View Full Version : All drugs are dangerous
Ive opened this thread specifically so as Rheghead can once and for all get something off his chest and instead of trying to score cheap points we can discuss my concerns about his romanticism of alcohol and demonisation of others whose drug of choice may be illegal I believe, simply because of attitudes like his.
Heres my take on drugs. (alcohol included) I would prefer we lived in a world where drugs were not an issue. However we all know this is not the case and will always be an unrealistic ideal.
All drugs are dangerous, some more than others. The drug known as alcohol is both legal and very dangerous. Theres a romantic notion often displayed on caithness.org by Rheghead that alcohol is cool and deserves a special place in the culture of the human race. Hes right. Alcohol does hold a special place in the psyche of millions. Its automatically accepted by much of society as ok whilst other no more or less dangerous drugs are still illegal.
I say Its that attitude rather than the drug that causes the problems. Its that same attitude that fuels prohibition.
My concern is that prohibition rather than helping the whole illegal drugs question is actually creating it and attitudes like rhegheads towards illegal drugs, whilst knocking back legal ones is as much a danger as some dimbo standing on an inner city street corner selling bags of heroin for whatever the going rate is.
Im not sure how the way forward is with drugs but I am sure that prohibition is not it. I believe as long as theres a double standard attitude like the one rheghead displays so admirably our kids will continue to take the drugs are dangerous message with a pinch of salt.
My question is:
Is Rheghead a part of the problem rather than a part of the solution Or am I as culpable with my anti prohibition, anti alcohol is wonderful stance?
PS. Im not anti alcohol and because of societies attitudes to illegal drugs I am also bounded by those moral standards too. But, am I prepared to change?
i think you should take this up with rheghead in a private message ;)
Gleeber taking drugs are more addictive than alcohol thats why there seen as more dangerous.
Its a bit like if your a smoke fags like me once u start smoking and get addicted its really hard to stop its amazing the effect of nicitine has on you and how hard it is to stop and thats just fags and imagine if u were a drug addict and wanted to stop thats why drugs should remain illegel.
The trick is not to smoke or take drugs to start with or alcohol for that matter
My answer to gleebers quetion is:
If Rheghead or anyone is not part of the solution, then they ARE part of the problem.
My answer to gleebers quetion is:
If Rheghead or anyone is not part of the solution, then they ARE part of the problem.
Why? Maybe he's just irrelevant in this case.
Naefearjustbeer
03-Dec-05, 18:59
Lots of people can enjoy a couple of drinks every now and then and come to no harm from it. A lot of people take a right fill of drink every now and then again with not much harm from it. The same you can say for someone that enjoys the odd spliff. The problem comes from addiction not every person that enjoys alcohol is addicted to it. Most people that smoke are addicted to the nicotene, most people who smoke joints are also addicted to nicotene. I believe the other substance is just for enjoyment and is not the addictive part of it,harder drugs are a problem as they take a strong grip on you and are difficult to use every now and then. Quite why people take heroin I dont know? what are the enjoyable effects? I can understand someone enjoying a pint or a ciggy or even a spliff and I wont think anything bad of them for it (unless of course they are blowing the smoke in my face).
Quite why people take heroin I dont know? what are the enjoyable effects?
A massive instant high, that's what. Or so I'm told, I wouldn't know would I now? :)
Anyway, a glass of wine every day is supposed to be good for the heart. It cleans the arteries. Or something like that anyway.
RandomHero
03-Dec-05, 21:43
Drugs are illegal for a reason. It's for our well being. If I go to a party and people say that they are having the odd spliff I will leave straight away. I will not approve of drugs in any situation although some exceptions could be made in the case of medicine. I've seen people get messed up because of drugs. I've seen them die or even kill because they are 'high'. Look where drugs got Rodney King.
I accept people having a drink but not too much. I think if there is a substance that makes you lose control of yourself you should be incredibly careful when taking it and know when to stop.
I think the police should deal with drugs as hard as possible. There are so much drugs in Thurso alone and I hope the situation is cleaned up ASAP.
peddomcgrory
04-Dec-05, 00:30
Random Hero for Prime Minister.......here here
RandomHero
04-Dec-05, 00:34
I couldn't agree more
Reading these posts helps me to realize that the problems exist in the Highlands as they do here in one of the drug capitals of the USA - Tucson.
As a result of massive drugs moving out of Mexico and across the border to Tucson where it has become one of the largest towns for killing innocent citizens. I keep wondering about the winter visitors flocking to Tucson for the beautiful climate and wonder when it will cease. Sure hope you folks don't have this problem.
porshiepoo
04-Dec-05, 00:56
What about drugs that are used for medical conditions? By that I mean things such as amphetamine based tablets for sleep apnoeas or drugs that help with rheumatic problems etc.
I apoligise to rheghead for the manner of my post. I took exception To being accused of glorifying heroin.
I still put forward that prohibition is as dangerous as the drug. Marions post would give credence to that idea. If a bunch of criminally intent thugs are in control of the illegal drugs market what do yo uexpect?
Maybe random heroes zero tollerance is one way forward because the present ambivalence has created an economic climate for the Al Capones of the world to cash in on the misery of our kids. Unlikely though.
That still doesnt meet my concern about the present attitude and glorification of alcohol, mostly amongst men, who enjoy a pint or six and sneer at others who may choose a different form of intoxication. I guess thats the attitude I am against and choose to challenge.
Sorry again Rheghead!
Sorry again Rheghead!
No problem, I'm sorry for giving you a cheap shot in the fave 80s band thread :)
sweetheart
04-Dec-05, 15:53
The mentality of the failed war on drugs has brainwashed masses of people,
including reading this thread, those who harp that police can solve a drugs
problem, when police haven't solved one in over half a century.
All that has happened, is that police have been given super invasive search
and surveillance powers, so they can stuff the prisons with otherwise
nonviolent persons who's intoxication of choice is not to get drunk.
The war IS the problem, along with the brainwashed Drugs paranoid persons
who can't accept human free will.
You are free to imbibe any plant or plant-derivative on this god's green
planet, by the natural law of being alive. It is your free will to take ANY
drug you want, and i respect you if you use that free will, learn and explore,
just be careful and stay away from stupid people, police and generally
most stupid morons behind the war on drugs or persons who support it.
Rheghed's attitude is part of the problem, if he is not lucid enough to
respect the facts of the failure of drugs prohibition around the world.
It is fighting human liberty, to stop people from exploring what states of
mind that some drugs open up... and it is not a crime.. no matter what
the silly laws say... .. all the drugs laws are anachronisms, and sadly
an age of puritain fearful paranoid poeple support them, for fear that
freedom and liberty are dangerous, and would rather be treated like
inmates in a prison, shaken down by the police-warden mob for
contraband... whatever you call freedom...?
sweetheart
05-Dec-05, 00:43
"what a load of poppycock" the person says, clearly very intelligent on
making the case for the war on drugs.
Bottom line, the war on drugs has been a complete failure in the united states
and in britain, who, like with the iraq war, wage an impossible conflict against
all statistical evidence that drugs addiction problems are rife.
So rather than regulate these drugs, that our children do not die of overdoses
and bad chemicals, we deliver our children in to the hands of the underworld.
So clearly people who make daily mail comments like "what a load of
poppycock", are actually complicit in negligent homicide. So many deaths
and life-problems are caused by these impure supplies and the uncontrolled
situation of the failed drugs war.
1 out of 3 scottish teenagers has smoked cannabis. 1 out of 3 has
smoked an unknown uncontrolled drug, and rather than be concerned with
the purity of the supplies that, like so many other persons, a person might
have a dalliance with drugs, and leave it behind; then would the damage
the drugs do be minimized.
When drugs are illegal, dealers are more likely to use underage sales
channels, as much as the crime is already committed, so no difference
for sales to under-16's. When they are legal, license shops stand to
lose a license for such sales, enforcing that drugs stay out of the hands
of minors.
The drugs war is indefensible. Not a logical argument exists for its
defense, just a load of emotional bully persons, like the cowardly person
who left this dribble in my reputation box. If you back the drugs war, and
support destroying other people's lives because of your puritain nasty
belief in criminalizing people for having difficulty with their lives, for
drinking whiskey of a different sort, perhaps a few bottles too much, and
until the same standards are for teh drunken criminals who are the
real problem, then lets leave off the drugs users who are beaten
and abused by nasty persons who've no dogs to kick.
