked my mate this and he said he would kick off even tough we have been going out nearly every weekend for the past 4 years doing different drugs. Is he hypocritical?

junkyard_angel Posted on 18/11/2008 17:01
Drugs: Whats your stance?

So legality is the answer for dangerous drugs?

red_shamrock Posted on 18/11/2008 17:01
Drugs: Whats your stance?

If hes still doing it yes.

rivals_oldschool Posted on 18/11/2008 17:03
Drugs: Whats your stance?

No it isn't. Comparing one dangerous drug to another isn't reason to add more.


red_shamrock Posted on 18/11/2008 17:06
Drugs: Whats your stance?

Drugs are not a new thing been around for a long enough time to for some of drugs to be deemed a danger and personality changing .

All drugs cant be catogorised the same as you know some are pure evil.
Cocaine- Crack Cocaine- Heroine- Crystal Meth.

junkyard_angel Posted on 18/11/2008 17:12
Drugs: Whats your stance?

rivals, are you aware that the government's own advisory council have stated that both E and cannabis should be catagory 'C' drugs but that alcohol (if it was included) would be be Catagory 'A'

You ask, "why add more substances?"
You could look at it from another angle and ask "why not offer people a safer alternative to alcohol?"

ChainMaryandJesus Posted on 18/11/2008 17:12
Drugs: Whats your stance?

People have been taking recreational drugs since we climbed down out of the trees and despite what some people think they will carry on taking them.

Criminalising people for taking an E or smoking some skunk is just plain stupid and just clogs up the legal system, deprives people of job opportunities and encourages gangsters and organised crime.

Socially and economically it is far better to legalise and tax most of them. Crime goes down and people know what they are taking. The examples of Holland, Spain and I think Italy show that decimalising certain drugs does not cause the downfall of civilisation!

junkyard_angel Posted on 18/11/2008 17:14
Drugs: Whats your stance?

Chain, Switzerland has witnessed a 90% reduction in heroin use. That is massive.

rivals_oldschool Posted on 18/11/2008 17:23
Drugs: Whats your stance?

Alcohol has been cemented into our culture since before Roman times.

Giving way on more drugs is a slippery slope.

Darw a line and take up golf or soemthing instead.

Corcaigh_the_Cat Posted on 18/11/2008 17:23
Drugs: Whats your stance?

Legalise. Watch the price dip. The pushers will be gone and the addicts can get their fix cheaply without affecting the rest of society.

Incidentally, for whoever said that the whole economy would come to a standstill. Wasn't the same lame argument used for restricting pub opening hours?

ChainMaryandJesus Posted on 18/11/2008 17:23
Drugs: Whats your stance?

Yeh I heard you used to be able to buy almost anything over the counter at a pharmacist in Switzerland, not sure what the laws are now though.

And yes the Swiss are great examples of moral decay, economic disaster and the end of civilisation.

Beau Posted on 18/11/2008 17:23
Drugs: Whats your stance?

I agree that it would be better knowing whats going in to your body than just trusting a criminal with it. Drugs behind the counter would work in my opinion.

atkingson Posted on 18/11/2008 17:24
Drugs: Whats your stance?

i take roids all the time,there no big deal.

smoggy_jay Posted on 18/11/2008 17:27
Drugs: Whats your stance?

nobody has EVER died from cannabis use. fact.

junkyard_angel Posted on 18/11/2008 17:30
Drugs: Whats your stance?

rivals, I have concluded that you have absolutely no argument. You just speak in platitudes.

red_shamrock Posted on 18/11/2008 17:31
Drugs: Whats your stance?

linky


Link: linky

boro_millwall Posted on 18/11/2008 17:34
Drugs: Whats your stance?

a bit unsteady after too many

ChainMaryandJesus Posted on 18/11/2008 17:36
Drugs: Whats your stance?

I took Ayawaska in the rain forest with a Shaman, didnít see God but I sure found out why all those Inca drawings have bright jagged lines around everything and I can certainly understand why the indigenous populations of those regions take it to decide on important matters. (Hint think of a thousand Psilocybin mushrooms).

