What's the matter with this world??????

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Ilegal drugs of all kinds should be banned, and anyone that has a thing to do with them should be as well! Just watch the drug mansions crumble, and all the bigwigs that have anything to do with them too. get yourself a mansion with the monies saved,instead of paying for someone else's.

Gale, Tuesday, 12 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Illegal drugs of all kind are banned. That's what "illegal" means.

I think it would be better for everyone if all (or almost all) illegal drugs were not banned.

DV, Tuesday, 12 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

i am sorry gale but i think that the govenment should not legislate how i live my self, that legal drugs and illegal drugs are not very different , that if they would be made legal then we could lisence these and money would go to taxes etc , that harm reduction works better then prohibiton and moral laws are different then political laws.

anthony, Tuesday, 12 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

How about if I just do drugs on the weekends? Is that ok?

Sean, Tuesday, 12 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

ALL drugs should be banned, bar none.Aren't we all sick of having our medical cards swiped and handed a perscription? 55 dollars or more a swipe. Think about it next time you are given the bum's rush at the old DR.'s office. It would be nice for all of us to get ourselves healthy. Isn't it high time?

Gale, Tuesday, 12 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I think what you really want to do is ban doctors then. I'd have no problem with that.

Kris, Tuesday, 12 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

gale obviously you're showing us that the drugs arent strong enough.

jess, Tuesday, 12 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Isn't it high time?

Looks at watch... not yet.

Sean, Tuesday, 12 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

yes i think thats what she was saying when she said Isn't it high time?

hamish, Tuesday, 12 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

fucking simultaneous posts.

hamish, Tuesday, 12 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Saying that "ALL drugs should be banned, bar none" sounds a little close to flame-bait, so I'd better not take it as such, and I'm sure that someone a little more pedantic than I am shall be happy to start rhyming off "useful" medical prescriptions, legal "drugs" (I myself am a heavy user of caffeine) etc, etc.

Differences between Medical and Recreational usage aside, the total criminalisation of all drugs is unlikely to have any effect whatsoever on the housing market for "criminal" bigwigs (and, coincidentally, highly-paid sports stars) . Where there's a demand, the (black) market shall provide a supply. At a profit.

If you *really* want to turn decent, hardworking druglords into badly dressed nomads, think about the reverse: Total LEGALISATION of ALL drugs (not just namby-pamby cannabis).

Given the right checks and balances, a properly regulated supply of "clean" (i.e. not cut with toilet cleaner) narcotics would provide instant "market value" and, eventually, drive the druglords into providing other "services" (Guns? Ransom? Fraud? - these all make money for the Bad Men)

I'm not an economist, but you get the idea, I hope!

Calumn, Tuesday, 12 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Legalize ransom!!! Now!!!

Kris, Tuesday, 12 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

If you *really* want to turn decent, hardworking druglords into badly dressed nomads, think about the reverse: Total LEGALISATION of ALL drugs (not just namby-pamby cannabis).

so you don't think there are any druglords of cigarette and alcohol companies living in mansions.

hamish, Tuesday, 12 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I agree with Gale. Ban the people!

maryann, Tuesday, 12 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Here is a great idea for the drug lords... Since they like outdoor work, send them all to work on farms, or clearing land, picking rocks out of fields etc.. At least that would ensure they are earning their money and NOT killing people!

Gale, Tuesday, 12 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I think you have the drug lords confused with the drug serfs, Gale.

Kris, Tuesday, 12 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Hi there, I would have them put all together. Men are created equal, and should be able to do the same jobs.

Gale, Tuesday, 12 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Are you some kind of communist Christian Scientist, Gale?

Josh, Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Ooh, this is topical, what with the government's Draconian stance on recreational drug use being condemned in the media today. Surely a distinction needs to be drawn between the legions of E and Cocaine using clubbers and hedonists, and the users of "hard" drugs who turn to crime on a daily basis to fund their habit. The vast majority of drug users do so just for fun, they don't hurt anybody. Leave them alone and concentrate on the real criminals. Amen.

Trevor, Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

There is a certain charm about talking to various filthbags and negotiating price and worrying about not successfully finding drugs or whatever. Also theres the fun of varying potency, ie your friends on the bus home moaning and sleeping and you still bobbing your head around the place like a mentalist, or vice versa.

Oh I realise this is all sort of pre drug legalisation nostalgia, and of course I want stuff to be legalised. But still there are fun aspects to the illegality.