The drugs war is driven by the United States, because Richard Nixon
belived by imprisoning cannabis smokers, and denying them their votes,
that he could win vietnam. So people who stand with the drugs war are
really like richard nixon-vietnam supporters, standing behind a policy
designed to imprison black persons, believing that cannabis was a black
man's drug, and that white persons would be infected with the race
and religion of the black man.
So, ameirca being the extremely racist nation that itis, uses these laws
and has massive proportions of black persons imprisoned for posession
of cannabis, so many persons, that the tiny scottish population would
quiver at the prison-state thinking of the bush-nixon-republican neocon
prison/war complex. So, to support the drugs war, is to indirectly
support racist policies, policies against the freedom of religion, and
policies against individual liberty.
That racism, is why drugs war supporters hide behind ad hominem comments like "what a load of poppycock". The drugs war is by the
same clan that brought you reagan, thatcher, nixon, vietnam, iraq-quagmire,
and extroadinary rendition. People are too trustful of their prison
state, expecially since these toxic bush-nutters are in charge, persons
so grossly incompetent, it is downright chilling to think that tonly bliar
has supported this; and this is an authoritarian tribe of hostile and
patriarchal people who throw people in prison who dissent with their
politics... be it the politics of smoking cannabis, cocaine, heroine,
caffeine, alcohol, or nicotine, whatever be your plant-intoxication.
Greg Banks
05-Dec-05, 01:47
All very interesting comments and so diverse, Its no wonder that there is no simple answer to this. I am neither pro or negative on this debate although recreationally I have dabbled in the odd substance, The worst effects though over my many years has undoutedly been Alcohol.
I personally subscribe against prohibition as this simply hasnt worked and generally makes criminals out of the victims. I say legalise and put the money spent on enforcement in to education and assistance... well thats my 2 cents.... from a Kiwi!
The drugs war is driven by the United States, because Richard Nixon
belived by imprisoning cannabis smokers, and denying them their votes,
that he could win vietnam. So people who stand with the drugs war are
really like richard nixon-vietnam supporters, standing behind a policy
designed to imprison black persons, believing that cannabis was a black
man's drug, and that white persons would be infected with the race
and religion of the black man.
So, ameirca being the extremely racist nation that itis, uses these laws
and has massive proportions of black persons imprisoned for posession
of cannabis, so many persons, that the tiny scottish population would
quiver at the prison-state thinking of the bush-nixon-republican neocon
prison/war complex. So, to support the drugs war, is to indirectly
support racist policies, policies against the freedom of religion, and
policies against individual liberty.
That racism, is why drugs war supporters hide behind ad hominem comments like "what a load of poppycock". The drugs war is by the
same clan that brought you reagan, thatcher, nixon, vietnam, iraq-quagmire,
and extroadinary rendition. People are too trustful of their prison
state, expecially since these toxic bush-nutters are in charge, persons
so grossly incompetent, it is downright chilling to think that tonly bliar
has supported this; and this is an authoritarian tribe of hostile and
patriarchal people who throw people in prison who dissent with their
politics... be it the politics of smoking cannabis, cocaine, heroine,
caffeine, alcohol, or nicotine, whatever be your plant-intoxication.
What a load of poppycock!
No, it wasn't me wot wrote the original, but I agree with whoever did so.
How can we thoughtful people (and I reluctantly include you amongst our number) ever hope to influence the powers that be when you post non-sequiturial rants like that. I've read some rubbish in my time, but the claim that the war against drugs is a manifestation of Nixon's racism against blacks is so ridiculous as to be laughable.
So, what have you done with your life? Do you simply hide away in Armadale having ranted 12,000 times on BBS (sic)? Have you ever actually *done* anything about *anything*? See, I can speak ancient-BBS and use asterisks for emphasis too. I suspect you're a decaying ex-hippy druggie with a grudge against the world and an enormous chip on each shoulder.
A spell in prison might do you good. The Naked Rambler would make you a good cell mate. I suspect the two of you would have a lot in common.
SandTiger
05-Dec-05, 02:18
What a load of poppycock!
....
A spell in prison might do you good. The Naked Rambler would make you a good cell mate. I suspect the two of you would have a lot in common.
Yer too kind. Were you disowned at birth for being such a loving child?
Yer too kind. Were you disowned at birth for being such a loving child?
Too kind to whom? You, Ms sweetheart poppycock, or the naked rambler? Are all three of you one and the same person? That's unlikely, the naked rambler makes much more sense than at wifie fae oot west.
Crayola:- how dare you pre- judge any person in the manner you did to sweetheart, how do we know you are not some, wrinkly, wart faced, spooky toothed old bat, who should be put on a cross and burnt.
Bring back the Witch Finder General.
(ps noticed you've logged of again who next?)
sweetheart
05-Dec-05, 02:50
I'm suprised you don't know diddly about the drugs war history, and how
in the original presentations to the US congress for the marijuana tax
act, all medical doctors asked (1 of them), suggested that it would be
better if it was legal... but racism won over, and the original tax act was
enacted to protect white people from black drugs.
You don't know this, and claim any sort of right to claim poppycock in
an argument in which you are grossly ignorant of the facts.
Nixon believed, and it is on record, that imprisoning hippies for grass was
part of his crackdown, and creation of the DEA, what wastes 10's of
billions of dollars today, and the street price is lower than ever before,
and the usage is more common than ever before... whatever people
call "success" in a drugs war clearly begs wonder.
I wondeer what you do, sir, beat people up, threaten them, wish them
some time in prison, what lowlife crawls in the caithness bogs. Perhaps
the state of mind, that wishes prison on people, needs reflect on the
basis of its politics.
Here is a good book recommendation if you are genuinely interested in
the real basis of the drugs war, and sorting out this drugs problem once
and for all:
"Why our drugs laws have failed and what we can do about it: a judicial
indictment of the war on drugs."
by "judge james P. Gray".
This book is authored by a lifetime drugs war prosecutor and judge who
realized after a lifetime's work the wisdom explained in the book, and
by the sheer numbers, scotland is a little pimple on the ass of the
american drugs problem, where the government fights adam smith
with 50 billion dollars a year, subsidizing the street price, so that deallers
from los angeles to new york can profit.
I hope you can step beyond trying to make this personal, in to discussing
why you think the drugs war is working, and pardon my harsh rhetoric,
as i've tired so of debating this with persons not aware of the facts of
the drugs war's failures and costs.
As for my profession and life, I've advanced degrees from universities on
multiple continents, am published in peer reviewed academics, an ex-member of the IOD, and have worked in London, San Francisco, New York, Seoul, Mexico city, Toronto, Frankfurt, chicago, Boston and Paris
amongst many, where i've managed business operations bigger than most
businesses in caithness. I am very well aware of the extent and
seriousness of the global drugs problem, having seen it close up, through
friends and life in many big cities over many years, travelling to work as
one does from armadale.
People like you, who wish persons time in prison, jumping to conclusions
about things, without much patience, much depth, compassion or any
moral right to claim an upper ground in a discussion, sir.
Can you explain how you think the drugs war is a success, and attempt
to win over this duscussion on the merits of your intelligence; or carry
on with ad hominem slander. Maybe you can come out to armadale with
a cricket bat and kill me, and then you'll feel more civilized, that you've
murdered an advocate of less government, of less police invasiveness,
and enfranchised individual freedom.
Man people are hateful... i'm impressed.
sweetheart
05-Dec-05, 02:57
Here is so you can learn about nixon and the war on drugs:
http://www.csdp.org/news/news/nixon.htm
sweetheart
05-Dec-05, 03:33
I love a flame, the hotter the better, i see you're a hot chillie as well!! :-)
Thank you for defending dharma, truth, decorum and politeness, i was feeling
a bit rudely put to, and thank you for a very kind gesture indeed. Wow,
you must be a brilliant friend in real life, that people can count on you to
do justice. Its a pleasure to meet your good self chillie... god bless thee.
-s
Sweetheart:-
The pleasure is all mine , only saying what is right, to have an opinion whether drugs,politics ,weather, sex,etc and to express it is ok, but to publicly slag of, upon self -opiniation on another person whom they do not know is a no no in my books.A friend indeed if needed.
As far as drugs are concerned i like a good dram yes, have tried hash no use, hard drugs coke, herion etc no no.
I have kids we try to keep them sheilded away from all these major drug problems we have doon sooth, but yes it is here in caithness and in a big way in both towns and sorry to say they are here to stay.
