cookie_monster
Well-Known Forumite
an interesting take and i have to admit....also quite true!
x
Admin edit: Move post and responses to their own thread.
x
Admin edit: Move post and responses to their own thread.
Welcome to Stafford Forum. Please or sign-up and start posting!
Actually, I doubt you'd pay any more. Remember that the hash growers often get sod all, a quid a kilo in some places! Its the supply chain that adds the costs, because of the associated risks. If a government controlled the supply chain, they wouldn't have the risks. All drugs would be regulated, quality ensured and, most importantly, dangerous additives avoided. You'd get clean drugs, with a much lower health risk, so therefore less strain on the NHS.shoes said:As it happens the law has made absolutely no difference whatsoever to my drug use, if it were legal I wouldn't take more drugs, although I'd probably pay more for them.
Fair point, although I have little faith in the government not taxing the hell out of it, like alcohol and tobacco.tek-monkey said:Actually, I doubt you'd pay any more. Remember that the hash growers often get sod all, a quid a kilo in some places! Its the supply chain that adds the costs, because of the associated risks. If a government controlled the supply chain, they wouldn't have the risks. All drugs would be regulated, quality ensured and, most importantly, dangerous additives avoided. You'd get clean drugs, with a much lower health risk, so therefore less strain on the NHS.shoes said:As it happens the law has made absolutely no difference whatsoever to my drug use, if it were legal I wouldn't take more drugs, although I'd probably pay more for them.
Or offer them jobs in the new legitimate supply chain, granted there will be more dealers than jobs but it will at least reduce the problem somewhat.tek-monkey said:Of course, if the supply was decriminalised then we'd still be flooded with the cheap stuff. Therefore they should keep all associated penalties for importing/selling as they are now, but then also supply the drugs themselves. Huge profits all round, everybody is happy. Except the drug dealers, who have lost their billions of pounds that they usually make each year. So maybe they'll go abroad and bother some other country?
If the library can't furnish a copy, Amazon or a charity shop probably can.An Amazon.co.uk reviewer said:Drugs are the scourge of society. But rather than committing already stretched police resources to solving the problem, why not legalise all drugs? Not just cannabis but heroin, cocaine and E.
yeah, but you're basing this on your opinion of drugs and their different levels of harm.. you say that people should leave "good" drugs along, and shift more resources into combating "bad" drugs.. but there are millions of people out there who probably smoke plenty of cannabis but consider cocaine a very "bad" drug.. likewise, i'm sure there are millions who take ecstasy but consider cannabis a "bad" drug.. all drugs are bad in some way (in the same way that most things in life are bad in some way), so who's to decide which ones are fit for human consumption and which ones aren't? it's for this reason that many people suggest the only way to stem drug usage is to decriminalise use of all drugs, and allow strict controls to be placed on their production and supply..shoes said:We need to spend just as much money on the 'drug problem' however ALL resources which are used for 'fighting' cannabis, mdma, acid, shrooms, ketamine and cocaine, IMO, need to be shifted towards education and fighting heroin / GHB etc.
not a bad book, but it's more about the main protagonist's love life and subsequent controversy than it is actually about drug issues.. still, it's a decent read (definitely easy to chomp through on holiday, by the pool or something) and makes you think about what the UK might be like with a decriminalised drug culture!Wookie said:Might I recommend at this point that those interested obtain and read a book called High Society by Ben Elton?
If the library can't furnish a copy, Amazon or a charity shop probably can.An Amazon.co.uk reviewer said:Drugs are the scourge of society. But rather than committing already stretched police resources to solving the problem, why not legalise all drugs? Not just cannabis but heroin, cocaine and E.