Ronan, Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Ronan is definitely mad.

Emma, Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

there is no charm in travelling many miles to a dance club, being searched and then turned over to the police to end up with a criminal record.

Alan Trewartha, Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I agree with zero tolerance of drug users. It's disgusting that certain areas are known as free spaces for junkies and crackheads and nobody does anything about it. Drugs also eat away at the fabric of society as they cause people to become so introverted that they become useless parasites. BTW I use every combination of everything I can find on a regular basis, but I'm not the sort of person who gets hassled by the police, so they can bring in mandatory minimum sentences for possession anytime, I'll still walk in front of the Angel police station with a joint and not worry. (Drug laws are good because the theory is that the same people commit all the crimes, and usually they don't get caught for most of the stuff they actually do, so catching them out with gear or planting it on them is necessary sometimes)

dave q, Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Note to Americans - unlike your wonderfully zealous and attentive army of stormtroopers - sorry, I meant 'police' - in London they're like the Keystone Kops, it's the only place you can get away with being such a habitual scofflaw

dave q, Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I'm not mad, it's just you both live in a city where noone sells real drugs in clubs. In Dublin you don't risk anything yourself, you just prance into the club and wait for scumbag a to outbid scumbag b.

Ronan, Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Except that Gale said "Ilegal" drugs. Must admit I couldn't find Ilegal in my British National Formulary so presumably it's a new American drug.

Legal drugs should certainly be banned as should all consumer goods. Then we could spend our money on . . . er . . . hang on a minute while I go figure this one out.

Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I agree - everything should be banned. This board should be banned... If you post here, the terrorists have won already.

Geoff, Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I don't know about you folks, but I am really sick of hearing and having family members blow their heads off, and over-dosing, and even making their own solutions and literally killing themselves. I think we all should smarten up.

Gale, Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Gale, I agree that everyone should "smarten up", as you put it, but I have serious doubts that a blanket prohibition on all drugs would actually do anything. It didn't work in the US with alcohol in the 20s and it isn't working now with pot, cocaine, crack, heroin, etc, now; people who want to use substances will do so regardless of their legal status or the consequences. If there was a sensible way of putting effort into mitigating the consequences of drug abuse, I'd be all for pouring funding into it, but I'm not well-versed enough on the subject to make suggestions.

Dan Perry, Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Hi Dan, you will have to lose a few in your family before you get well versed?? I know I have!

Gale, Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Uh, Gale, I think you just crossed a line there...

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I think if people talk about drugs there is NO line to cross. They are good for nothing. People who deal in them/ take them should kill themselves fast instead of burning their brains out. What line have I crossed Ned?

Gale, Thursday, 14 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I've avoided posting on this thread because it's such a loaded topic. I definitely understand your POV Gale. I too have personal experience with my loved ones devastating their lives and others through drugs and alcohol. However I do not think the criminalization of drugs is the answer.

First off you have to distingush between addiction and recreational drug users. Not all drugs are physically addicitve and not all people who use drugs are prone to addiction. Plenty of people go through phases in their lives that involve occasional use of illegal drugs and then they move on. Other people fall into a black hole with drugs and slowly destroy themselves. Plenty of people have a couple of drinks on the weekends or at weddings and live life fine. Others use alcohol in a self-medicating way and slowly destroy themselves. You can't create laws to keep people from hurting themselves.

Yes the illegal drug trade does have innocent victims. But note I said the *trade*. I strongly believe that if drugs were de- criminalized and government-controlled a lot of the heartache, violence and crime associated with drug use would dissappear. Those drug lords and their mansions would be out of a job if people could get safe, clean and inexpensive drugs through other means.

It all comes down to this: you can't tell people what to do with their bodies and their lives. Humans (and all animals for that matter) have always engaged in mind-altering substances and activities. This is not a moral problem. Some people are prone to substance addiction and these people will find their addiction despite the laws (what about legal drugs that people get prescriptions for but are only using to get high? what about cigarettes?). If you want to help the addict focus on what causes them to self-medicate and heal that. Leave others alone.

We all have free will. I have seen first hand how devasting drugs and alcohol can be. When I use them I am making a conscious, informed choice and understand all the consequences. This is my right and my choice.

Samantha, Thursday, 14 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

"ALL drugs should be banned, bar none.Aren't we all sick of having our medical cards swiped and handed a perscription?"