Rupert Posted on 18/11/2008 17:42
Drugs: Whats your stance?

12 year it took me to get off heroin

Beau Posted on 18/11/2008 17:54
Drugs: Whats your stance?

Psychidelic drugs are fine, are they not?

red_shamrock Posted on 18/11/2008 17:56
Drugs: Whats your stance?

Well Rupert if thats true it gladdens my heart, worth the kicking... the turkey..the aching Bones the Vomiting.

12 years is a long time you must be a different person now.

junkyard_angel Posted on 18/11/2008 17:56
Drugs: Whats your stance?

shamrock, that report is actually from a pro cannabis site.
The Berkley Foundation, which will report to the Government in the new year has stated that there have only ever been two deaths linked to cannabis. Considering that cannabis use can be traced back about 12,000 years, that is pretty good.

Now what are the statistics for save, regulated and legal alcohol?

red_shamrock Posted on 18/11/2008 17:59
Drugs: Whats your stance?

I have no beef with anybody who smokes blow and booze is worse no doubts.
Wish Id never replied to this thread ..sorry Junkyard.

Some stuff decimates people and their families.

ccole Posted on 18/11/2008 18:01
Drugs: Whats your stance?

I often go to spend time in Holland with the wifeís mate and her Dutch husband who live over there. All the times I have been over and out on the town with them, I have never had cannabis, or seen many people smoking a spliff. Same with Portugal where I also believe cannabis is legal.

All that changes when travelling to Amsterdam with other British mates.

The laws are clearly not working with hard drugs. The reality is, you can get most drugs, in most town centres if you ask/know enough people. Think about the police and government resorses that are spent chasing this endless, drug free state dream.

For me the answer would be to regulate the sale of such stuff. Over night you would destroy a sub culture. Dealers would be out of work, and those people who are addicted would be a lot healthier because our the pureness of the products they buy.

You could also argue that the associated crime would fall massively also as the stuff available would much finer quality so they wouldnít have to steal and spend as much to get the desired high.

Will it work? Who knows, but the current situation isnít, so why not try something new instead of flogging a dead horse.

ChainMaryandJesus Posted on 18/11/2008 18:05
Drugs: Whats your stance?

Hi Beau, psychedelic substances affect how your brain synapses work, causing them to fire relatively randomly. If you are unlucky they can cause serious mental problems, flashbacks, paranoia. They are safer and less addictive than nicotine butÖ.


north_east_invader Posted on 18/11/2008 18:10
Drugs: Whats your stance?

See ccole, and others this is the argument I consistently make, but that rivals ignores every single time.

Rivals - I ask again, would you say that the current system of prohibition works, and if you would, please back up your argument.

As for "Like it or lump it. If you had self control you'd do something else or refrain from it, like I refrain from things I'd like to do. Grow up for gods sake."

Trolling of the highest order. I am more than happy to have a reasoned argument with anyone, I am even happy to accept that other people have differing opinions of my own, but if law and national policy is designed with cast iron arguments like that, then it is a shining example of why a lot of things are going wrong with this country.

Beau Posted on 18/11/2008 18:12
Drugs: Whats your stance?

Well I like a good psychedelic drug every now and then and like you say they are not as addictive. I have not had any flash backs or anything, any one else?

ccole Posted on 18/11/2008 18:14
Drugs: Whats your stance?

I am sure many on here know where they can go and get drugs if they wanted them.

I guess many dont. Is that because it is against the law, or because they dont want to?

junkyard_angel Posted on 18/11/2008 18:15
Drugs: Whats your stance?

What is E like if you are stopping in? Can it be used in that way?

ferencpuskas Posted on 18/11/2008 18:21
Drugs: Whats your stance?

'What is E like if you are stopping in? Can it be used in that way?'

Plenty of mates, plenty of booze, loud tunes and a few grams of ket and you're sorted.

junkyard_angel Posted on 18/11/2008 18:27
Drugs: Whats your stance?

I didn't mean by turning your house into a club[:)]

What is it like for a quiet night in?

rivals_oldschool Posted on 18/11/2008 18:32
Drugs: Whats your stance?