In my opinion they should all be leagalised under licence like alcohol and if any person wishes to smoke, inject,sniff their life away good luck to them but do not try to sell it in seedy bars or on street corners to kids who know nothing better than to give it a try for fun, fourtunately kids now-adays are well educated against drugs to know their harm and hopefully stay away from them.
"what a load of poppycock" the person says, clearly very intelligent on
making the case for the war on drugs.
Bottom line, the war on drugs has been a complete failure in the united states
and in britain, who, like with the iraq war, wage an impossible conflict against
all statistical evidence that drugs addiction problems are rife.
So rather than regulate these drugs, that our children do not die of overdoses
and bad chemicals, we deliver our children in to the hands of the underworld.
So clearly people who make daily mail comments like "what a load of
poppycock", are actually complicit in negligent homicide. So many deaths
and life-problems are caused by these impure supplies and the uncontrolled
situation of the failed drugs war.
1 out of 3 scottish teenagers has smoked cannabis. 1 out of 3 has
smoked an unknown uncontrolled drug, and rather than be concerned with
the purity of the supplies that, like so many other persons, a person might
have a dalliance with drugs, and leave it behind; then would the damage
the drugs do be minimized.
When drugs are illegal, dealers are more likely to use underage sales
channels, as much as the crime is already committed, so no difference
for sales to under-16's. When they are legal, license shops stand to
lose a license for such sales, enforcing that drugs stay out of the hands
of minors.
The drugs war is indefensible. Not a logical argument exists for its
defense, just a load of emotional bully persons, like the cowardly person
who left this dribble in my reputation box. If you back the drugs war, and
support destroying other people's lives because of your puritain nasty
belief in criminalizing people for having difficulty with their lives, for
drinking whiskey of a different sort, perhaps a few bottles too much, and
until the same standards are for teh drunken criminals who are the
real problem, then lets leave off the drugs users who are beaten
and abused by nasty persons who've no dogs to kick.
The drugs war is driven by the United States, because Richard Nixon
belived by imprisoning cannabis smokers, and denying them their votes,
that he could win vietnam. So people who stand with the drugs war are
really like richard nixon-vietnam supporters, standing behind a policy
designed to imprison black persons, believing that cannabis was a black
man's drug, and that white persons would be infected with the race
and religion of the black man.
So, ameirca being the extremely racist nation that itis, uses these laws
and has massive proportions of black persons imprisoned for posession
of cannabis, so many persons, that the tiny scottish population would
quiver at the prison-state thinking of the bush-nixon-republican neocon
prison/war complex. So, to support the drugs war, is to indirectly
support racist policies, policies against the freedom of religion, and
policies against individual liberty.
That racism, is why drugs war supporters hide behind ad hominem comments like "what a load of poppycock". The drugs war is by the
same clan that brought you reagan, thatcher, nixon, vietnam, iraq-quagmire,
and extroadinary rendition. People are too trustful of their prison
state, expecially since these toxic bush-nutters are in charge, persons
so grossly incompetent, it is downright chilling to think that tonly bliar
has supported this; and this is an authoritarian tribe of hostile and
patriarchal people who throw people in prison who dissent with their
politics... be it the politics of smoking cannabis, cocaine, heroine,
caffeine, alcohol, or nicotine, whatever be your plant-intoxication.
I totally disagree with your way of thinking, Plant-Intoxication, what are you on!!!!!
are you advocating that its going to be ok to stick needles in our arms or where ever.
I worked for one of the armies of government agencies that helps to defend our children from the likes of you types that advocate the use of Cannabis, Cocaine and Heroin.
Say NO to Drugs
Anyway, a glass of wine every day is supposed to be good for the heart. It cleans the arteries. Or something like that anyway.
Red mature wine, not white wines or imature wines ( vinho verde, lambrusco, etc. Red wine influences bad colestrol levels.
Sweetheart, if you have a daughter that became the next Leah Betts then you might see things differently. One pill and she was dead.
At least someone who has a hangover has the freedom of choice to promise themselves 'Never again!'
sweetheart
05-Dec-05, 17:17
If my 16 year old daughter took a unregulated drug and died of it, i would
not blame the drugs, but the government, and would spend the rest of my
days taking the war to the criminals who decided in parliament not to regulate
the drugs my daughter took.
The woman died because of the drugs war, not because of drugs. SO many
deaths that are blamed on drugs are really the fault of the method of
prohibition. I would much rather, loving my daughter as one does, prefer
that she not get pregnant at a young age, not get AIDS, and if she decides
to use drugs, then she will survive the experience and move on like the vast
majority of us do. It is only a small set, with both alcohol and any drugs for
that matter, who have problem addiction personality traits.
What persons who support the drugs war support, is dumping unregulated
supplies on the streeets that kill kids... and then they blame the
drugs, when it was the laws that killed the kids.
sweetheart
05-Dec-05, 17:31
I totally disagree with your way of thinking, Plant-Intoxication, what are you on!!!!!
are you advocating that its going to be ok to stick needles in our arms or where ever.
I worked for one of the armies of government agencies that helps to defend our children from the likes of you types that advocate the use of Cannabis, Cocaine and Heroin.
Say NO to Drugs
How silly. I got a flu shot last month where they stuck a needle in to my arm,
and administered a drug ultimately based on plant refinements, a drug of
known quantities. And that drug made me sick for the rest of the day. I was
arguably not qualified to drive my car after that shot.... so the clinic's are
already injecting people with plants using needles... silly person.
You are just paranoid about something you've not much exposure to,
when the fact is, that there is nothing to be afraid of. Drugs are only
problems because of prohibition and people who use the tiresome "save
our babies" malarky to endorse criminalizing persons who do drugs.
You and i both agree that drugs usage can be dangerous. But you go about
supporting this view by endorsing a failed nonsensical racist war that has
only served to fill prisons, and destroy peoples lives, without reducing the
actual drugs addiction problems or the systemtic social problems that
create the "demand" for people to want to escape in to drugs.
If a person has a drugs problem, they need to be empowered not to abuse
drugs, not to drink too much for example. The individual needs to make a
choice "not" to drink, not to be an addict. And treatment that empowers
this decision process, as with narc anonymous (like alcoholics anon)..
All of this is an individual matter, for the family, not for the prison system.
By criminalizing drugs, the government serves as a breaker, designed to
destroy peoples lives by the side effects of laws based on failed
ways of treating addiction.
It doesn't matter that you disagree, you are not aware of the way to
solve this problem, and instead repeat the tired mantra of save our
babies without realizing that is precisely what i'm talking about.
porshiepoo
05-Dec-05, 17:41
If my 16 year old daughter took a unregulated drug and died of it, i would
not blame the drugs, but the government, and would spend the rest of my
days taking the war to the criminals who decided in parliament not to regulate
the drugs my daughter took.
The woman died because of the drugs war, not because of drugs. SO many
deaths that are blamed on drugs are really the fault of the method of
prohibition. I would much rather, loving my daughter as one does, prefer
that she not get pregnant at a young age, not get AIDS, and if she decides
to use drugs, then she will survive the experience and move on like the vast
majority of us do. It is only a small set, with both alcohol and any drugs for
that matter, who have problem addiction personality traits.
What persons who support the drugs war support, is dumping unregulated
supplies on the streeets that kill kids... and then they blame the
drugs, when it was the laws that killed the kids.
90% of people who die from drugs do so because THEY chose to take it.
Blame the parliament or 'the war on drugs' all you like but at the end of the day they don't actually put the pill in the mouth or the needle in the arm.
It's down to choice. That very first time anyone takes a drug they are Choosing to do so. Most of them know what the outcome could be but they believe 'it'll never happen to me'. Ignorance has a large part to play.
Laws do not kill people - choice is what kills people.
sweetheart
05-Dec-05, 18:24
90% of people who die from drugs do so because THEY chose to take it.
Blame the parliament or 'the war on drugs' all you like but at the end of the day they don't actually put the pill in the mouth or the needle in the arm.
It's down to choice. That very first time anyone takes a drug they are Choosing to do so. Most of them know what the outcome could be but they believe 'it'll never happen to me'. Ignorance has a large part to play.
Laws do not kill people - choice is what kills people.
Its the same as the "right to die" thing, in the question whether we can grow up and realize that ALL drugs that we take in life are medicinal
and pure in element... and that we should make sure the supplies are
as pure as any food or tobacco we would get at teh supermarket.
If a person dies of a poiison supply, indeed a tragedy, an avoidable
social event, but yes, choice indeed.
