Legalise "Illegal" Drugs?

[kestrelx]

Originally Posted by Less

Please don't go, not like this, it would be a great loss to the site, thanks to you I've learnt such a great deal about illegal substances.
Not from your input, just from the way others come on to correct you.

What a cynic you are!

Tell the government what you think...

Home Affairs Committee launches new inquiry into Drugs - News from Parliament - UK Parliament

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by kestrelx

I never said that! I am not saying "who sells pure stuff is the good guy!"! Some of you people are basically brainwashed, you see it in the Sun and you believe it without question!

Well I don't read the Sun, but I think you'll find that even the Mirror condemns drugs and drug dealers, and this crap about building up trust with a dealer, so did the ladies of the night with Jack the Ripper until he turned a bit nasty, it appears from this thread its a bit one sided, I haven't seen too many people coming on here and standing the drug corner with you, so I just wonder who is right, think that must be easy to work out even for you

[kestrelx]

Originally Posted by jaysay

Well I don't read the Sun, but I think you'll find that even the Mirror condemns drugs and drug dealers, and this crap about building up trust with a dealer, so did the ladies of the night with Jack the Ripper until he turned a bit nasty, it appears from this thread its a bit one sided, I haven't seen too many people coming on here and standing the drug corner with you, so I just wonder who is right, think that must be easy to work out even for you

Well I think that people may not want to post on this matter and the people that are opposing it are diehards who post a lot on all posts, like yourself, there have been a couple for, but they havn't stuck around. I don't think you can use the Ripper comparison!

The issue is people are going to take drugs, legal or illegal - so why put them in prison where they may become criminals in other ways than just partaking in cannabis or what ever else. Surely we need education and information as opposed to draconian measures such as prison!

[garinda]

Originally Posted by kestrelx

Yes that said, but why does Garinda keep digging up my brother? Only one reason to undermine what I've said and that is "nasty!"

I am saying that some peoples views and opinions are based on knee jerk reactions and misinformation!

Just curiosity.

Wondered if taking illegal drugs might increase the likelyhood of someone doing smething daft. Like get caught blackmailing Tesco.

There are a lot of known side effects, to these drugs. Some of which you've exhibited.

Uncontrolled rages, paranoia, insomnia, memory loss, saying one thing, then doing another.

Besides, regarding your brother, thankfully I don't know you from Adam, so any information known about you, is information you freely posted on a public forum.

You can bleat all you like, in your paranoid confusion, about a 'gang' of people, who have it in for you.

Like everyone else on here, I speak purely for myself.

What you've posted on here is both idiotic, and potentially dangerous. When you said you'd encourage youngsters to experiment with illegal drugs, as long as they came from a good dealer.

As stated earlier, the most dangerous aspect of these drugs isn't the quality control. It's the fact people have to increase the dose, or move on to harder drugs, because their bodies quickly get used to them, in order to experience the initial euphoria they felt, the first time they took them.

Legal, or illegal, recreational drugs cause many people, and their loved ones, untold misery.

Fact.

Feel free to ignore that, in your little drug addled bubble.

Just as you ignored your own post, saying you were leaving this forum, before carrying on with the same old guff.

[Less]

Do the three posts you have made in this thread since you left mean that my appeal for you to stay has been taken on board?

What a joyous day this has now become.

I am tempted to give you karma but it may be addictive, I'll have to make up a Government report to find out.

Please insert a really large smiley face here to reassure you that I for one am happy with your decision.

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by kestrelx

Well I think that people may not want to post on this matter and the people that are opposing it are diehards who post a lot on all posts, like yourself, there have been a couple for, but they havn't stuck around. I don't think you can use the Ripper comparison!

The issue is people are going to take drugs, legal or illegal - so why put them in prison where they may become criminals in other ways than just partaking in cannabis or what ever else. Surely we need education and information as opposed to draconian measures such as prison!

Ya the comparison between Drug Dealers and Jack the Ripper was a bit OTT, but to be fair anybody who can trust a drug dealer who, for two bob, would put your eyes out with a lit ciggy, is more stupid than those ladies who trusted good old Jack, morons are us must be a great group to be a member of, you been a member long?

[Boeing Guy]

:OK THIS IS MY LAST WORD ON THIS MATTER!

So that's a no then?

[cashman]

Originally Posted by kestrelx

The issue is people are going to take drugs, legal or illegal - so why put them in prison where they may become criminals in other ways than just partaking in cannabis or what ever else. Surely we need education and information as opposed to draconian measures such as prison!

Yeh seem to be inching away from the "Trust" the dealer of pure stuff. Shame that i had built him up to be a good ole boy.

[Acrylic-bob]

I rather feel that I should add a codicil or qualifier to statements I made earlier in this thread. My advocacy of the decriminalisation of controlled substances is predicated on a general move towards a society where the individual takes responsibility for the whole of his or her life, and where the intrusion of the state into the lives of citizens is reduced to the absolute practical minimum.

This is not an easy path to take, but I do feel that it is the only realistic path for a stable and balanced society. In the case of those partial to indulgence in what are at present controlled substances, the information is out there for you to make an informed choice. Whether you choose to take the opportunity to study the effects of your chosen poison or ignore the advice offered must be your choice and your choice alone; as also must be the acceptance of the consequences of your choices, whatever they may be.

I see it as the state's role to enable its citizens, not control them. Consequently, under such a system any illness resulting from free choice would not be treated by the NHS in the way it is now, but would rather entail additional charges for whatever treatment was deemed appropriate.