As much as you argue it, you don't have the right to do anything you want with your body. Your rights and your body don't exist in a vacuum.
For example babies can be born addicted to cocaine due to a mothers use. Where was the babies choice in this case, which leads on to my other point on why we have professionals in this practise.

It would be unworkable for professionals to regulate and prohibit the drug market because of side effects and then allow people to take cocaine with known dangerous side affects? What about people who want diet pills with dangerous side affects or untested drugs for body enhancement?

You canít give the choice to f*kwits like yourselves in what drugs you think you can have or not. It's unworkable.

You donít have that choice.

Stop being selfish. And if you want less crime, stop buying them.

ChainMaryandJesus Posted on 18/11/2008 18:32
Drugs: Whats your stance?

Hi Beau, I had a friend at Uni and we both took about 100 mushrooms, he spent the time in a dark room listening to Joy Division (not a good choice!) and I communed with the trees, flowers and my very amused mates. He had scratches all over his body as he wanted to make sure he was still alive and was a changed person from that day. I was fine I had a great time and every half decade I seem to take a psychedelic substance, with relatively few side affects accept for dementia, Alzheimerís and a few undiagnosed mental problems [:)]

north_east_invader Posted on 18/11/2008 18:36
Drugs: Whats your stance?

Rivals - I ask again, and again ...

Do you believe that the current system of prohibition is working. If you do, please back up your argument.

Rod100 Posted on 18/11/2008 18:37
Drugs: Whats your stance?

well documented that queen vic used to smoke pot to help with her period pains; once it became readily available to us proles it got outlawed.

Beau Posted on 18/11/2008 18:41
Drugs: Whats your stance?

Jesus, sounds spot on that! I have to say Joy Division are immense but not when dabbling with mushrooms! I ve been taking a bit of acid lately and really enjoying it, some people do take it differently to others mind you. I make sure that I am safe from having to go to work, know I have somewhere to crash and I am with really good mates who will look after me no matter what. Then sit back, relax and let the good times roll.

north_east_invader Posted on 18/11/2008 18:42
Drugs: Whats your stance?

Rod, its been part of our society almost since society began (relatively speaking of course). Unfortunately Rivals' username (oldschool) probably explains the blinkered and bury the head in the sand viewpoint that (in my opinion) is directly responsible for the legislation that has resulted in the out of control situation we have today.

Rod100 Posted on 18/11/2008 18:45
Drugs: Whats your stance?

i know - druids etc have used it in one form or another for many a year. i was trying to bring in a realtively moden example of its use and subsequent banning.

social use is perfectly acceptable IMO. when it starts affecting their lives and becomes their life that is the problem. much in the same way as addiction to alcohol and nicotine really.

rivals_oldschool Posted on 18/11/2008 18:46
Drugs: Whats your stance?

There isn't another choice north_east_invader, whether it works or not.

You donít have the right, even from popular demand, to dictate what drugs you want or not.

susy Posted on 18/11/2008 18:50
Drugs: Whats your stance?

Old_Gregg wrote:

"Did you know that if you give someone (who has never tried either before) a peanut and an Ecstacy pill, they are 16 times more likely to die from the peanut."

That isnt technically correct, unless you are talking about choking to death. You can only die of a peanut allergy if you have previously been exposed to peanuts before and for such a dramatic reaction to occur you will most likely have had some reaction before which would give you a clue to not eat a peanut. You might however eat something with peanut in it and that might kill someone, but never on there first time of being exposed.

north_east_invader Posted on 18/11/2008 18:54
Drugs: Whats your stance?

So, we agree that it doesn't work ? I notice you still won't answer the question.

You would keep things the same ? You would see lives continue to be wrecked, see criminals getting more and more money and becoming more and more powerful and have these being the people that control the market and sell to our children ?