People used to die from drinking bad distillate back before whiskey was
legal. The laws killed a load of people who "chose" to drink bad distillate.
And so, the question arises, in a free society, where a person has liberty,
the freedom of religion and a freedom of choice, to make choices about
what they eat and do with their private body... and what laws could be
more intimate in their stripping of sovereign choice.
There are plenty of drugs in life that can kill you if that is your objective,
and people can just drink petrol and set fire to themselves if they really
are desperate to sort out their drugs conundrum. But petrol is not rated
as a class A drug, though surely it offers one hell of a hit when you
explode in fire. People choose their destiny, and perhaps the laws can
support them in this, rather than picking artificial conficts over whether
the citizen has a sovereign choice over their own body.
If a woman needed an abortion in a place where they were illegal, i'd
avise her to get to a safe harbour where she can get the medical treatment
sh needs.
and in that sense, the drugs war should create a safe harbour, where we
deny the drugs users the stigma of illegal subterfuge, by making them ask
for their drugs at the license shop, along with the daily half bottle drunks,
the 6 liter cider drunks...
And all of them without jobs, professional employment that engages them
and sets their life and economics on fire... so no job, lots of time to do
drugs in the highlands.... and a cyclical thing, a society that represses
the free will of its people by overregulating them, wishing all along for the
fruits of an unregulated middle class (massive economic and job wealth
creation). But rather, the mantra of repression, of a puritain war on 1/3rd
of our own children, that by scottish law today, we should throw one out
of 3 teenagers in prison for using cannabis.... then the kids don't learn
the lesson that they would have learned had they sorted out cannabis
themselves. We are better off, in a common law society of preserving
the knowledge of using safely, try/survive, that we don't wage a vindictive
campaign that suggests 1/3rd of cannabis smoking youths deserve
life in prison for smoking a plant, all the while, surrounded by guards
smoking legal tobacco.
Oh, why not leave people free to make choices? Gosh, what political
party is that?
porshiepoo
05-Dec-05, 19:24
Gawd, what an extremely emotive subject!
I personally have never ever tried drugs, not even smoked, and I am proud of that. I educate my children to say no to drugs if the situation should ever arise, but unfortunately that is where my influence over them stops. Hopefully I have done enough over the years to explain drug abuse to them properly but the pressure of being a teenager and wanting to experiment often overrules logic.
Maybe we should now begin to think of a different approach to our drug problems, let's face it, nothing is working at the moment.
Education at all levels in school should be compulsory and I don't mean the odd comment in biology or whatever, but a lesson dedicated to drugs etc. If we can educate our children from very young at school as well as at home maybe that would help. Lets face it, many kids probably think they're parents are just over doing it and trying to just put them off when they talk about drugs, but if we could re-inforce this at school with lecturers with experience, I really think it would help alot more.
Criminalising hard drugs has had it's repercussions and pitfalls yes, but whats the alternative? Legalising them? That's a concept I have real problems understanding, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a wrong concept.
The problem is we get in an uproar about the legalisation of one drug while supporting the legalisation of another drug.
Cocaine, heroin etc addictions are addictions of the person, they affect the person taking the drug and yet we want this criminalised, yet we legalise tobacco and this affects people who are non smokers too.
How do we decide which drugs are safe and which are dangerous? And dangerous to who?
God forbid but if in the future I find either of my kids are dabbling in drugs, after everything I know they have learnt, I don't honestly know how I would or could handle it.
There I am back to education again. It has to be the basis of any new decisions made about drugs, whether we decide to keep them illegal or otherwise. And I think it needs to be hard education too, the results of using drugs has to be shown as well not just talked about. Put the fear of god into em I say! And yes it does work, one of my kids insisted she wanted to smoke - at 11 - so I sat her in front of the computer and showed her a smokers lung, needless to say it put her off.
Good for you porshiepoo. Thats the most sensible post you have made to caithness.org, in my opinion that is lol.
Sweetheart your doing good you dont need me to add anything. Im sure you have been around caithness.org long enough to know where Golach and rheghead are coming from. They are a dying breed with little constructive content to say about anything.
My own challenge to the prohibitors is always met with the same dross as they have thrown at you. Its not a waste of time though. See how porshiepoo has cottoned on to the argument? It doesnt make her a shameful person because she considers an alternative to prohibition. Just like me she is concerned about her children and drugs. Golach and Rheghead think they have a mandate on caring for children. I presume they really cant even see their own hypocrasy in their argument. Both of them extol the virtues of alcohol quite openly on caithness.org and although I dont always have a problem with that, the sheer ignorance they display when condemning illegal drug users takes my btreath away.
If you think that...
a)Prosecuting drug dealers and users
b)confiscating multi £milion drug consignments at airports and ports
c)confiscating property gained from the sale of drugs
d)maintaining the illegality of drugs
e)General education on the social and medical problems of drug taking
f)Rehabilitation of offenders
has anything to do with NOT caring for our children then please spare me any rubbish about any Governmental legalisation and regulation of hard drugs which will only serve to place drugs on a plate to our kids. If drugs were available and taxed then there will be more deaths, you only have to look at the Netherlands for that. Instead, you will make a drug pusher out of each and everyone of us, that my dear friends IS a bitter pill to swallow. :(
sweetheart
05-Dec-05, 21:48
The best way to prevent your child from falling in to destrutive addictions in
later life, is to love them, cuddle them and physically tenderly touch and
nurture them for their first 6 years of life.
The likelihood that somene will be come a drugs addict in later life is mostly
dependent on this one thing... truth be told. Self confidence, security and
love in early childhood stay for life. Sounds like you love your babies
porshipoo... all that matters... don't worry about drugs addiction for them.
Thanks gleeber... prohibition is such an avoidable tragedy, bottom line,
there needs to be a greater rethink about this drugs war, and i have a
feeling that the new conservative leader mr. Cameron will come to champion
the truly conservative POV, that it is none of government's business what
drugs people take in their self-medication. That should inject a healthy
discussion, as blair is forced out to explain why he continues on a policy
that his own advisors and white papers show has failed.
Sweetheart your doing good you dont need me to add anything. Im sure you have been around caithness.org long enough to know where Golach and rheghead are coming from. They are a dying breed with little constructive content to say about anything.
My own challenge to the prohibitors is always met with the same dross as they have thrown at you. Its not a waste of time though. See how porshiepoo has cottoned on to the argument? It doesnt make her a shameful person because she considers an alternative to prohibition. Just like me she is concerned about her children and drugs. Golach and Rheghead think they have a mandate on caring for children. I presume they really cant even see their own hypocrasy in their argument. Both of them extol the virtues of alcohol quite openly on caithness.org and although I dont always have a problem with that, the sheer ignorance they display when condemning illegal drug users takes my btreath away.
Gleeber until now I have been acting under the misaprehension that you were an intelligent being, but with the latest diatribe you have come out with here leads me to suspect that you have been or are a partaker of illeagal substances. The way you and sweetheart have been advocating the use of forbidden substances in this thread, and the manner in which you criticise Rheghead and myself because we worked with or for the Gorvernment who made these laws and it was our jobs to uphold makes me think you doth protest to much.
I take a drink, I do not advocate that every one else does, but Alcohol is a legal substance, so I am not breaking the law, also I take my alcohol in moderation so again I am not breaking the law.
Sweetheart and yourself have mentioned the concern for children more than once, but no mention of the solvent abuse that kids are usually into before they can afford to enter into your hazy world. I live in a big city where the people who are taking these drugs are mugging pensioners every day to feed their habits and dont tell me that if the prohibiton was lifted that that will all stop. The sale of Alcohol is legal but there are Alcoholics out there today but you never hear of them mugging to feed their habit.
Abide by the current laws of our country is what I say
sweetheart
05-Dec-05, 22:17
If you think that...
a)Prosecuting drug dealers and users
b)confiscating multi £milion drug consignments at airports and ports
c)confiscating property gained from the sale of drugs
d)maintaining the illegality of drugs
e)General education on the social and medical problems of drug taking
f)Rehabilitation of offenders
has anything to do with NOT caring for our children then please spare me any rubbish about any Governmental legalisation and regulation of hard drugs which will only serve to place drugs on a plate to our kids. If drugs were available and taxed then there will be more deaths, you only have to look at the Netherlands for that. Instead, you will make a drug pusher out of each and everyone of us, that my dear friends IS a bitter pill to swallow. :(
A)Prosecuting drugs users is "not" caring for our children, as the drugs users
ARE our children, and the prison system will only destroy their future
prospects for a professional career in the UK, and further erode their
self respect. It would be one sick evil parent who turned their kid over
to the police state to "care" for them.... lots of love there Rheghead.