Agreed it is in my opinion, however I have at least got reasons for most of my views, having taken a pretty diverse selection of narcotics over my time. When i refer to a good or bad drug its not just the immediate effect it has on you which I am taking into consideration, ghb (amongst others) is primarily used for 'date rape'. IMO rape is a crime which is comparable to murder in as much as it adversely affects the victims and their families for life. By the same token of life ruining or at least having a very negative long term effect I consider heroin just as bad. Whilst I agree they are totally different drugs the end result is the same.dirtybobby said:yeah, but you're basing this on your opinion of drugs and their different levels of harm.. you say that people should leave "good" drugs along, and shift more resources into combating "bad" drugs.. but there are millions of people out there who probably smoke plenty of cannabis but consider cocaine a very "bad" drug.. likewise, i'm sure there are millions who take ecstasy but consider cannabis a "bad" drug.. all drugs are bad in some way (in the same way that most things in life are bad in some way), so who's to decide which ones are fit for human consumption and which ones aren't? it's for this reason that many people suggest the only way to stem drug usage is to decriminalise use of all drugs, and allow strict controls to be placed on their production and supply.
also, i find it strange that someone who is so obviously clued up on drug culture would lump GHB and heroin together in the same sentence.. they are completely different drugs, with completely different usage cultures and risk factors..
fair enough.. have you taken heroin? pcp? meth? if the answer is no, perhaps that is why you demonise them and put them in the "bad drugs" category.. i'm not about to air my dirty laundry in public, but there is a reason my lot used to nickname me "the pharmacist" so i would imagine we are at least comparable in knowledge of drugs and their effects..shoes said:Agreed it is in my opinion, however I have at least got reasons for most of my views, having taken a pretty diverse selection of narcotics over my time.
no, it's not.. i haven't got time to look it up right now, but see if you can, google some stat's about how many cases of date rape actually involved GHB.. it's miniscule.. you are far, far, far more likely to be date raped with a benzo (e.g. clonazepam, or the tabloid favourite rohypnol).. the irony here is, i suspect you have formed your opinion purely on the sensationalist "daily mail" headlines which you so deride! GHB is a naturally occuring chemical which is present in all of us, right now.. it has a remarkably high LD50, much higher than other recreational drugs, and you have to be an idiot to harm yourself with it (e.g. by mixing it with alcohol, or other downers)..shoes said:When i refer to a good or bad drug its not just the immediate effect it has on you which I am taking into consideration, ghb (amongst others) is primarily used for 'date rape'.
come on, surely you can see how ridiculous this is? i can think of loads of people who i have known who have shit their life away with weed.. i lived with a guy who is now committed to a mental asylum because of it.. he smashed my door in with an axe and claimed i had stolen his soul, for crying out loud (andreas can verify this, i think).. i am not saying the weed caused this, but it was definitely the catalyst that pushed him over the edge.. even discounting extreme cases like that, as tek-monkey says plenty of people become apathetic and are generally worse off because of weed.. to say people "never get hooked on cannabis" is very naïve and i'm sure you don't actually believe that..shoes said:There is also the question of vunerability. People who usually get sucked into heroin are not usually doing so just because they're stupid, they are usually at a vunerable point in their lives where they are seen as an easy target to get severely hooked on a terrible drug. This never happens with say cannabis...
no drug is addictive after one dose.. heroin, and all other opiates, will almost certainly make you sick after one dose.. even prescription opioids, like tramadol, will doubtless make you nauseous when you first take them.. it is only after continued, habitual usage that you will start to become addicted.. and even then, as tek-monkey says, plenty of people exhibit no addictive behaviour.. generally speaking, you have to have other problems in your life to become an addict, as you have to be of the mindset that you will let this thing absorb your whole life.. and if that's the case, if it's not one drug, it will be another..shoes said:...or ecstacy, primarily because they are not addictive, particularly after one dose.
come on, are you saying you don't believe cocaine can totally take over the lives of otherwise normal people, and drive them to compulsions they would otherwise find obscene? shoes, you're an intelligient bloke, surely you're not saying that absolutely everyone's reactions and experiences with a given substance/scenario will be the same as yours?? just because you have done (A) and it resulted in (B) doesn't mean the same for everyone..shoes said:Frankly neither is cocaine IMO, but i'm sure than differs from person to person depending on reaction / how they feel on the drug / will power etc.
