If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
People are gonna take drugs. People like drugs. There is a demand. In the absence of a legal supply, this is filled by dodgy bastard types. If legal, gear would be cheaper, people wouldn't have to steal, there'd be fewer OD's and related health problems etc.
You will not stop people taking drugs. Ever. So surely it makes more sense to make it as safe as possible?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3528730.stm
So alcohol is a social drug? Yes it can be but take a look at this and you may understand that there's certainly a great number of people who become very unsocialable after drinking.
I take plenty of drugs and can quite happily say that nothing makes me lose control more than alcohol. I tends to make me short tempered and reckless - the complete opposite infact of the way ecstasy makes me feel.
Of course justifying the legalisation of other drugs by highlighting the problems of alcohol isn't a very good argument, but it does help to highlight how hypocritical and narrowminded some people are. Alcohol is a drug like any other. Just because it is legal doesn't mean it's safer or less damaging to society.
I said it can be a purely social drug, look at the alcohol culture in France and Italy. It's not like I've been living with my head in a bag, I can see what happens when people take drugs, and when people get drunk. It's not very attractive.
Why do people take drugs anyway? What's the point?
Why do you think? People smoke dope to enjoy hightened sensations (music, sound, taste), people sniff coke for the buzz (feelings of self well-being, increased desire to talk, increased sex drive), people drink alcohol to unwind, become more social and to lose inhibitions, people take ecstasy so they can experience states of total love & empathy for everyone around them...
Your experience of people on drugs is limited, and not reflective.
Alcohol is the main cause of anti-social behaviour, combined with a hefty dose of testosterone.
Cannabis can be a social drug. Ecstasy is a very social drug. etc etc.
And why do people take drugs? All sorts of reasons. Some to fill a void in their life or to suppress uncomfortable emotions. But mostly 'cos it can be a lot of fun.
Why do people need to take drugs to feel that way? I have never felt a desire to use any drug to change the way I behave.
I love music already, I love food, I don't need dope to change that. I get hyper enough just by having too much chocolate and sugar to need coke. I never needed alcohol to be social, and would prefer to have my inhibitions in place to give up when I see fit. My friends would say that sympathy and empathy are strengths of mine, so I don't need to take ecstacy.
Why aren't people comfortable enough in the way they are, without the desire to change that for a short time with a drug?
Because it's fun? They enjoy it? It's like saying - why do people feel the need to watch tv or play sport? People do sport 'cos they love the feeling of the adrenelin etc, people watch tv 'cos they're interested or entertained by it. I've had experiences beyond words on drugs, something a straight-edge person can never understand.
The main point i have been putting across is people's right to free choice, no-one can rightfully dictate what people should and shouldn't be doing.
Be careful about fighting for totally free choice, it's a dangerous thing without insisting that people must have corresponding repsonsibilities. If I decided to track you down and kill you based on my free choice, you'd hope that I'd be imprisoned for it. You'd probably be horrified that I was released based solely on the arguement that 'I chose, it was my free choice'.
If drugs were to be legalised, and you were to grow your own canabis, you would have the responsibility to ensure that you used the drug responsibly, and that you weren't passing the drug (assuming an age limit) to a young child. If drugs were to be legalised (all drugs) then those selling ecstacy and heroin would have the responsibility to ensure that the drugs were pure and in safe doses, that the needles provided were sterile, and that there are places to dispose of used needles safely.
If you want the right, you must have the corresponding responsibility. Or society would collapse.
I personally, still fail to see the point in taking drugs. I do sport because it's good for me, not just because I enjoy it, I watch TV because I like to know what's in the news, whether my rugby team has won or not, and who they're playing next. And so on and so forth.
I have already explained victimless crime to you. Going about randomly trying to kill people is not comparable and completely irrelevent.
Of course the legal distribution of drugs would involve correct dosage, that's one of the main points i've already mentioned supporting legalisation. Currently when I take pills, sniff coke or whatever i have no idea what kind of shit it's cut with. That's why we need quality controls via decriminalisation.
Well what do you do to enjoy yourself?
The point is that at the moment, because drugs are illegal, dealers and manufacturers don't "have the responsibility to ensure that the drugs were pure and in safe doses". If they were legalised, they would. Food and drink manufacturers do so.