Prosecuting drugs dealers is "not" caring for our children, as most persons
who do drugs cooperate to buy things, and a suprising number of users
have dealt over time, just in the course of the nature of supply.
But the street prices are lower, and more people use drugs today than
over the past decades whilst wev'e been pursuing the failed policy
that you're repeating.... so no, its not caring at all... its a total waste
of tax money. The instant you arrest a dealer, the users just go to another
one, and like mushrooms anotehr appears.... prison doesn't heal
addiction... so why do you think prison is a solution?
b) These drugs consignments wouldn't be there if the drugs were legal,
as the illegal supply chains would be bankrupted overnight by Tesco
and legal suppliers of said substances. So, by reforming the laws, the
entire criminal underworld of drugs trade is bankrupted, and the need to
worry about drugs consignments coming in at airports goes away. That is
why you don't see any "aspirin" consignments of 4 tonnes of pills similarly
caught, because aspirin are legal... and once we regulate it, the illegal
suppliers are caught out being too expensive and inefficient to keep up
with controlled, safe, legal supplies, just like you get from your chemist,
off license or supermarket.
c) confiscating property due to the sales of drugs causes much police
corruption problems around the world, and is not a solution at all. If it
was legal, there would be no criminal proceeds to recover.
d) maintaining the illegality of drugs... is just stupid. It achieves nothing.
The drugs are plants, mushrooms, weeds, shrubs, herbal medicines used
going back thousands of years in history. To presume that they will
be erased is a fools argument, as the demand exists to use them, and it
is huge, easily half the households in the UK if not more. With demand like
that, illegality only achieves to weaken respect for the rule of law, and
our kids grow up not trusting police and the institutions of law. This
achieves a long term social degeneration that is very destrucive and in
even worse decline in america where the drugs war is escalated even
more per your silly subscription.
e) What education on drugs taking? This i always laughed at myself as
a kid in the 60's, learning drugs education. It basically consisted of a
bunch of people who had never done drugs telling me about something
they knew nothing about... lots of education that. I met adults, when i
was a kid, who did drugs, and they knew a lot more than the education
provided... so i learned that the best way to get a drugs education is to
find someone who's experienced and knowledgeable about real drugs,
who has not succumbed to addictions, who does not apologize for the
drugs, or demand "its bad its bad,.. just say "no""..but someone who will
be honest about how different drugs affect you, and not filled with the
"reefer madness" talk i'm reading in this thread from the prohibitionists.
f) rehabilitation of offenders is a failure. The criminal record prevents
people from finding good jobs, and they wind up denied opportunity and
destroyed lives... which is "NOT" rehabilitation... so that is failed as well.
If you call that loving and protecting your babies, its a dissonant
stetch of the imagation.... no, the facts don't line up with these policies
equating to loving our own kids... rather the facts tell us that we are
making an avoidable mistake, where 85% of city violent crime is related
to drugs trade, something entirely erased with a legal supply.
There comes a time, where cognitive dissonance meets fact and truth; the likewise the drugs policy must do so as well.
The best way to prevent your child from falling in to destrutive addictions in later life, is to love them, cuddle them and physically tenderly touch and
nurture them for their first 6 years of life.
.
That is all good and well until you find that the very folk that deal drugs and spend the best part of the day high on drugs are the very people that are incapable of doing those things in your statement. As the next generation takes their mantle then they will peer pressure others to join and become more of the breeders of depravity.
I don't think it would be an effective anti drugs policy if we kindly asked them to cuddle and respect their children but I can imagine the response from them if we tried...lol
porshiepoo
06-Dec-05, 00:09
Even the most confident, well cared for and bought up person can turn to drugs at any time for a multitude of reasons.
To me, education has to be the main consideration.
Golach made a good point! Do we accept a persons right to aerosol and glue abuse? Should these substances be made available to all and sundry and accepted in 'small' quantities? If not, why Not?
I really don't know what the right answer is to this quandry. Both sides have good and bad points to back them up. I do know though that drugs are a lucrative business that is just growing and growing and will continue to do so.
By the time this country and many others have spent the next 5 years debating and deciding what we should do, so much more damage will have been done.
By legalising them I would hate to think that we're going to see alot more people openly high on drugs in the streets as it won't be such a taboo subject. Before we decide anything along those lines we have to be fully aware of the consequences of such an action and then hope and pray to god it's worth it.
I'm not sure if it is!
Naefearjustbeer
06-Dec-05, 00:52
Sometimes I think that legalising drugs would be a good thing, You would have measured amouts of a standard strenth substance availlible from licenced vendors. Where the products are taxed and availlible to consenting adults. If you are stupid enough to deystroy yourself with them at least you will be funding the goverment instead of criminals.
Take a look around when you go about the place every town and village in the country will have drug users and abusers just as it has its smokers and drinkers and alcoholics. I think there is a difference between a drinker and an alcoholic just as I think there is a difference between a drug user and a drug abuser. I know people who use drugs every day, I know people who use drugs socially on a regular basis. I kow people who rarely use drugs. Obviosley I know people that never use drugs. i also know people that are hooked on perscription drugs. It would surprise you the careers that some of these people have. They hold down jobs and have familys whom the care for very well and never go short because of the drug use. They probaly spend less each month than many social drinkers spend in the pub. I know that they can happily live a meaningfull and succseful life. I only know one person that has ruined their life because of illeagal drug abuse.I know of a lot more that have had problems because of alcohol abuse or perscription drugs. No matter what the law of the land is people will continue to use drugs and the ones that are beyond saving are too far gone for a change in the law to make any difference.
Naefearjustbeer
06-Dec-05, 00:58
By legalising them I would hate to think that we're going to see alot more people openly high on drugs in the streets as it won't be such a taboo subject. Before we decide anything along those lines we have to be fully aware of the consequences of such an action and then hope and pray to god it's worth it.
I'm not sure if it is!
Take some time out and do a bit of people watching. You can see people everyday wandering around the streets and pubs under the influence of some substance or other (legal or otherwise). I know of one person who rolls his joints to look like cigarettes and he stocks up his ciggy packet and will sit in a busy pub smoking and drinking like it is normal, people around probally dont know what is in his hand but they will be breathing it in. Ban smoking in pubs and you will stop a lot of drugs getting smoked aswell.
You live in Lybster, well drugs is rife in lybster you may not know it but it is has been for many many years.
porshiepoo
06-Dec-05, 01:05
Take some time out and do a bit of people watching. You can see people everyday wandering around the streets and pubs under the influence of some substance or other (legal or otherwise). I know of one person who rolls his joints to look like cigarettes and he stocks up his ciggy packet and will sit in a busy pub smoking and drinking like it is normal, people around probally dont know what is in his hand but they will be breathing it in. Ban smoking in pubs and you will stop a lot of drugs getting smoked aswell.
You live in Lybster, well drugs is rife in lybster you may not know it but it is has been for many many years.
Oh great! I wasn't aware of that. I am now though!
I agree completely with banning smoking in public areas. Theres nothing worse than having a nice meal out while swallowing mouthfuls of other peoples second hand smoke. Yuk!!!
And I'm certainly not for legalising drugs. I'm just saying I don't know what the way forward is, except for education that is!
Naefearjustbeer
06-Dec-05, 01:11
I agree about education kids have to know what these substances do to your mind and body. Saying no because your mum says it is bad doesnt cut it with kids these days, Taking drugs is a way of rebelling from your parental control just as smoking and drinking underage. The only difference is drugs are illeagal so it has an added attraction for some kids. The best that you can hope for is to instill some sense and self respect into your kids so that when they do experiment with things they know not to go too far with it.
I agree about education kids have to know what these substances do to your mind and body. Saying no because your mum says it is bad doesnt cut it with kids these days, Taking drugs is a way of rebelling from your parental control just as smoking and drinking underage. The only difference is drugs are illeagal so it has an added attraction for some kids. The best that you can hope for is to instill some sense and self respect into your kids so that when they do experiment with things they know not to go too far with it.I totaly agree with you there. If my parents said dont do something just because its bad or illegal that would just makeit more appealing. In this day and age I think its virtually impossible to stop your kids growing up around drugs. Better to educate them and hope they take heed because like it or not they are going to come across it sooner or later no matter how much you think you can protect them.......
