Home Drink & Drugs
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Limited spaces available! Sign up here

Stolen eletricity, buckets of acid, eletrified door handles...

2»

Comments

  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,194 Skive's The Limit
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    Yes, there are a few alcoholics who have a problem.

    You think that the only problems alcohol causes are alcoholics?
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ginner wrote:
    Lots of cheap weed = lots of people smoking lots of it all the time = lots of people too stoned to do anything else, like get a job = people who have jobs paying to keep the slackers in unemployment benefit = unhappy population = change of government to one harder on drugs

    What a load of nonsense.

    Weed is effectively decriminalised in Holland, yet I don't see any problems there. In fact less people smoke there than over here and in the US.

    Where does the notion of cheap weed come from?? I wouldn't imagine weed would be particularly cheaper just because of legalisation/decriminalisation - again, look at amsterdam.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    Skive wrote:
    You think that the only problems alcohol causes are alcoholics?

    Obviously not, but as for the reasons stated above, which is that people would sit around all day getting high doing nothing, the nearest alcohol related problem, is alcoholism. People sitting around all day, getting drunk.

    Yes, Alcohol kills you, can make you violent, etc... Pot doesn't make you violent, and the debate as to damage to your body is still going on.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ginner wrote:
    Lots of cheap weed = lots of people smoking lots of it all the time = lots of people too stoned to do anything else, like get a job = people who have jobs paying to keep the slackers in unemployment benefit = unhappy population = change of government to one harder on drugs

    Why do you think some people have problems with drugs and some don't? Is it the drug? The person having no self control? Or something else?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    Why do you think some people have problems with drugs and some don't? Is it the drug? The person having no self control? Or something else?

    Personally I don't see why anyone needs drugs at all. Are the completely inequipped to deal with life?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ginner wrote:
    Personally I don't see why anyone needs drugs at all. Are the completely inequipped to deal with life?

    You haven't answered my question.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    You haven't answered my question.

    It's both, the drug compounds a weakness.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ginner wrote:
    It's both, the drug compounds a weakness.

    You still haven't answered the question.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    You still haven't answered the question.

    Some people are weaker than others, some drugs are stronger than others.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ginner wrote:
    Some people are weaker than others, some drugs are stronger than others.

    You're still not answering the question. What do you mean by "weaker"? Why are some people "weaker" than others?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    You're still not answering the question. What do you mean by "weaker"? Why are some people "weaker" than others?

    Mentally weaker, more prone to develop addictions or mental health problems. Alternatively, physically weaker, prone to sudden cardiac or respiratory arrest, predisposed to cancers, chemical imbalances or toxicity due to liver failure.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ginner wrote:
    Mentally weaker, more prone to develop addictions or mental health problems. Alternatively, physically weaker, prone to sudden cardiac or respiratory arrest, predisposed to cancers, chemical imbalances or toxicity due to liver failure.

    You're still not answering the question. What does "Mentally weaker" mean? Why are some people more liable to develop addictions than others?

    Why do you think people use drugs?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Anyway, lets suppose you're right. Presumably people who have problems with alcohol are "mentally weaker" too. So how come society hasn't collapsed and a government hasn't been voted in that wants to ban alcohol? 'cos according to you, thats what should have happened.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    Anyway, lets suppose you're right.

    Yes, let's, otherwise you're a rather tedious one trick pony.
    Presumably people who have problems with alcohol are "mentally weaker" too. So how come society hasn't collapsed and a government hasn't been voted in that wants to ban alcohol? 'cos according to you, thats what should have happened.

    Alcohol causes problems for many people and I would vote for a government that wanted to eliminate it. I'd much rather live in a continental country where alcohol is used more responsibly and, on the whole, a lot less.

    Your argument is essentially, however horrendously drawn out, that some people are responsible enough to use drugs and should not be criminalised for it.

    Some people are responsible enough to possess guns, yet I think most people in this country would be strongly opposed to deregulation and greater availability. That's because there are too many who would be a danger to themselves and others. No doubt you think that an unjust comparison?

    Have there been any statistics about attitudes to legalisation? I'm yet to be convinced it's anything other than a small, selfish, vocal minority that's unhappy with the status quo.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,194 Skive's The Limit
    ginner wrote:
    Lots of cheap weed = lots of people smoking lots of it all the time = lots of people too stoned to do anything else, like get a job = people who have jobs paying to keep the slackers in unemployment benefit = unhappy population = change of government to one harder on drugs

    Firstly why would legalisation make drugs cheaper?
    Secondly do you really think the use of drugs is linked to unemployment?
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ginner wrote:
    Yes, let's, otherwise you're a rather tedious one trick pony.