As someone who needs prescription medicaiton to stay alive, I really don't think all drugs should be banned. Aspirin, coffee, chocolate...where will you draw the line?

I also don't think prohibition has done one positive thing in terms of drug use/abuse. Laws such as Dubya's have put thousands of african americans in jail while their white ocunterparts sit hig in the mansions flogging the crack...

Legalise it, regulate it, treat the problem instead of trying to hide it away.

Geoff, Thursday, 14 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Personally, I find "the line to cross" being the urge to tell Gale to fuck off with virtually everything she posts.

Marcello Carlin, Thursday, 14 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

well that is lovely talk.

I think Gale's posts are always well mannered and come from an interesting perspective even when she is saying things I disagree with.

DV, Thursday, 14 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I don't care what's the matter with this world, because !I don't give a fuck about this world! as you all know.

Nicole, Thursday, 14 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

There's always some people on here that we'd like to tell to fuck off, Marcello, but what would be the point in that? Hardly promotes discussion or freedom of speech. However much I might disagree with Gale I don't see how I have any right to shut her up. Don't think I'm getting on any high horses, it's simply no more than I'd expect if it was me presenting difficult opinions. For the record, I am of the opinion that some way of monitoring drug quality would help lower the amount of people who die from overdoses etc, and provide a safer framework for dealing, although I recognise the problems associated with this.

alix, Thursday, 14 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

No you CANNOT keep using the same fucking excuse (oh it's freedom of speech blah blah excuse) when someone wants to say sick shit. If NO ONE tells her to fuck off then there will be NO debate - everyone will just sit like timid calves in the abattoir and take it.

"Hi Dan, you will have to lose a few in your family before you get well versed?? I know I have!"

This is SHIT and this is SICK. Wanting members of another poster's family dead. If you can defend that then you're sicker than she is.

"I think if people talk about drugs there is NO line to cross. They are good for nothing. People who deal in them/ take them should kill themselves fast instead of burning their brains out."

Yeah Gale, what do you mean by "they"? "Drugs" or "people who talk about drugs"? Good for nothing. People who TAKE THEM should kill themselves fast (sic). Yeah Gale, just put pink triangles on their heads and shove them in an oven, why don't you? Don't even THINK about CURING addicts, about REHABILITATING them, about FORGIVING . . . all these essential tenets of Christianity which you are so suddenly keen to overlook.

No, I gave you the benefit of the doubt back at Xmas, but you've used up all the goodwill now. I'm sick of your right-wing bastard child of Falwell/Helms hypocritical poison - and if you're not "real" but a "joke persona" then that makes it 20 times worse.

How many times do I have to say it? If people are going to POST SHIT on these boards then they are going to get SHIT BACK.

Oh, and of course yet again I'll be the bad guy here for pointing out some home truths. Well fuck that. So it's OK to be a shitbag if you're one of the inner circle. One of our "mates"? Fine, then you won't mind if I walk the other way and let you get on with it.

Marcello Carlin, Thursday, 14 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

If Heroin were to be availible to all addicts free on prescription, the crime rate would plummet. No more steeling to fund habit. No more dealing and trading in the drug, police time freed to go adter other crooks. The death rate from heroin related illnesses would drop, saving money in the NHS. Addicts would be able to accurately control their own doses allowing them to avoid overdose. Death from drugs cut with suspicious substances would be removed. And whats more the number of new addicts would reduce as there would be very little point in pushing a drug freely availible on the NHS.

Ed, Thursday, 14 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Marcello for heaven's sake. I'd have thought it was pretty obvious she wasn't wishing death on Dan's family members but using a figure of speech. I seem to remember you saying something along the same lines before (ie. "you'll have to go through x yourself before you can understand") It's a pretty common thing to say from people who have been through some kind of personal hell and find someone else disagreeing with themselves about some related matter. It may have been curiously breezily phrased, crassly even, but I don't see the point of this bizarre onslaught.

N., Thursday, 14 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

i don't think you're the bad guy for pointing this one out marcello. because i agree with you.

gale said "People who deal in them/ take them should kill themselves fast instead of burning their brains out".

she is suggesting that some of the people here should kill themselves. i prefer the idea of people being able to live and make their own choices than being demonized. i know this is partly because gale is in canada and not in the uk, where her wishes would involve the removal of a large swathe of young people, people who contribute to the health and wealth of britain. she is also assuming that other people here haven't lost people to drugs/drink/whatever. thats a big assumption Gale. it is also incorrect.

gale, am i scum? should i be dead?

gareth, Thursday, 14 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Maybe I'm wrong about you saying a similar thing. It might have just been something like 'When you're 40 you'll understand'. Sorry if I put words in your mouth. Anyway, my point is just that it's a hypothetical sentence formulation and I would have thought that was perfectly obvious. I shut up now.

