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.
Options
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
Being more likely to break the law isn't breaking the law. Or do you want to start arresting people who have been recently emotional because they are "more likely" to be in a state where the hurt others?
All you have done is prove the point that drug users (if harmful to others) will be found out by the law rapidly in the absence of legislation against drugs in particular.
And I am thinking of those who get hurt by the "law makers" before they ever do anything wrong. And there are many, many more of them.
I just have serious trouble imagining any country where use of heroin is 'socially acceptable'. And of course this view of supply does depend on GP's just handing it out all over the shop.
I've posted a few good reports about MDMA safety in the drugs board, I'll dig them up. Just a comparison between the amount used and the death rate does show it is relatively safe in the short term.
So you'd try heroin if it was clean and legal?
No, I dont, of course I dont know it for fact. But it seems strange to suggest that all Britains are just waiting for legal supply so they can go totally off the rails, never work and die in the gutter.
People should give a shit though, because they pay for it.
Are you being serious? Smoking cannabis is the same as any other crime? Its just as serious as robbery?
Where is the harm?
Governments should justify restrictions on our liberty, there is no good reason why cannabis is illegal.
Your first point seems somewhat self defeating, you have already suggested along with Skive, that drug prohibition isn't working because more and more people take drugs at the moment, despite the fact that it is known to be of dubious quality, that is illegal and expensive.
Legalisation/regulation would create a cleaner, cheaper, more reliable supply, that is what you wnat isn't it?
Thus I fali to see how this could possibly not lead to higher drug use, possible far higher......
thats the harm. I'm not saying which cirm is more serious then the other. It is a crime though and breaking the law is punishable. I accept that.
I don't see why people are persisitng with the attempted legalisation of cannabis. Most people smoke cannabis yes?
I am sure everyone has noticed that we are moving towards a situation where smoking will be illegal and there is no reason why gear won't be included so there is no chance of cannabis being legal accept in some other, far less popular form.......
Can you proove that?
I wouldn't possibly ask GP's to prescribe things like MDMA (though it could be useful in theraputic situations), but heroin substitution would help and would work as methadone does now.
Of course, MDMA can be dangerous, again I ask, would it be more or less dangerous if it was made under quality control and sold with proper information?
I dont think we are moving towards a total ban on tobacco.
I persist because its a stupid, costly and dangerous law which serves no purpose.
well once again I aint gonna eb digging up links and so forth which is bad of me I guess but that has been a long established fact that they lea donto harder drugs in a lot of cases though not all. I have heard from a number of adicts and ex addicts that started on cannabis and then moved to the harder drugs, been oopned upt to drugs and seeking the new high. Its gateway.
And if you asked them I'm sure all of them had used alcohol and caffiene before that, whats your point?
Whatever slight 'gateway' there is, is because of the law, because dealers sell more than one product.
:rolleyes:
Why?
Two completely different drugs.
Well that should be MY choice, yes?
It would be a great step forward because it would remove a large chunk of the black market in heroin, which causes serious health and crime problems.
I thought you might want to take a guess, legal controlled product or black market supply, which would you think less dangerous?
Because it is smoking.
Currently when we talk about a 'ban on smoking' we are talking about tobacco because that is the only legal thing we can smoke anyway.
But for example when smoking in public spaces is banned then if gear were leagal also then this would also apply to smoking gear as well as tobacco, wouldn't it?
Thus of smoking tobacco were illegal then there would be no justification for smoking gear to be legal would there?
It doesn't have to be.
How?