    No, I'm trying to get you to consider why people use drugs (or alcohol), why some people can use drugs (or alcohol) and not have problems and others can't. You're the one trick pony, merely repeating "because they're weak" without actually being able to explain what you mean by that.
    ginner wrote:
    Alcohol causes problems for many people

    Granted.
    ginner wrote:
    and I would vote for a government that wanted to eliminate it.

    Really? Can you think of a time in history when a western country banned alcohol? What were the consequences?
    ginner wrote:
    I'd much rather live in a continental country where alcohol is used more responsibly and, on the whole, a lot less.

    It isn't really used much less in continental Europe, its just used in a different way. There may be less public drunkeness in France for instance, but they have a much higher rate of liver cirrhosis.
    ginner wrote:
    Your argument is essentially, however horrendously drawn out, that some people are responsible enough to use drugs and should not be criminalised for it.

    No, that wasn't my argument at all actually. My point is that your argument is essentially bollocks. You have no evidence on which to base your assertion that legalising drugs would lead to people getting wrecked all the time and not working. Alcohol is readily available yet most people choose not to sit around all day getting pissed, even people who like a drink. Cannabis is readily available, yet most people don't choose to sit around all day smoking. Most people actually manage to control their drug use. Now the question is, why do a minority of people develop problems with alcohol or drugs? Just saying "they're weak" is no answer. My experience (personal and professional) tells me that people develop drug and/or alcohol problems for a variety of reasons, most of which tend to be deep rooted emotional and psychological problems. People often use drugs problematically to avoid painful emotions or to suppress painful memories. These may well be memories of childhood abuse (emotional, physical or sexual) or they may be self medicating against depression or other mental health problems. They may be alienated or lost or find it difficult to sustain intimate relationships or they may have been brought up in an alcoholic and abusive family. Until these reasons are addressed, reasons which are compounded by the profoundly dehumanising society we currently live in, we aren't going to get very far.
    ginner wrote:
    Some people are responsible enough to possess guns, yet I think most people in this country would be strongly opposed to deregulation and greater availability. That's because there are too many who would be a danger to themselves and others. No doubt you think that an unjust comparison?

    Yep, its a daft comparison. Drugs are not guns.
    ginner wrote:
    Have there been any statistics about attitudes to legalisation? I'm yet to be convinced it's anything other than a small, selfish, vocal minority that's unhappy with the status quo.

    I suggest you talk to professionals working in the substance misuse field, top health professionals, top policemen and some MP's then.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,194 Skive's The Limit
    ginner wrote:
    Some people are responsible enough to possess guns, yet I think most people in this country would be strongly opposed to deregulation and greater availability.

    I don't know what world you live in mate, but in mine drugs have always been widely available since school. Infact they're much easier to get hold of than alcohol.

    The difference being that the profit from drugs goes entirely to crimininal organisations and dealers. Surely that's about as 'deregulated' as you can get.

    What would your answer be to the 'drug problem' we have in this country, or do you agree that the laws surrounding drugs at the moment are good enough?
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote:
    I don't know what world you live in mate, but in mine drugs have always been widely available since school. Infact they're much easier to get hold of than alcohol.

    The difference being that the profit from drugs goes entirely to crimininal organisations and dealers. Surely that's about as 'deregulated' as you can get.

    What would your answer be to the 'drug problem' we have in this country, or do you agree that the laws surrounding drugs at the moment are good enough?

    Harsher sentences for both drug users and dealers, readily available professional support benefitting from additional funding and an amnesty for addicts and users who enrolled on schemes before a certain deadline. Greater co-operation between international security services to intercept and minimise drug production and trade. State seizure and forced sale of all property, possessions and finances of drug dealers and producers. Widespread public health information and programmes in schools from Key Stage 1.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ginner wrote:
    Harsher sentences for both drug users and dealers, readily available professional support benefitting from additional funding and an amnesty for addicts and users who enrolled on schemes before a certain deadline. Greater co-operation between international security services to intercept and minimise drug production and trade. State seizure and forced sale of all property, possessions and finances of drug dealers and producers. Widespread public health information and programmes in schools from Key Stage 1.