N., Thursday, 14 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

and to answer the question. every single word that Ed said, above, i agree with 100%. legalise all. regulate all. like alcohol.

gareth, Thursday, 14 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

OK I lied. Gale's arguments = loony and implications of them = nasty. But they aren't malicious. Maybe I'm just especially tolerant of crappy arguments and especially squeamish about people being openly aggressive.

N., Thursday, 14 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I get the impression most of the people here ignore Gale's rantings not because they are timid calves in an abbatoir or because they think she is "one of us" and therefore immune to criticism but because they think she's a bit of a loony. Arguing with somebody is worthwhile if you think:

i) their mind might be changed somehow.

ii) your mind might be changed somehow.

iii) they are influencing other people and need to be publically disagreed with.

None of these apply to Gale, I get the impression.

Tom, Thursday, 14 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Ed - can't disagree with much of what you say, except that crime rates wouldn't plummet. I think the idea that many addicts are 'forced' to steal to feed their addiction is somewhat false. Many are involved in many and various criminal activities which wouldn't necessarily stop. Free heroin would not automatically restore a 'normal' life with an unobtrusive addiction which is no more anti- social than a swift pint after work. Neither would the real villians, the dealers and importers, simply go straight the day after H was legalized. They'll still be up to no good.

Dr. C, Thursday, 14 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Yeah, I get a bit cynical of the rosier-tinted predictions of the legalisation crowd, even though I'm broadly for it. Wasn't there some research recently that debunked the assumption that most property crime is committed to fuel drug habits? Anyway, I do think there would be unforseeable ills that would work their way into society were drugs to be fully legalised. I don't have evidence for this, just a gut feeling that if you get rid of one problem by making such a massive change to the world then another one will somehow pop up its place. Having said that, I'd love to see what it is - experimenting with society is fun. Legalise everything now!

N., Thursday, 14 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I should have made it clear that despite this I am in favour of legalization/regulation. Just don't let's fool ourselves into thinking it's as simple as that. I'd happily pay more tax if it could be targeted at rehab and keeping kids away from it in the first place. Let's not pretend that skag is a reasonable life-choice - it's nasty and has the potential to screw you up physically and mentally regardless of the source or legality.

Dr. C, Thursday, 14 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Hey, c'mon Dr.C. As all good libertarians know, the bad side effect of unpolluted heroin is constipation. And you can take DRUGS for that.

N., Thursday, 14 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I have heard the sociological explanations of drug use etc. and I do appreciate that not everyone who uses drugs is an addict. (just felt I should clarify).

jel, Thursday, 14 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Maybe Gale didn't MEAN to offend anyone. But did Marcello?

I wouldn't have bothered starting this debate since I just think most of what Gale said was complete shit. I couldn't be bothered trying to force my opinion (or even outline it), which probably is completely contrary to hers, on her.

Having said that I see why Marcello would get so annoyed.

Ronan, Thursday, 14 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

"i do appreciate that not all drug users are addicts"

is the implication that a major proportion of them are though? even sticking to official statistics this isn't the case at all. In the UK there are an estimated 3.5 to 5 million recreational drug users compared to approximately 300,000 drug addicts - which means, splitting the difference, that around 93 percent of all drug use is recreational.

neil, Thursday, 14 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

i don't know where ppl get this idea that we're supposed to judge others based on how they treat us. i judge ppl by how they treat (and regard) others, whether those others are present or conveniently absent. also by how they regard themselves. if you say hateful, disdainful or snobbish things about ppl, how am i supposed to know you won't do the same to me or anyone else. think about that before you confess yr sins here.

Ed Cognito, Thursday, 14 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Hi Everyone, Marcello included. Just a note about the way I posted. I know it came out quite wrong to what I wanted to say but that's me. I just want to say why I posted the way I did and maybe you'll see where I'm coming from. I will clear up when I said "they" I meant drugs. I did not wish someone's family member harm or worse, because I'm not like that at all. I just asked the question of what would it take before this man could get well-versed.