In short: the dumping of the nanny state would mean greater freedoms but it would also mean that nanny would no longer be there to kiss and make it better when it all goes wrong.

I hope I have made that clearer.

[kestrelx]

Originally Posted by garinda

Just curiosity.

Wondered if taking illegal drugs might increase the likelyhood of someone doing smething daft. Like get caught blackmailing Tesco.

There are a lot of known side effects, to these drugs. Some of which you've exhibited.

Uncontrolled rages, paranoia, insomnia, memory loss, saying one thing, then doing another.

Besides, regarding your brother, thankfully I don't know you from Adam, so any information known about you, is information you freely posted on a public forum.

You can bleat all you like, in your paranoid confusion, about a 'gang' of people, who have it in for you.

Like everyone else on here, I speak purely for myself.

What you've posted on here is both idiotic, and potentially dangerous. When you said you'd encourage youngsters to experiment with illegal drugs, as long as they came from a good dealer.

As stated earlier, the most dangerous aspect of these drugs isn't the quality control. It's the fact people have to increase the dose, or move on to harder drugs, because their bodies quickly get used to them, in order to experience the initial euphoria they felt, the first time they took them.

Legal, or illegal, recreational drugs cause many people, and their loved ones, untold misery.

Fact.

Feel free to ignore that, in your little drug addled bubble.

Just as you ignored your own post, saying you were leaving this forum, before carrying on with the same old guff.

You've got more support on this forum than I and I know that at least 3 people will jump to your defence and deplete my Karma!

But you are a nasty piece of work! I can't even be bothered responding to you! Except you are the reason I will leave Accy Web - because you are insidious nasty piece of work and you do it deliberatly, you ignore facts and then make up ballony!

I get the feeling that 1) Your jealous because you never tried drugs back in the day and now regret it and are bitter, because your too old to enjoy them, which is why you are attacking me, when i don't take drugs! 2) You had a bad experience with drugs.

"As stated earlier, the most dangerous aspect of these drugs isn't the quality control. It's the fact people have to increase the dose, or move on to harder drugs, because their bodies quickly get used to them, in order to experience the initial euphoria they felt, the first time they took them."

Your paragraph here is rubbish, again I gave you evidence that this is not the case for everybody and you chose to ignore it then come up with your deluded thinking. Some people enjoy drugs and don't do any wrong on them!

You are the reason I will not be using Accrington Web for the foreseable future! I WILL NOT BE READING REPLIES TO THIS MESSAGE FROM YOU! WHAT I THINK OF YOU WOULD PROBABLY GET ME BARRED FROM THIS FORUM! YOU INSIDIOUS, PATRONISING LITTLE OIK!!!

[cashman]

Oh yer going again, don't let the door bang yer ass on the way out.

[kestrelx]

Originally Posted by Acrylic-bob

I rather feel that I should add a codicil or qualifier to statements I made earlier in this thread. My advocacy of the decriminalisation of controlled substances is predicated on a general move towards a society where the individual takes responsibility for the whole of his or her life, and where the intrusion of the state into the lives of citizens is reduced to the absolute practical minimum.

This is not an easy path to take, but I do feel that it is the only realistic path for a stable and balanced society. In the case of those partial to indulgence in what are at present controlled substances, the information is out there for you to make an informed choice. Whether you choose to take the opportunity to study the effects of your chosen poison or ignore the advice offered must be your choice and your choice alone; as also must be the acceptance of the consequences of your choices, whatever they may be.

I see it as the state's role to enable its citizens, not control them. Consequently, under such a system any illness resulting from free choice would not be treated by the NHS in the way it is now, but would rather entail additional charges for whatever treatment was deemed appropriate.

In short: the dumping of the nanny state would mean greater freedoms but it would also mean that nanny would no longer be there to kiss and make it better when it all goes wrong.

I hope I have made that clearer.

In the ideal world I agree with you but the last thing the voters of Britain want is to think that people are not working and enjoying taking drugs.

Also it may not be possible for a Doctor to diferentiate if an ailment is caused by drug use, but could in some!

Finally just thought I'd post a link here about Sir Richard Branson's views on the subject.

Video: Sir Richard Branson: 'war on drugs has failed' - Telegraph

[kestrelx]

Originally Posted by cashman

Oh yer going again, don't let the door bang yer ass on the way out.

Thanks for the thought Cashy... but I prefer this one!

[kestrelx]

Originally Posted by Less

Do the three posts you have made in this thread since you left mean that my appeal for you to stay has been taken on board?

What a joyous day this has now become.

I am tempted to give you karma but it may be addictive, I'll have to make up a Government report to find out.

Please insert a really large smiley face here to reassure you that I for one am happy with your decision.

[Acrylic-bob]

Originally Posted by kestrelx

In the ideal world I agree with you but the last thing the voters of Britain want is to think that people are not working and enjoying taking drugs.

Quite the contrary, I would argue that the populace, as a whole, are pretty apathetic and uninterested. Daniella Westbrooke lost her septum to Cocaine abuse and the commentariat all agreed that this was shocking. Then, six moths later, she was back on Eastenders and a soap star once more and the commentariat all agreed that she was such a brave lass.

Did having a known drug addict in the cast harm Eastenders viewing figures? What do you think?

People like criticising that in others which they cannot possibly criticise in themselves.