I wouldn't. What I would like is an open debate on how the problem could be dealt with better, because I believe it could be dealt with better. Unfortunately to have this debate, people have to accept and be willing to discuss alternatives outside of prohibition. Like it or not, you're not going to stop it, and you cannot argue that it is controlled right now, its out of control - and that is what prohibition does.


junkyard_angel Posted on 18/11/2008 19:03
Drugs: Whats your stance?

rivals, your choice of drug is addictive, dangerous and legal.
My choice is probably the safest active ingredient in the world, and illegal.

You want to keep it that way and you call me selfish?

red_shamrock Posted on 18/11/2008 19:03
Drugs: Whats your stance?

Well the politicians have to be involved as we cannot take matters into our own hands.
How to you deal with trafficers and dealers
With users and abusers

Its the main reason for our crime nowadays we do need it sorting.

rivals_oldschool Posted on 18/11/2008 19:04
Drugs: Whats your stance?

I see you neither acknowledge my point, because your selfish.

Youíll moan about the consequences but wonít stop contributing you selfish g*t. I can rest easy son since itís your cash paying for it all.

You canít regulate a drug market if you allow individuals to make the choice on what should be available or not, irrespective of the danger/side effects. It undermines those who do regulate it.

P*ss off to medical school if you want that choice.

north_east_invader Posted on 18/11/2008 19:06
Drugs: Whats your stance?

See, thats where you make an assumption that I am a contributor.

north_east_invader Posted on 18/11/2008 19:10
Drugs: Whats your stance?

Oh and sorry, if you want me to answer every point - I believe that people do have the right to make requests of things they feel they would like. I do not believe in a nanny state that should dictate what people should do in their own private lives that does not impact on anyone elses right to do the same (a clear distinction is that both you and I would agree - I assume - that murder/rape/attack/gbh/theft etc are clearly wrong ... what we disagree on is that recreational drug usage is a very different social issue).

rivals_oldschool Posted on 18/11/2008 19:11
Drugs: Whats your stance?

Forgive me, those whom argue for it's case usually are an 'interested party'.

The point still stands, it's easy to say give people the choice and claim your an open minded liberal. In this case you aren't. Neither am I thats why I donít take them or pretend to know about it from google.

ChainMaryandJesus Posted on 18/11/2008 19:11
Drugs: Whats your stance?

Sounds fun Beau, maybe my half decade is upÖ but I have to go and cook dinner now, with no substances other than lamb kebabs, salad and chillies. [:)]

north_east_invader Posted on 18/11/2008 19:17
Drugs: Whats your stance?

No Rivals, I am simply absolutely convinced that the problems we face today are going to get worse, that they are the direct result of the way we have tried (and failed) to tackle the problem and that prohibition has never worked, isn't working and will never work.

It is a different social problem that requires different thinking - and until the daily mail mob rule is pushed aside - that cannot happen. I do have considerable experience in this field and I cannot (unfortunately because I realise it is easy on a forum to make a claim that you cannot back up, but sorry, this is a public forum) unfortunately say more than that - only that I know you feel you're right and I know you think its the only way to help/deal. I just wholeheartedly disagree.

susy Posted on 18/11/2008 19:18
Drugs: Whats your stance?

jnukyard_angel you say that your choice is probably the safest active ingredient in the world and illegal. Where are the clinical trials to support this?

If smoking and drinking were introduced today there is no way that they would be legalised but now we are being encouraged to stop smoking and reduce alcohol intake. Why then would any government take the risk of legalising the drugs that are now illegal. Heroin is available in a clinical setting, it is rarely used now but its sisters are used effectively to help in very serious circumstances, not recreationally. I dont know how you could actually introduce heroin to the recreational scene and make it acceptable. Yes there are addicts out there who can live a nearly normal life, but for 1 of them there will be loads more who steal, miss work if they have a job, lose their friends then family then their dignity if not their life.

Your choice of drug has been proven to give rise to paranoia, this is most likely if the user has regularily taken this is their teens onwards, you say its safe yet you smoke it, what do you cut it with? Tobacco? Please dont tell me that this isnt harmful.

I dont know the answer but I genuinely believe that legalising it will cause more harm than good.

rivals_oldschool Posted on 18/11/2008 19:28
Drugs: Whats your stance?