A few years ago, my Dad found his only living relative, with his head blown in half, shot by his son. He wanted money for drugs. He is still in jail now he was 32 or so when he was arrested. So yes I do hate what drugs do. I have a 30 year old niece in jail for stealling for drugs. She was arrested after living almost a year on the street. We know when she gets out she will just do the samething over, as this is the fourth or fifth time for her. She just started as a weekend party girl. Now it's impossible for her to stop. I feel if I can talk one person out of drugs, it might make up for the ones we can't help. I have been called names before and it doesn't fizz on me in the least. For all the people who understood what I was trying to get across, thank you.

Gale, Thursday, 14 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I realized that there was a second reading of Gale's controversial second statement. While I read it as, "People who take drugs aren't worthy of life and should could themselves," you could also read it as, "People who take drugs are killing themselves in an agonizingly slow manner which is sheer torture for themselves and the people around them. They might as well kill themselves quickly and get the torture-of-themselves-and-others part out of the way." I still have problems with that, but not nearly on the same level as I had with the first reading.

Drugs have pretty much destroyed the neighborhood my mother grew up in (which also happens to be the neighborhood I visited most frequently as a child when visiting relatives). I hate that aspect of how drugs are integrated into modern society. I don't think that draconian measures against drug use will make this go away; in fact, I think that draconian measures against drug use helped accelerate the decline of this neighborhood.

I also agree that drug addicts need counselling and treatment more than they need jail time, but I say this under the assumption that their only "crime" is to use drugs. People who steal and physically hurt others so that they can get their fix are criminals and should be treated as such. I don't care what you were on; all human beings should be held accountable for their actions at all times. If you get high out in the woods, I don't care, but if you walk through those woods, come across my parents' house, break in and take the stereo, your ass needs to go to jail.

Dan Perry, Thursday, 14 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Hi Dan, My niece was arrested for fraud signing and cashing elderly folks checks, to buy drugs so yes she belongs where she is.

Gale, Thursday, 14 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

The thing that really bothers me is that when my niece is released she will have been rehabilitated and drug free. Within two weeks she will get to them again. Her brain is pretty messed up now as she has been on the hard drugs. :( Now maybe you can see why I stand where I do on this subject?

Gale, Thursday, 14 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

thanks for your clarification Gale. i see where you're coming from, and i am of the opinion that hard drugs are awful things. i lost a very good friend just before christmas to Heroin. i always believed that decriminalization of hard drugs would benefit society as a whole. since his death i believe this even more. if there had been places where this was legal (or at least not a focus of police attention - eg some kind of governmental/prescription type deal) i believe he would still be alive today.

people are given no help/assistance in coming off hard drugs. the authorites criminalize them, they are likely to be arrested. big risk for them to take. decriminalization allows proper regulation, and allows people time to get their life back in order.

my friend didn't get this chance, a couple of wrong choices in life and the difficulty in getting away from it proved impossible. where is the support for people in getting off stuff? there isn't any, we paint them as criminals and society just throws them away.

he never hurt anyone, he never took money from anyone, but having to go underground, get stuff that would often have been mucky contaminated shit unregulated, put out by people who didn't care in the slightest. it did for him in the end.

society criminalizes the user (addict or recreational). one society does this more than any other. that society is america. one society has the worse problem. that society is america. one society got ever more stringent in its drug laws in the 80s. that society is america. one society had a drug problem increase exponentially at the same time. that society is america. i cannot believe this is co- incidental

i think it is fine to have your opinion Gale, and i don't think ill of you for it, but i believe in decriminalization or legalisation to improve society, reduce crime and poverty, and because i believe it is an individuals choice.

gareth, Thursday, 14 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Thanks for your response and I see where you are coming from. My sister tried to open some orgaizations through C. F.C. to help those on hard drugs and hit a brick wall wherever she turned. What it entaled was Md's would probably have to be there round the clock, and the prices would NOT allow the poorer people access.( That's another thing that bothers us ) Poor people need the help every bit as much as the rich.

Gale, Thursday, 14 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Gale: when you say your Dad's only living relative do you mean yourself? And are you Marcello a few hours after you have had your anti-psychotic medication?

rabbit, Thursday, 14 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

No it was my Dad's last brother . OutOf 7 children, my Dad is the only one left in that generation. I do have many cousins though. My dad found him.

Gale, Thursday, 14 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Morning, everyone! Have a nice evening?