Naefearjustbeer
06-Dec-05, 01:23
10 years ago kids were taking drugs at school in the toilets in between classes in caithness schools. They will be exposed to it quite easily these days I would think
sweetheart
06-Dec-05, 01:40
Gleeber until now I have been acting under the misaprehension that you were an intelligent being, but with the latest diatribe you have come out with here leads me to suspect that you have been or are a partaker of illeagal substances. The way you and sweetheart have been advocating the use of forbidden substances in this thread, and the manner in which you criticise Rheghead and myself because we worked with or for the Gorvernment who made these laws and it was our jobs to uphold makes me think you doth protest to much.
I take a drink, I do not advocate that every one else does, but Alcohol is a legal substance, so I am not breaking the law, also I take my alcohol in moderation so again I am not breaking the law.
Sweetheart and yourself have mentioned the concern for children more than once, but no mention of the solvent abuse that kids are usually into before they can afford to enter into your hazy world. I live in a big city where the people who are taking these drugs are mugging pensioners every day to feed their habits and dont tell me that if the prohibiton was lifted that that will all stop. The sale of Alcohol is legal but there are Alcoholics out there today but you never hear of them mugging to feed their habit.
Abide by the current laws of our country is what I say
Bottom line? Legallize cannabis. This will solve most of britain's addiction
problems and the endangerment of the health that "government" persons
claim to stand up for of 1/3rd of scottish teenagers, that government
persons would rather inhaled unknown unregulated criminally supplied
drugs. The laws stand for stupidity. They are failed, based on an
equally failed american model of trying to legislate social puritainism.
I know 2 persons who've overcome serious alcohol abuse by switching to
cannabis, and have had much richer lives since getting off alcohol.
The sale of cannabis is semi-legal, i could buy cannabis in any major british
city without knowing anyone within 1 hour. You are not being realistic,
sir, no matter your claim to have been involved with government.
The government is wrongly involved in a failed drugs abuse policy that
spreads drugs abuse and crime as a side effect.
There are a few issues we need to consider as we move forward with
drugs laws reform. Prison is not a solution to addiction, that any
rational, or medically competent person would attest, so we can straight
away move towards decrminalizing all drugs use, so that persons can,
who have a bout of "addiction sickness" can be treated without being
put in prison and branded a leper. But what we know about treating
addiction, is that the will to be treated has to come from the person
with the addiction.... they have to want it.
I propose that heroin be allowed free for addicts at all NHS in scotland,
along with clean shooting supplies. And then a doctor can supervise the
person, and with a loving doctor, many an addict can lead a productive,
even brilliant and outstanding lives. The judgement and the negativism
about drugs, by a culture that embraces the slovenly drunk, is a wonder.
As for cocaine, i'm not sure myself, but surely better that to get some
cocaine, you need to visit a doctor. If we medicalize drugs, and offer
them to persons who apply for NHS supply, and then doctors can see
to the health of all the persons, and be able to know all the drugs
coctails the persons are taking, honestly, and so much healing and
treatment will come out of this.
Cannabis, i think should be sold on the model of scottish single malt
whiskey, in licensed shops... and given that economic model, a potential
serious boost for the scottish economy to bankrupt the illegal drugs
supply chains and boost our own economy in the same act.
Cannabis grows in 3 strains, but rudralis (russian), is not potent, so the
indica and sattiva strains have different properties. Sattiva is the
plant preferred by medicinal cannabis users all over the world, but indica
grows very fast, and is a better plant on the black market, when
growers are in the business of growing bulk fast. The market is selecting
a more dangerous strain of the drug, than a legal market would.
In this sense, by having these drugs illegal, the market is selecting the
more dangerous components that can shift cash for illegal gangs who
traffic in this time of prohibition. And once upon a time, similar gangs
ran stills and ran whiskey in a time of prohibition, many people died from
bad spirits before they got to regulating.... if that is any precedent to
consider, sir.
I believe that all plants on this earth are sacred, and that in the subtle
vibrations of the plant, like eating it or smoking it, you can gain wisdom
from the plant spirit. It is my religion, this, being sort of a deist.
God gave man free will, and no man's government is above god's mandate.
It is your free will to sit with your pint in the pub and judge drugs users.
It is the right of any person to do whatever drug they feel they need
whenever they want... their natural right... and gosh, its no suprise that
millions and millions exercise that right every day.
Now that the internet allows the truth to be spoken about the drugs war
lie, it is as farcical as the iraq war lie... indefensible in fact... and a
culture that claims to be against wars, would loose many kids in iraq,
but then set about killing the kids back in the homeland by putting them
in prison and breaking them, all due to the ignorance of government and
its criminal failure to act in the interests of its own children.
And i presume as well, that the taxes on legallized drugs are used to
finance youth programmes that young kids have things to do that keep
them productively engaged that the opening for teenage addicton simply
isn't there.... i would be embarassed to be associated with a government
policy showing such degenerate and wicked institutional judgement on
drugs users.
10 years ago kids were taking drugs at school in the toilets in between classes in caithness schools. They will be exposed to it quite easily these days I would thinkEspecially in Lybster........
I have found this topic most interesting, and all the views shared. And believe I read somewhere someone saying about anyone at anytime can become victim to drug abuse whether illegal or otherwise.How true, I myself have abused both illegal and legal drugs, and the reason simple. Unbeknown to myself at the time I was using them to hide and not address issues I had going on in my life at the time, namely loosing my mother at a young age, and then within the same year divorced. So in total agreement to the statement made, how do any of us know when depression is sitting around the corner for us, I now know that drugs isnt the answer, and havent taken illegal drugs since leaving wick wait for it for london, the drug dealers are parasites, living off the misery of their victims who for what ever reason are weak at that time in life. I would consume 5-6 E's regularly fri/sat be taking amphetamine all week, and starting my day with a scoupe of the rubbish in my coffee and keep taking all day, and had to have dope every day so because of what Ive seen and had to go through to get out of the circle, all drugs illegal or otherwise should be illegal, its not only the misery they bring to the victims, but the contries where these are made, poor farmers being told what theyre crop is by cartels, and basically if they dont grow it then theyre killed or dear ones near to them are. Education I think to make drugs lose their glamour at schools could help, but what doesnt help is when you are faced with articles like the Kate Moss saga glamourising her habit. At the end of the day its called dope for a reason, btw I left wick 6yrs ago so have come out of the dark hole drugs had built for me, but it was a hard battle one I wish I hadnt had to come through
Aways story is the same story as thousands of other kids who become aquaint with the buzz from intoxicating substances. That will never change but away had it in his power to change himself. As soon as he changes tho he forgets where he came from. He blames drugs for all his problems. How come if drugs are so destructive away was able to call a halt to his downward spiral? What is the psychology of addiction? I suggest its a lot more complex than aways story suggests. Drugs are glamourised simply because they are there. Just like rheghead and his beer swilling cronies use these forums to glamourise alcohol.
Golach and Rheghead are responsible for the misery of thousands upon thousands of kids women and men because of the romantic notion they hold that legal drugs are to be defended simply because they are legal and illegal ones demonised simply because they are illegal. Their wee jug heads cant get around the wider picture presented by sweetheart.
Why doesnt that surprise me?
I believe that all plants on this earth are sacred, and that in the subtle vibrations of the plant, like eating it or smoking it, you can gain wisdom from the plant spirit. It is my religion, this, being sort of a deist. Sorry, you've lost me. What do you mean by "subtle vibrations of the plant"? I've never seen or felt a plant vibrate. Do you really believe you can obtain wisdom from a "plant spirit"? What is a plant spirit anyway? What is "wisdom" in this sense? I'm being serious, I really want to know what you believe.
It is my religion, this, being sort of a deist. Sorry, lost again. What's your religion? Is it to do with plants being sacred or the "subtle vibrations of the plant"? Could you elaborate on the deist element? Once again, I'm being serious -- honestly!
Recently, we've had had discusions on flower essences, Wiccanism, and now plant spirits. I'm surely not alone in being totally bamboozled by this sudden deification of plant-life in Caithness & Sutherland -- or am I?
I've just read the last couple of pages of this thread. It's nicely balanced between the avid legaliser(s), the conservative prohibitionists, and those who are clearly thinking as they post. I guess education has to win out in the end, but this surely has to be in conjunction with eradication of social deprivation and eradication of illegal supply lines -- one way or another. I'm not sure that selling heroin & cocaine over the counter at Boots is going to help anyone other than Boots' shareholders, and perhaps the tax man, but heroin on prescription for addicts doesn't sound too crazy. I have no strong feelings on whether cannabis should be legalised further, and I haven't been convinced either way by any of the posts on this thread.