Please you've side stepped the crucial point.

It's nothing to do with the daily mail, nanny state etc.

You can't regulate a drug market by sweeping away the dangers as personal choice. Your choice impacts other so it's not 'just your choice'.

You also seem to have forgotten that thereís plenty of black markets for things that are perfectly legal, like DVDís, cars, Tobacco.

Criminals always undercut, you'd still have the exact same problems.

susy Posted on 18/11/2008 19:34
Drugs: Whats your stance?

The was a drug rehab place shut down in the north east a couple of years ago, the reason why was that people were not using it, the reason why was that the organisation didnt have the right people encouraging the GPs to refer to them. There are many many people hooked on class A drugs who would embrace the chance of getting on the hard road back to a normal life. Maybe somewhere here is the answer??

north_east_invader Posted on 18/11/2008 19:35
Drugs: Whats your stance?

Rivals, then you miss my point. I haven't even said legalisation is the answer, I also have not said anywhere that I have all the answers, in fact I have specifically said that I don't.

This still does not get away from the fact that prohibition has no proven track record. It has never worked. It is not working now and it will continue to not work.

What I will not do is bury my head in the sand and say lets keep it all illegal and continue to target and prosecute in the way that we are (string em up in a daily mail style). I will say that there are significantly better ways of spending that money and that there is an argument that taxation from legalisation could be of benefit.

What I want is an open debate where people can think about alternatives, and that requires people all over the spectrum to entertain ideas that are outside of their comfort zone.

janplanner Posted on 18/11/2008 19:36
Drugs: Whats your stance?

- take nothing that you have to inject.
- keep it for the weekend.
- make sure you've packed it all in by the time you're 26.
(except maybe new year and birthdays, if you must)

skymasterson Posted on 18/11/2008 19:37
Drugs: Whats your stance?

There is no doubt whatsoever that drugs can ruin peoples lives but we have to accept the fact that many people take them and some of them are close to harmless (E, pot etc). Criminalising those people is crazy. Those addicted to harder drugs are often committing crimes to pay for their use and then are perpetuating other, often far worse, criminality by supporting dealers revenue sources. The crime caused by drug addiction in this country costs us £10bn a year.

If you have ever had your house burgled the chance are it was done by a smackhead in order to buy drugs which he doesn't know the purity of because they are sold to him by a criminal and ultimately might kill him. The same guy that sold it to him is quite possibly the owner of a firearm in order to protect his business and at some point may choose to use that.

Personally I can see many lives there that are being ruined and possibly ended because of the illegality of drugs. If they were legal the user would have no need to commit crime, could use safely and the dealer would have his market taken away from him. We might even get enough in tax to give both the user and the dealer a route to a new life. The flipside is that the user may continue to use and never become a useful human being but he will live. Is it really so stupid to try a new way?? what harm can it really do when the current situation is so F***** up?

junkyard_angel Posted on 18/11/2008 19:45
Drugs: Whats your stance?

suzy, the figures speak for themselves. Cannabis has been in use for about 12000 years and the Berkley Foundation (a collection of doctors, psychiatrists and legal people who will release a report in the new year) has attributed it with two deaths.

Scientists have worked out that the deadly dose of cannabis is about 40,000 times the affective dose ie, an overdose is impossible.

Paranoia is not permanent, it happens occasionally, usually with inexperienced users and soon wears off.

There is no argument for alcohol being safer than dope.

susy Posted on 18/11/2008 20:04
Drugs: Whats your stance?

Junkyard it has been documented in the medical research journals that canabis does do harm, this came to light just before the government downgraded the classification.

I certainly never said that canabis was either better of worse than alcohol. Although there are reports in the medical press that a little alcohol has beneficial effects, so dont rule it out altogether

I have found an article for you to read and totally ignore the bad points.


Link: Canabis: some facts

delgrapos Posted on 18/11/2008 20:07
Drugs: Whats your stance?

That crystal mush is alright on a night out during the week

LucyFir Posted on 18/11/2008 20:20
Drugs: Whats your stance?