Right - * clocks in * -

"And are you Marcello a few hours after you have had your anti- psychotic medication?"

Am I what Doomie? Do you mean "mean"?

Current medication consists only of Cinnarizine for recurrent vertigo and nausea which occurs every few months or so as a consequence of cerebellar damage in RTA Oct '98.

Marcello Carlin, Friday, 15 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Right, sidestepping the main argument for a second, what's interesting both here and with the "drugs are funding terrorists" argument is that hardliners and legalisers use very similar lines: both agree that drug users cause a disproportionate amount of crime and that the drugs are a major force of funding for various insurgent/terrorist groups (although, of course, mobile phones & diamonds & oil & lots of other things are also paying for semtex and uzis round the world). Then it turns out that the logical jump you take from there: legalise! or imprison! isn't a jump determined by logic at all

Mark Morris, Friday, 15 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

the majority of recreational users commit no crimes whatever (other than the consumption thing of course)

gareth, Friday, 15 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Hi Gareth, After awhile, don't you think that recreational users don't eventually turn into the constant users? Honestly?

Gale, Friday, 15 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

to be honest Gale, no. again i feel there is a cultural difference in the role that drugs play in america/canada and britain/europe though. and also depends on the usage.

i base a lot of this on personal experience, so i admit the difficulty of extrapolating this to a society wide level, but the background i'm from many many people took ecstacy (we're talking when i was about 16-17 - the rave era in britain - 1992). since then, the vast majority of the people i know have turned into 'conservative upstanding members of society' - 'normal' people if you like. very very few took a downward spiral from here. the bulk of these people now see that as part of their teenage years.

there are also people who take things periodically or at the same level now, but i don't see a problem with that either. people continue to use alcohol throughout their whole life, i don't see it as a problem if people take pills for as long as they want. addiction isn't to do with amount, its to do with addiction. people get addicted to sex, gambling, nicotine, alcohol - i don't think these should be banned either. everything is harmful if you cannot self regulate, think of yourself and think of others.

i believe pills to be less harmful than alcohol. the gateway to harder drugs argument is worth considering though, but i feel nicotine (at 14-15) is much worse in this respect. people have to be able to be trusted to regulate their own personal lives.

unless you are meaning recreational users of heroin. in this i believe you are correct. i think most all recreationals users of heroin will become addicts. but i still believe that it being decriminalized will help people in this position.

gareth, Friday, 15 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I think the legalisers (who distinguish between addicts and 'recreational users') are a bit wide-eyed and innocent. The nature of drugs is such that users differ in degree, not kind.

Also, the term 'recreational user' - what does it say about the person for whom inner journeys are preferable to pursuits which can be externally validated?

These two facts must be kept in mind - A)Drugs are fun and amusing, and in weaker moments could be justified as a 'sane response to unbearable world', etc., and b)Drug users ALWAYS go on to some form of dishonest/corrupt behavior, whether kidding themselves about the nature of their use, or killing someone for £5.

dave q, Friday, 15 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

These are not facts; they are opinions if not supported by hard statistical or anecdotal evidence.

Why is "kidding themselves about the nature of their use" "dishonest"? Cannot you accept that the vast majority of recreational drug users experience no problems, undertake no "corrupt" activity? Or is it just "I Dave Q am morally pure and thus sniff upon all others as my inferiors?"

Of course, were you running the world you'd doubtless send them all off on white water rafting courses (for which you need steroids to be any good at). Strength through joy! What a good job you're not running anything.

Marcello Carlin, Friday, 15 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I agree with disagreement.

picking upon/just trying to do mocking isn't good disagreement.

richard john gillanders, Friday, 15 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I don't try to do mocking, I just do it. And I'm bloody ace at it and all.

Marcello Carlin, Friday, 15 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Hi Gareth I was actually speaking of what my neice has the prob. with... crack and drugs like it that people ( even recreational) take it, they aren't able to stop. I wasn't speaking of mild.

Gale, Friday, 15 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

is all bollok. i can stop any time i want. i fuckin get hi on heroine an then go without for 2 hours. so u iz rong.

mind u i smoke krak pip in betwen but thas diffrent lik blok sed on club reps trashin the room an expected 2 pay 4 it its just not rite.