BTW Naefearjustbeer, I think I would know if someone was smoking cannabis next to me in the pub -- unless some strains don't burn with that dead-giveaway aroma.
sweetheart
06-Dec-05, 14:02
Sorry, you've lost me. What do you mean by "subtle vibrations of the plant"? I've never seen or felt a plant vibrate. Do you really believe you can obtain wisdom from a "plant spirit"? What is a plant spirit anyway? What is "wisdom" in this sense? I'm being serious, I really want to know what you believe.
Sorry, lost again. What's your religion? Is it to do with plants being sacred or the "subtle vibrations of the plant"? Could you elaborate on the deist element? Once again, I'm being serious -- honestly!
Recently, we've had had discusions on flower essences, Wiccanism, and now plant spirits. I'm surely not alone in being totally bamboozled by this sudden deification of plant-life in Caithness & Sutherland -- or am I?
I've just read the last couple of pages of this thread. It's nicely balanced between the avid legaliser(s), the conservative prohibitionists, and those who are clearly thinking as they post. I guess education has to win out in the end, but this surely has to be in conjunction with eradication of social deprivation and eradication of illegal supply lines -- one way or another. I'm not sure that selling heroin & cocaine over the counter at Boots is going to help anyone other than Boots' shareholders, and perhaps the tax man, but heroin on prescription for addicts doesn't sound too crazy. I have no strong feelings on whether cannabis should be legalised further, and I haven't been convinced either way by any of the posts on this thread.
BTW Naefearjustbeer, I think I would know if someone was smoking cannabis next to me in the pub -- unless some strains don't burn with that dead-giveaway aroma.
In shahmanic teachings, a plant has an other-worldly presence, a sort of
guardian spirit. This comes, obviously as well, from a different system of
knowledge and plant classificatons that have come about with cook, darwin
and that recent lot. In the older thinking, to get to know a plant, you can
grow it, you can eat it, smoke it, meditate on it... there are many ways to
know a plant. And around a plant, is a biological energy field, the some
forms of photography have captured. So some shahman's burn sage in a
room, (a very stinky smoke) to banish evil thoughts, and vibrations.
If say, that a person leaves a trail of litter in every place they walk, a
readable trail of thoughts, just like footprints, then the thought-trash that
runs through most persons heads is seen by shahmanic priests as a sort
of toxic waste, to be cleansed from a room using cleansing techniques.
So by smoking or meditating on a plant, one can tap its otherworldly
presence. If you go to India and smoke cannabis with a yogi in the
himalayas, they will say "Bom Shiva" before inhaling the smoke, believing
that the otherworldly presence invoked by cannabis is that of lord shiva...
the god of yoga and transcending illusion. So by that, it is a heavy tool,
cannabis, one that if the yogi (practitioner) does not have the intent to
transcend illusion, that can backfire, as invoking a powerful energy like
that can backfire with bad intent... and a shahman's every act is based
on intent first and foremost... and for that, there are only 2 moral
intents, to further your own knowledge of the universe, or to help someone else.
Any herbalist realizes the infinte depth of their knowledge domain, but
then herbalism is an art one learns by sampling and experimenting, tasting
and smelling, much as a cook learns spices.
So, the first training in shahmanic use of power plants is to become an
impeccable individual... and much of this teachings are outlined in a
series of books by "carlos Castenada" "the teachings of don juan" about
a antropologist who went and unwittingly became the disciple of a wise
yaqui (north mexico) indian shahman. His books outline impeccability,
petty tyrants, power and inaccessability ... all of these are
preliminary to plants.
In another american indian allegory, a warrior (any male or female), seeks
a vision quest, a journey in to the desert from which the person is prepared
to have a profound epiphany, a "death" or a samadhi... and so the person
walks in to the spirit world with an abstract intent to discover wisdom.
And in so doing, the american indians would connect with the great mother
earth and intuitive wisdom, born of what is both a western and eastern
thing.
So in the old shahmanic cultures, people did not skin up (smoke cannabis)
at the pub, but rather took the dance with the plant wholly more spiritually,
doing their sacrament surrounded by nature.
I myself am not a herbalist, but i've consulted such persons in past years
ago vision quests. Often the drug for a really profound quest would be
mushrooms or mescaline... much like LSD. And mushrooms being the
natural plants of the north bogs of caithness, clearly the earth is giving
the people a sort of gift, and to spurn it is to fall in to another
of the curses of white man's ethnocentrism.
sweetheart
06-Dec-05, 14:33
I ... havent taken illegal drugs since leaving wick ..
Maybe its Wick, and not the drugs. I feel depressed every time i go to
wick, i can't wait to get out, it feels like the valley of minas morgul in the
hobbit... maybe tolkien used wick as a model.
:-)
We need to think of peoples lives as a series of passages, or processes.
A person might not be a drugs user and a happy mother. Then husband
is killed in tragic accident and mother becomes homeless and develops
destructive drugs addiction. My point, is that life circumstances change
radically, beyond preconception, and during some of those processes in life,
drugs play a role. Why not make that role as safe as we can. Any person
can have a dance with drugs during their life, even persons who believe
they are not tempted, as no person is beyond life's changes, and death
inevitably brings pain before the end... and with pain, seemingly irrational
decisions, loves and the romantic whiles that motivate the human heart
to keep beating... and in the woven tapestry of british culture over
many years, beatles, alice in wonderland, rolling stones, pink floyd, a
million super rich persons who took their british liberty to experiment with
drugs and get knighthoods, whilst the poor are left to the harsh polce
state threats and criminalization.... not very progressive for "labour", eh?
sweetheart
06-Dec-05, 15:34
http://leap.cc/
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/
http://www.dpf.org/homepage.cfm
(removed weird link on edit)
Information about the failure of the drugs war is not freely spoken in the UK
due to government supression and repression of editorial opinion... so whilst
the popular usage is high, it is taboo to publish the statistics of its failure,
or to speak the truth that the emperor has no clothes. Woldn't it be nice
to sponsor a speaker from the first website law enforcement organization
to visit caithness and speak on this?
So i always go to the brain that made the root laws, as the UK laws are
imports from the US, the websites are US who've pioneered idiocy and
self destruction of their children at a disturbing rate, and with massive
rising incarceration rates, the american prison industry is demanding more
prohibition... like the ferile hate of humanity is incubated and fed in these
massive prison-crime academies, that american cities are overrun with
violent crime, all due to the drugs trade, much as in the old movies of
chicago gangsters during prohibition.
Thank you for listening to my ranting in this thread, i shall bow out now
having spoken my peace on this. Check out the websites and do web
searches on the drugs war history, so that you are empowered to argue
with twats and vindictive judgemental persons who's real claim to social
superiority is the implied threat of force, imprisonment, much as the person
earlier in the threat claiming to represent the government said "doth
protest too much". bully threats. That is what the government arguemnt
is reduced to, as there is no sense except that they have the authority
to bully, and the audacity to wave it around. But not on the internet.
Here, they are just citizens like the rest of us, who all have kids exposed
to an unknown future of drugs prohibition. May the spirit of all these
plants bless all the persons who ever come to use them, that
they come away safely and unharmed.
porshiepoo
06-Dec-05, 15:55
Hahaha, I'm lmao.
How does a thread entitled 'all drugs are dangerous' turn in the spirit life of plants! This has to be the best one yet. lol
Seriously though, I do see what Sweetheart is saying.
Maybe if all drugs were made legal then the need for drug pushers and the black market would extinguish, unless of course the goverment decided to triple the cost in say, 3 years like they do with everything else, in which case the dealers would still have plenty of customers.
But, there is no denying the implications of legalising these substances.
It won't do away with addicts. It could just make them more free to express and explore their addiction and be out in the open, and thats a terrifying thought.
How do we legalise a deadly substance while going through the process of banning another? Is that not just playing devils advocate!
I don't think we should even consider leagalising these drugs until there comes such a time that every other road has been blocked or failed.
Get education of drugs into our schools now. These lessons need to be hard hitting when they're at a certain age too. Kids need showing the effects of these drugs not just telling, give them work experience of addicts in rehab.
I have to admit to another way of teaching one of my kids not to smoke. I've been really slated for this too, but it worked, partly.