The answer is quite simple,drop all the druggy B******s on an island or islands (i think we still own a few in the pacific and carribean) and let the F***ers fend for themselves,lazy bloodsucking leeches on society.
Save all the decent law abiding rest of us a lot of money with all the cash spent trying to rehab the T***s

delgrapos Posted on 18/11/2008 20:22
Drugs: Whats your stance?

if you had cancer morphine would be a blessing

Bigborofan1987 Posted on 18/11/2008 20:23
Drugs: Whats your stance?

If cannabis and E r banned then so should fags they kill just as many people

delgrapos Posted on 18/11/2008 20:26
Drugs: Whats your stance?

i agree, ban em all or ban none

borobadge Posted on 18/11/2008 20:27
Drugs: Whats your stance?

when they were being used and abused by royalty and the upper classes, it was jolly japes and no one made them criminals....

as soon as it gets in the way of production and profits via the masses....out come the generals and majors to lock every one up.

susy Posted on 18/11/2008 20:30
Drugs: Whats your stance?

Carrying/using a knife is illegal, carrying/using drugs is illegal. Not wearing a seatbelt is illegal, not wearing a helmet on a motorbike is illegal. There have been many changes in the law to help benefit our health.

Ciggies do kill and they certainly maime, the government is trying to deal with this in a less nanny state fashion than making it illegal however they still get slated for it.

Legalising street drugs GREAT, then what? It wouldnt work, it would just mean that the dealers sell it cheaper and no matter what its cut with, the addict will use it.

ccole Posted on 18/11/2008 21:07
Drugs: Whats your stance?

"It wouldnt work, it would just mean that the dealers sell it cheaper and no matter what its cut with, the addict will use it"


I understand that it is harder to get an Ecstacy tab now than it was when I had a few in the 90's. The reason is that it is so cheap, the dealers make no money, but still get the long jail terms for selling it. By controlling the sale of hard drugs but keeping the same jail terms for dealing, I think the same would happen. It wouldn't be worth it. Also, why would a smack head buy it of a dealer when he can get good stuff from a safe outlet?

Leagalising street drugs has worked - In Holland. I dont understand the fear of some people to try something new to try and rid us of all the crime which goes with the current drug trade and scum bag dealers?

Arcadia101 Posted on 18/11/2008 22:48
Drugs: Whats your stance?

The biggest danger from smoking cannabis is that it may lead to a nicoteen addiction, taking E's and coke makes you drink too much alcohol.

borobadge Posted on 18/11/2008 23:39
Drugs: Whats your stance?

"Carrying/using a knife is illegal, carrying/using drugs is illegal. Not wearing a seatbelt is illegal, not wearing a helmet on a motorbike is illegal."....

1. not if your a carpet fitter or work in tree surgery/gardening.

2. not if your a dentist, pharmacist or a dispensor in care/sheltered housing or indeed a registered drug addict.

3. not if your a milkman or work in frequent stop waste collection, home delivery or mobile collection..

4. not if your riding a motorbike (trike) with 3 wheels.

scooby Posted on 18/11/2008 23:47
Drugs: Whats your stance?

"3. not if your a milkman or work in frequent stop waste collection, home delivery or mobile collection.."

A taxi drive is another example. Hackney carriage drivers do not need to wear them nor do private hire when they have a passenger. It's to stop someone using it as a weapon.

scooby Posted on 18/11/2008 23:50
Drugs: Whats your stance?

If you legalised drugs, you'd still have dealers. People would buy it from there to avoid the huge tax that would be applied to it.

Manfriday Posted on 19/11/2008 09:18
Drugs: Whats your stance?

For a lot of people (myself included) its hard to take the thought of your kids taking E or smoking pot, yet we actively encourage them to start going out drinking with their mates when they get to 17/18. Its already been proved alcohol is much worse than E/pot. I would legalise E, pot, speed and mushrooms and sell the 1st 3 over the counter in a chemist for the same price they already pay on the street. If they tax it to death, people will go the blackmarket route. If they charged reasonable prices on dvds and stuff nobody would bother getting them illegally