well, i (along with other members of the forum) do know people who have died from drugs.. unfortunately for some, in front of their very eyes.. it happens.. just because you have had lovely experiences hugging your mates and telling them about how much you love them does not mean bad things do not happen.. i can't believe you would be naïve enough to keep suggesting that because you have taken something a couple of hundred times, that automatically means it's 100% safe and all the mountains of data suggesting otherwise is wrong..shoes said:Considering how many drugs I have taken and the quantities, and knowing my body is weak and I am allergic to pretty much everything, I'd say you would have to be pretty damned unlucky to have an allergic reaction to a drug, and if you die taking amphetamine based drugs or cannabis, you probably dererved it. If anyone has lost close people through OD's I'm sorry I'm not trying to offend, but its almost impossible to OD on most drugs if you use your brain and don't take them ALL AT ONCE!
yes, they are opinions.. you have to remember that.. i am not arguing against drugs, as i have previously implied for me to do so would be ignorant and hypocritical.. but you seem to think that your opinion is fact, which clearly isn't the case! you've been lucky so far.. i hope you, and all others, continue to be soshoes said:What I am eluding to is that whilst yes, those opinions of mine above are only opinions, they are at least founded on something more than an article posted in the daily mail by a journalist who paid a scientist to say drugs are bad, mmmmmm'kay, which is pretty much what the law makers have as their extensive 'evidence'.
thank you! that's basically what i'm saying lol..tek-monkey said:Drugs are bad, mmkay. TBH though, regardless of personal views, reclassification HAS to be all or nothing. You can't just legalise the nice ones, as they differ between people.
lol brilliant.. i think i might start using that onetek-monkey said:Coke? Some people love it, some turn into agressive tits that just want to fight everyone. Its like nasal stella, not a good thing. Allow those who play nice only?
A-ruddy-men..tek-monkey said:Weed, most have no issues but some it ruins. Not physically, but they just sit at home all day smoking, can't hold downa job, make nothing of their lives, become a burden on society. Allow just those who are employed?
i read an article the other day that was saying, judging by the current surveys of street coke, on average it is only 9% pure.. so if you buy a gram of charlie, you are only actually getting 90mg of product.. the other 910mg of stuff going up your nose could be anything.. if you're lucky, bicarb or novocaine.. if you're unlucky, whatever white powder the dealer(s) had lying around.. baby formula, talc, salt, etc.. it used to be the worry of coke was tachycardia.. now the main problem is just getting ripped off whilst turning yourself into a disgusting, dripping, sniffing moron who smells of baby powder lol..tek-monkey said:The fact is drugs are subjective, some may get a worse effect from caffeine than others do from smack. It HAS to be all or nothing, otherwise the same inconsistencies we see with alcohol and tobacco will still be evident. Also, out of all my distant past, cocaine was the only thing my doctor was worried about. Not like there was even that much coke use, but from his point of view that was by far the worst of my past. You know me shoes, you know what I used to be like, I told him EVERYTHING. If his view of coke was that strong, would it be the same with other doctors? In which case, thats a BAD drug surely? People like him would (hopefully) be those choosing the classifications after all.
i agree, too many is better than too few (within reason, natch).. i generally read back what i have written, and simply ensure there is a comma wherever i would naturally pause in my head.. i think andreas was saying that you had too few on this occasion, not too manyshoes said:
Hmm personally i'd rather read something which is broken up too much then too little, at risk of derailing the thread here whats your preference? I know you do a lot of proof reading so it would be interesting to hear your POV.
Remind me how much tax smokers pay again?tek-monkey said:Smoking costs the NHS £5bn a year, attributed to 18% of deaths in the UK
So yes, nice people take drugs.