Legalise "Illegal" Drugs? - Page 32

Acrylic-bob · 04-02-2012, 17:44

The urge to tut-tut and finger wag is a national disease. It almost never goes further than that.

Acrylic-bob · 04-02-2012, 17:51

However, Kestrelx, I must say that although Dickie B and I are broadly in accord concerning decriminalisation. I could not counsel anyone to trust a Dealer to do anything other than be criminally inclined, irresponsible, unaccountable and untrustworthy. I would as soon put my trust in a school of pirhanas.

garinda · 04-02-2012, 19:09

Well for those bubble heads, advocating that every man, woman, and child in Britain should be allowed to experiment with every recreational drug going, judging from what we've seen in this thread, they don't seem especially happy little space cadets.

I can only suggest, to be truly happy little bunnies, you need to up your intake, or change your dealer.

If I ever find I'm so desperately sad with my life, I'll actually change it in reality.

Rather than temporarily alter it chemically.

For those that do don't seem particularly stable, happy, or content.

kestrelx · 04-02-2012, 19:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acrylic-bob

The urge to tut-tut and finger wag is a national disease. It almost never goes further than that.

I never said legalise all drugs! I was just bringing up the subject for debate. It's a very complicated issue...bla! bla! Back to square one!

Michael1954 · 04-02-2012, 19:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by kestrelx

I never said legalise all drugs! I was just bringing up the subject for debate. It's a very complicated issue...bla! bla! Back to square one!

OK, just for clarification, are there any drugs that you would legalise and, if so, which?

Gordon Booth · 04-02-2012, 19:43

Quote:

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.

Just something I'm not quite clear on there, A-b.
When these 'enabled' citizens have stuffed themselves so full of decriminalised substances (which they have mugged/robbed and burgled to pay for) that they need medical attention which they would have to pay for, should we accept that they must mug/rob/burgle to get the money to pay for the treatment so that they can become fit enough to mug/rob/burgle to buy more decriminalised substances?

garinda · 04-02-2012, 19:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by kestrelx

I never said legalise all drugs! I was just bringing up the subject for debate. It's a very complicated issue...bla! bla! Back to square one!

No, you just suggested it was perfectly alright for youngsters to experiment with cannabis, and ecstasy.

So long as it was from a 'good' dealer.

Why do you keep posting you're not going to post, or leave the forum, and then carry on regardless?

Is it the appalling memory loss, brought on by the drug use?

Or is the reason something more serious, such as schizophrenia?

Which can also be triggered by recreational drug usage, and which means one of you doesn't know what the other one's doing.

kestrelx · 04-02-2012, 19:59

OK I said I wasn't going to use this forum but I am cleaning out my e-mail account and everytime someone posts I read it and...well fact is the Internet is a drug just like many other things! Anyone going to dispute what I just wrote - yep the Internet is a drug!

There are conflicting reports about the effects of various drugs, for example last year Harvard Medical School published results of research into ecstasy and the conclusion was quote...

"A new study carried out by a team at Harvard Medical School and published in the journal Addiction last week, found no evidence that ecstasy causes brain damage. This is one of the largest ever studies into the effects of the drug ecstasy. The scientists responsible for the research concluded that many previous studies had made over-arching conclusions from insufficient data, and that the drug’s dangers have been greatly exaggerated. In contrast to many prior studies, ecstasy users in the new study showed no signs of cognitive impairment attributable to drug use: ecstasy use did not decrease mental ability."
Ecstasy Does Not Wreck the Mind

So this is new information from a highly credible source that contradicts claims from earlier sources, in which the way studies were conducted were biased.

So what I am asking is that honest facts be taken on board - not "knee jerk reactionism!"

kestrelx · 04-02-2012, 20:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael1954

OK, just for clarification, are there any drugs that you would legalise and, if so, which?

At least decriminalise Cannabis and more research into ecstasy.

cashman · 04-02-2012, 20:02

Well Edwina Curry once said "Eggs" were bad fer us,

she was supposed to be credible.

kestrelx · 04-02-2012, 20:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

Well Edwina Curry once said "Eggs" were bad fer us,

she was supposed to be credible.

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

garinda · 04-02-2012, 20:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by kestrelx

OK I said I wasn't going to use this forum but I am cleaning out my e-mail account and everytime someone posts I read it and...well fact is the Internet is a drug just like many other things!

So basically, we shouldn't believe a word you say?

To add to the other long list of things, that you suffer from?

You really need to do a course in getting a little self-discipline, rather than recreational narcotics.

If you state you are going to do something, and are tempted to do the contrary....

Just Say No!

kestrelx · 04-02-2012, 21:27

At the end of the day your basically focusing personally on me instead of the issues! I'm glad your so keen on listing my faults when ignoring your own! Your like a stuck record mate!

On the subject of your grange hill video I notice the date is 1986! Strange that 2 years latter the country was ablaze with Acid House parties - so the record didn't have much impact.

cashman · 04-02-2012, 21:30

Theres only 1 issue, Are yeh nuts or not.

Less · 04-02-2012, 23:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by kestrelx

At the end of the day your basically focusing personally on me instead of the issues! I'm glad your so keen on listing my faults when ignoring your own! Your like a stuck record mate!

On the subject of your grange hill video I notice the date is 1986! Strange that 2 years latter the country was ablaze with Acid House parties - so the record didn't have much impact.

He's like a stuck record? Have you looked at your posts lately?

My God, you deserve a medal how much bull can one person post?

P.S. Glad to see you haven't been daft enough to leave us, how you would cope without our support leaves me in trepidation.