XStatic Peace, Friday, 15 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

All though all drugs stats are deeply suspect, the ones that do exist say that roughly 2.5% of people who have tried crack become addicts, and 15% of regular (that's more than once a month, I think) powdered cocaine users develop some kind of dependence. I think its still perfectly valid to argue that drugs should be illegal/disapproved of because of the effects they have on heavy users, but the facts say that large majority people who use illegal drugs are not addicted in anyway, do not commit drugs-related crime other than possession and do not suffer major short-term health effects. On the other hand, in terms of long-term health problems, cannabis is probably more harmful than clean heroin.

Mark Morris, Friday, 15 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

'Why is kidding oneself dishonest'? Jesus wept.

dave q, Friday, 15 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

What is truth? - Johnny Cash.

What people tend to forget at the end of the day is that demystification tended to take a lot of the mystery out of the whole thing - St Simeon of Reynards.

Isn't knowing that you are kidding yourself more honest than being honest?

Marcello Carlin, Friday, 15 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I’m not entirely convinced about legalising hard drugs. Can anyone really use addictive drugs that cause major health problems sensibily?

Can you just explain what drugs you are talking about here and what you think the major health problems are, Jel? Aside from the addictiveness itself?

N., Friday, 15 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

If I have inadvertently dissed Nicole then I apologise with all my heart.

I didn't even know there were any attempts at dissing, so don't worry about it.

Nicole, Friday, 15 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Hi Gareth, After awhile, don't you think that recreational users don't eventually turn into the constant users? Honestly?

ia m not gareth but i think tghis is a very wrong assumption. i used to use drugs recreationally an awful lot. and now i hardly use them at all. yes i know a couple of people who have completely messed themselves up on drugs, but actually most pof myt friends find that its a phase one grows out of. and i would like to emphasise that somking marijuana does not lead to shotting up H. DOES NOT. hewlls bells its a completely differnt ball game.

di, Friday, 15 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Gareth said : **i think most all recreationals users of heroin will become addicts**

Yes, most REGULAR recreational users.

**but i still believe that it being decriminalized will help people in this position**

No, the simple act of decriminalization will not help people who are already addicts, unless backed up with a program to rehabilitate. I'd make it compulsory as a condition of obtaining free heroin that you go on a program of staged withdrawal and rehab.

Dr. C, Friday, 15 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Is there anything in the personalities of heroin addicts (or, actually, anybody) that suggests that they would actually RESPOND to treatment though? Has any kind of treatment ever worked, except the $10,000 personalised variety? Signing up for rehab is the oldest dodge in the book for somebody who is determined to keep taking drugs - and also the best place to score.
The core of the addict personality is a wish to be left alone to do whatever one pleases in a complete moral vacuum, and anything is justified in the pursuit of this goal - moral infantility, in other words. Take all the drugs you want, leave a large amount for me, but all I see is people coming up with ways to pretend that taking drugs is anything but weak and antisocial.

dave q, Friday, 15 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Define "infantility" (?) Define "morality." Define "weak." Define "antisocial."

And the same answer comes up: "doesn't agree with Dave Q's view of the world."

Try going off and researching your fields thoroughly before forming an opinion. Then consider whether stating said opinion openly is going to do more good than harm. If you have even the slightest bit of doubt about the latter, then keep it to yourself.

Or, as Mr Rowland alternatively phrased it, shut your fucking mouth 'til you know the truth.

Marcello Carlin, Friday, 15 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

look i know this may come off as alittle disingenuous considering what a shitstirrer i have been in the past but please can we all just not bitch tonight? please?

di, Friday, 15 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

i crap i have probbly just invited wrath upon myself. maybe its time for me to gohome.

di, Friday, 15 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

the two ppl i know well who kicked heroin both kicked, i'd say, because of vanity: person [A] very much enjoys being thought super-cute and charming and sexy and [whatever], and suddenly realised (aged about 21-ish) that this had stopped being 100% the case; with person [B] (who also kicked alcohol at the same time) it was much more intellectual vanity — she got bored of being round ppl who weren't bothered whether or not she was smart, which she is. Both said, sine, that they can't believe how boring most of their friends were as junkies, or how boring they must have been. ([A] I didn't know when she was using; [B] was not actually boring at all when there, but just never around much: I didn't know when she started using, or exactly when she stopped — tho she told me quite soon after that.) Both made some use of institutional support — NA and seeing a therapist — and seem to have got a lot of both things. Ppl who are weak in one way are often strong in others. [A] and [B] were both junkies, I'd say, because they wanted to hurt ppl who loved them — parents, in A's case — by just throwing themselves away. Both changed their minds at some point, I don't know how or why.