    Harsher sentences?! Do you think its fair that you can get 17 years in jail for selling a Class A drug, whereas if you rape someone you get a mere 5 (from what I've heard anyway, not positive on this). How long do you want to put these people who enjoy escaping reality every once in a while? I assume you haven't done a single drug in your life, seeing as you're so against them. Which I also assume is due to you being brought up to think taht drugs are wrong, despite getting any evidence of this.

    And as for your suggestions of how to tackle drug problems... they're the most ludicrous farfetched ideas I have ever heard on the subject.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,194 Skive's The Limit
    ginner wrote:
    Harsher sentences for both drug users and dealers,

    Explain how that will help and what sort of punishments so you think would be acceptable?
    You really think making criminals out of people who enjoy a smoke every now and again is constructive?

    I know a few people who have gone to prison for dealing small amounts of cannabis yet I still take drugs as do my mates. If you think harsher punishmnets will deter people you are very much mistaken. For every dealer busted there's 10 more ready to take their place.
    ginner wrote:
    readily available professional support benefitting from additional funding and an amnesty for addicts and users who enrolled on schemes before a certain deadline.

    For every user and addict? Sounds expensive so who will pay?

    Take heroin addicts for example. Would it not just be easier and cheaper to give them clean free drugs, clean needles and a safe place to take them? That way you'd be taking the money away from orgained crime, allowing them to continue there habit without having to commit crimes to pay for it and most importantly allow them to recieve the help they need without fear of being labelled a criminal.
    ginner wrote:
    Greater co-operation between international security services to intercept and minimise drug production and trade. State seizure and forced sale of all property, possessions and finances of drug dealers and producers.

    This is absurd. You will never halt the production and trade of drugs. The US has been at war with drugs for decades and what has it achieved.
    ginner wrote:
    Widespread public health information and programmes in schools from Key Stage 1.

    'Drugs are bad mmmkay', 'Just say no' type stuff - that's what we have at the moment. Unfortunately when many kids do come into contact with drugs, they realise that the stuff they were taught in school tends just to be bullshit, and they go on to find that drugs arn't 'evil' can be quite fun and very rewarding.
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ginner wrote:
    Harsher sentences for both drug users and dealers, readily available professional support benefitting from additional funding and an amnesty for addicts and users who enrolled on schemes before a certain deadline. Greater co-operation between international security services to intercept and minimise drug production and trade. State seizure and forced sale of all property, possessions and finances of drug dealers and producers. Widespread public health information and programmes in schools from Key Stage 1.

    None of that will work. The money in the drug trade goes right through society, the CIA are complicit in certain aspects of the drug trade. The "war on drugs" will never be won in fact it rather suits US interests if it is never won - it gives them an excuse to have a military base and power in a lot of countries.

    Take a look at these books

    0335200729.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

    0816640602.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There is a stage at which harsher penalties will partially work, but you have to look at whether you are actually giving out fair and just punishments.

    Is jail time for possession of cannabis actually a good idea, I presume you know how nasty prison is and how it can easily fuck up a persons whole life.

    And of course 'producers' of drugs in many cases are amoung the poorest people on the planet. Look at opium farmers in Afghanistan and coca farmers in Colombia, many of whom would starve without the drugs trade.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ginner wrote:
    Widespread public health information and programmes in schools from Key Stage 1.

    You realise they'd be shooting themselves in the foot with this, since societies attitude towards drugs is largely due to knowing nothing about the actual health risks. The government uses propaganda to manipulate a fearful public into accepting prohibition.

    A drug free society is unattainable, controlling them is the only workable solution. Consequences of prohibition include higher murder rates, the spread of AIDS, property crimes, overpopulated prisons, terrorist funding, just to name a few. It's not working and it never will.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ginner wrote:
    Harsher sentences for both drug users and dealers, readily available professional support benefitting from additional funding and an amnesty for addicts and users who enrolled on schemes before a certain deadline. Greater co-operation between international security services to intercept and minimise drug production and trade. State seizure and forced sale of all property, possessions and finances of drug dealers and producers. Widespread public health information and programmes in schools from Key Stage 1.

    An "amnesty" for drug users? What the fuck are you babbling about? How exactly would that work?

    Harsher sentences for drug users? What a load of nonsense. What drugs people consume is no business of the state. Any problems with addiction to hard drugs can be easily sorted out through legalisation as already explained.
Sign In or Register to comment.