And you don't see the point in taking drugs? Good for you. Its probably better not to take drugs. But lots of people have a lot of fun taking drugs, so live and let live, eh?
Murder is comparable, because I've just compared it to make a point. Why do you still take drugs when you don't know what's in them?
To enjoy myself, I go rock climbing, I go mountain biking, I play pool down the pub with my good mates, I post here, I listen to music, read books, go to the rugby in Northampton, go to the pub some more, BBQs or films with friends.
I don't understand what you're on about here.
Bassically we want the choice to be able to grow our own weed or pop a few pills -that doesn't affect you.
Obviously strict laws would still apply to dealing drugs.
Of course you don't - you've never taken them. Have you never done anything simply because you enjoyed it - or is there always an ulterior motive?
Well you've made a shit point then.
So you enjoy doing that. Well done. Other people enjoy drugs.
Rock climbing is a risky activity. Why do you like to risk your life for fun?
Murder isn't comparable, smoking dope and taking ecstasy doesn't infringe on other people's rights, it's not a difficult concept to grasp lol.
As for why do i still take them, it's a risk for sure, but then again what isn't. What the gov't should do is reduce that risk through legalisation.
Well, to enjoy myself, i take drugs. As Blagsta says, live & let live. Drugs won't do you many favours in the long run, but it's a case of personal choice.
My point is that the arguement that you should be able to grow your own weed because of free choice is a careless one, and can be applied to anything. Including murder.
No I haven't, I do things simply because I enjoy them yeah, but I really don't get why I would need the aid of a drug to do so.
It's a shit comparrison.
Having never done them, I wouldn't expect you to understand. Take it from me and the millions of other people that do them - they're fun.
Ok, let me try and show you the flaw in that argument.
Someone grows their own weed, smokes it with their pals, and occasionally takes ectasy. Are there any victims? No. Is anyone else hurt? No. Why not legalise?
Harold Shipman - kills loads of old people, yes through his own personal choice, but that personal choice infringes on others' right to life.
The person growing the weed has NO victims, that's the difference.
Are you on crack?
Wow, that was a mature and helpful response.
Skive: Shit comparisions aside, can you see my point about the need for responsibilities as opposed to a totally free society?
Yes but that not what we are talking about. We don't want anarchy, we want a society where we are free to take drugs.
These drug laws make criminals out of ordinary hardworking people. Their only crime is to get a little high and enjoy themselves. Is that fair?
Just answering a shit point in kind.
Fair is not really what the norm is, is it? By all means argue the right to take drugs, but don't say it's a matter of free choice, because it's not. No-one has the right to anything, without the consent of the majority.
Blagsta: In future just keep quiet, i'm here to have a reasoned discussion.
You're not though. You're comparing growing weed to murder. Thats not reason, thats just plain daft.
Why does no-one have the right to anything without the consent of the majority? Who says? Do people not have individual rights? Do you need the "consent of the majority" to allow people the most basic right to life?
I thought in modern society we supposedly revolved around the notion that people can do as they please, providing it does not badly impact on others? That is my interpretation of freedom?
No that's using example to make a point. Read it, instead of just saying 'Murder, like drugs, bollocks'.
You haven't made any point.
Actually all rights were approved because of the consent of the majority. The geneva convention would hardly work if only one country signed it would it? Where is it written that anyone has the basic right to anything without the consent of others, either implicitly, or by actively consenting to it.
I'll try again.
My point is that arguing the right to take drugs legally is based on an individuals freedom to choose, is dangerous, because any activity can be argued upon the same principal. For example, my right to hunt down and kill a person because I want to, and upon the principal of freedom of choice, I will be released. Because it was my choice to end the life of another.
I understand totally that the freedom to grow and indulge in canabis has not nearly the impact upon another person as murder. But what if we applied it to the speed limit? I want to drive as fast as my car will take me, this doesn't affect anyone else, until I have an accident and end another person's life. A person smoking canabis affects my life, because I have to put up with the smell, and the affect on my health by the passive smoke, by trying to reason with a person who possibly is interested soley in shiney objects, and so on and so forth.
No, its still rubbish. The two things are just not comparable.
Again, the two things are not comparable. Speeding can cause death or injury to other people. How does smoking cannabis in your own home do this?