mark s, Friday, 15 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I'd respond to Marcello, but that would make me the only person on the board who still gives a shit what he says about anything.

dave q, Friday, 15 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Hi Davey! :) That's a low blow. You certainly put me in my place there! Observe my body quivering with dread! But not as much as your junkie acquaintances' veins! You are considering napalming them! You are realising the abstinence from faith which has consumed their innards and left their souls rotting like Fort Dunlop on the M6! You must burn them! Bye! (:

Marcello Carlin, Friday, 15 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Blimey!

DG, Friday, 15 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

If you have even the slightest bit of doubt about the latter, then keep it to yourself.

Or, as Mr Rowland alternatively phrased it, shut your fucking mouth 'til you know the truth.


i must admit i always have a slight doubt about everything, i'm never 100% sure of what i say, i don't think this invalidates my opinion though, or maybe it does? i don't know the truth i'm afraid, but i would like to hope that this wouldn't prevent me from voicing my opinion. i may be wrong in what i've stated on this thread, but i believe it to be right. and i hope everyone who isn't 100% convinced of something doesn't feel cowed in any way, it can be a good way to learn i think.

gareth, Friday, 15 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Some people thrive on agression and trying to make other people feel small. Sadly, it's pretty apparent to everyone else that they're just being cunts.

alix, Friday, 15 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

"Can you just explain what drugs you are talking about here and what you think the major health problems are, Jel? Aside from the addictiveness itself?"

Hi N., I'll get back to you on this one...I'll have a look through medline and I've borrowed some books...so I might post something later this weekend. If I am wrong in my assumption then I shall admit to it.

jel, Friday, 15 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I find myself in the strange position of sticking up for Marcello. If you ignore the somewhat misleading Rowland quote then the full context of what he said was:

Then consider whether stating said opinion openly is going to do more good than harm. If you have even the slightest bit of doubt about the latter, then keep it to yourself.

Which is good Christian talk. As I made clear, I'm rather convinced that Marcello fails his own test above, but I guess he's the only judge of that, it being intrinsically subjective.

Reminds me of my mum's "If you haven't got anything nice to say, don't say it", which is taking things TOO far!

N., Friday, 15 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I am a horrible evil person. I am going to go now.

alix, Friday, 15 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I was hooked on methadone for a couple of years back in my foolish youth. Once I’d tried it I didn't care whether I ended up addicted or not because I loved the feeling of contentment and confidence it gave me - the prospect of taking it indefinately was an attractive one. However, these positive effects faded fast as my body became more tolerant - yet I carried on using, partly because withdrawal symptoms are so goddamn awful (the commonplace idea that it's no worse than a bad dose of 'flu is bullshit) but mostly because opiates obliterate all sense one has of ‘ordinary’ values: relationships, going down the pub, having a laugh with mates, music, food etc etc. none of these things are of any importance while you're doing hard drugs because your brain chemistry has been effected in such a way as to block all normal pleasure responses, and as the months become years you become less and less capable of recalling what it was like before you ever started down this path; you’re convinced that without drugs life would be unbearable. I only made a commitment to quit after I'd sank so low that I had to recognise that whatever it might be like off them there was no way it could be any worse than it had become on them. With drink or uppers, even if you use them to excess there's a lot of fun, hilarity, lunacy, whatever, to balance out the downside, but with opiates there are no redeeming factors whatsoever - it's just a big fucking waste of life.

neil, Friday, 15 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

ile is the opiate of the masses.

ethan, Friday, 15 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Hi Neil. :) Are you feeling better and at peace with yourself now?

Gale, Friday, 15 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I was writing a long response to Neil's post, but just can't bring myself to hit "submit" and reveal too much stuff about myself, even to strangers, it's just too awful. But I must disagree that uppers used to excess still brings about much fun, hilarity, etc. I know very, very well that's not the case, at least for some. End of post.

Sean, Friday, 15 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Hi Gale,

Yes I’m fine now, thanks for asking – it was all a long long time ago.

neil, Friday, 15 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Hi Neil, I'm very happy for you! Proud of you as well :) Gale

Gale, Friday, 15 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Hi Sean, If you want to talk to someone, You are welcome to e-mail me.

Gale, Saturday, 16 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.