I say partly because it worked on the wrong twin.
One of my girls rang me from school asking if she could have a fag (seriously lol). she was 11, and I told her no. She put the phone down and when I picked her up from school she kept nagging and moaning saying she's gonna smoke when she's older so why can't she now, blah blah blah. I explained my role as a parent, I explained the effects of smoking, longterm and short term but still she insisted.
So I said to her Right, I'll buy you 10 fags, you sit in this car ,smoke every single one of them and I'll let you. Fine she said all cock sure of herself while I just prayed this wouldn't backfire. I got her 10 berkely and gave them to her, pulled over the road and waited. She couldn't light it so I had to do it for her and she sat that puffing away like an absolute beginner bless her! So I told her how to do it properly and thats when the hysteria started. She didn't know you had to smoke them like that, she was crying her eyes out but I was insisting she smoke the lot.
Anyway her twin got fed up with the pallaver, grabbed the fag, shoved it in her mouth and dragged on it. My god, she coughed and coughed, cried and did all but throw up. Both of them were screaming and insisting they never want to smoke again. That was it, neither of them was ever smoking again. It had kinda worked!
To this day, the one that coughed can't even walk into a room that has smoke, she hates it. The other one, well, she still says she's gonna smoke when she's older but she doesn't push it anymore.
How do I know she won't do it and not tell me you may ask. Well, I've bought both my kids up to despise lying and they know I can't put up with it. So, when one of them did start smoking in England, she got herself into such a state about keeping it a secret she had to fess up. She was punished, which she took without question and promises she won't be doing it again.
I believe her too, she knows the consequences of doing it will be to lose one of her birds of prey.
When she's older I know she'll probably smoke, and that will be her choice, but at the age she is now I won't permit it.
If I had let her smoke - like many parents do - would I be able to then stop her doing drugs at this age? I think not! My argument against drugs would have no grounding.
Hope you don't think I'm the most awful parent around, I could have cried at the time, but it worked. The thought of either of them smoking at such a young age absolutely terrifies me.
Golach and Rheghead are responsible for the misery of thousands upon thousands of kids women and men
That's your best one yet Gleeber! LOL!
I haven't sold or supplied an illegal drug to anyone, the real merchants of misery are the ones who do, like the one who sold the ecstasy to Leah Betts. Her family were dealt the worst of the misery though... :(
cullbucket
06-Dec-05, 18:33
Wow this thread is going crazy......
I could agree with Gleebers initial point about hypocrisy relating to attitudes towards differentiating between alcohol and other drugs based purely (as far as I can see) on whether they are legal or not, but I think Gleeber has gone too far in accusing Golach and Rheghead of mass murder.....
Sweetheart started off well but has come off the rails and is probably getting the crack with some heather in armadale.
For once I agree with some of what porshiepoo is saying (can it be true????) and I think Fed Ex hit the nail on the head. As a parent, I expect that my kids will one day come into contact with drugs and may well want to experiment, (as I did) so I am coming at it from that point of view - not the stick your head in the sand, Nancy Reagan - Just say No campaign style....
As for Leah Betts, I guess she was unlucky, but there are probably more folk die from wasp stings than Es (maybe I'm talking rubbish???).....
Hahaha, I'm lmao.
How does a thread entitled 'all drugs are dangerous' turn in the spirit life of plants! This has to be the best one yet. lol
Seriously though, I do see what Sweetheart is saying.
Maybe if all drugs were made legal then the need for drug pushers and the black market would extinguish, unless of course the goverment decided to triple the cost in say, 3 years like they do with everything else, in which case the dealers would still have plenty of customers.
But, there is no denying the implications of legalising these substances.
It won't do away with addicts. It could just make them more free to express and explore their addiction and be out in the open, and thats a terrifying thought.
How do we legalise a deadly substance while going through the process of banning another? Is that not just playing devils advocate!
I don't think we should even consider leagalising these drugs until there comes such a time that every other road has been blocked or failed.
Get education of drugs into our schools now. These lessons need to be hard hitting when they're at a certain age too. Kids need showing the effects of these drugs not just telling, give them work experience of addicts in rehab.
I have to admit to another way of teaching one of my kids not to smoke. I've been really slated for this too, but it worked, partly.
I say partly because it worked on the wrong twin.
One of my girls rang me from school asking if she could have a fag (seriously lol). she was 11, and I told her no. She put the phone down and when I picked her up from school she kept nagging and moaning saying she's gonna smoke when she's older so why can't she now, blah blah blah. I explained my role as a parent, I explained the effects of smoking, longterm and short term but still she insisted.
So I said to her Right, I'll buy you 10 fags, you sit in this car ,smoke every single one of them and I'll let you. Fine she said all cock sure of herself while I just prayed this wouldn't backfire. I got her 10 berkely and gave them to her, pulled over the road and waited. She couldn't light it so I had to do it for her and she sat that puffing away like an absolute beginner bless her! So I told her how to do it properly and thats when the hysteria started. She didn't know you had to smoke them like that, she was crying her eyes out but I was insisting she smoke the lot.
Anyway her twin got fed up with the pallaver, grabbed the fag, shoved it in her mouth and dragged on it. My god, she coughed and coughed, cried and did all but throw up. Both of them were screaming and insisting they never want to smoke again. That was it, neither of them was ever smoking again. It had kinda worked!
To this day, the one that coughed can't even walk into a room that has smoke, she hates it. The other one, well, she still says she's gonna smoke when she's older but she doesn't push it anymore.
How do I know she won't do it and not tell me you may ask. Well, I've bought both my kids up to despise lying and they know I can't put up with it. So, when one of them did start smoking in England, she got herself into such a state about keeping it a secret she had to fess up. She was punished, which she took without question and promises she won't be doing it again.
I believe her too, she knows the consequences of doing it will be to lose one of her birds of prey.
When she's older I know she'll probably smoke, and that will be her choice, but at the age she is now I won't permit it.
If I had let her smoke - like many parents do - would I be able to then stop her doing drugs at this age? I think not! My argument against drugs would have no grounding.
Hope you don't think I'm the most awful parent around, I could have cried at the time, but it worked. The thought of either of them smoking at such a young age absolutely terrifies me.What makes you think that smoking will lead to taking drugs. I know loads of people who take drugs and have never ever smoked.......
smith2585
06-Dec-05, 18:40
its good how ppl have strong opinions on this topic i also agree that cannabis should be legalised
i also think that u shud b able to drink at 16 and get married at 18
u can get married at 16 but u cant drink crazy
If statistics were a governing factor in the argument for or against drugs Rheghead would be writing his posts from Barlinnie. LOL
Bless you sweetheart your just as crazy as the rest of them witches and plantgurus.
I expect that my kids will one day come into contact with drugs and may well want to experiment,
You should be worried about your kids if the advocates of drug legalisation have their way.
You just have to look at the alcohol model to see where you should be concerned.
If we go down the drug legalisation route then we will have to accept its taxation and marketing.
Since heroine will be legal, would you want it to be marketed in the same way that alco pops are aimed at the young? Because that is where it will lead to.
Well, if I'm gonna jump into this fray, I may as well jump with both feet. Not only should cannibis be legalised, and heroin be available to addicts via NHS, but prostitution should also be legalised.
An appropriately zoned, taxed and health-regulated legal prostitution industry would bring in much needed revenue and free many police officers to focus on real crime. Sex between consenting adults should be ok with everyone, whether for love or money or both LOL. Guess why its the world's oldest profession; humans cant live without it.
Here's the drugs link...craving the release of endorphins.
-Helen
sweetheart
06-Dec-05, 19:12
You should be worried about your kids if the advocates of drug legalisation have their way.
You just have to look at the alcohol model to see where you should be concerned.
If we go down the drug legalisation route then we will have to accept its taxation and marketing.
Since heroine will be legal, would you want it to be marketed in the same way that alco pops are aimed at the young? Because that is where it will lead to.
You're scaremongering. If heroin is made available on the NHS for addicts,
it certainly won't be advertised like alcopops. Nor would cocaine. It
"would" make sure that the millions of britains who smoke cannabis and do
other drugs as mature adults, that such persons could get safe, pure,
taxed, known supplies... and if the kids ever did get their hands on it,
like one out of 3 today, at least we know it is pharmaceutical grade.
That someone like you would rather leave the market unregulated that
kids get poisoned... i'm really missing that compassion people see in the
current laws.... maybe its invisible.. thats why! :-)
For once I agree with some of what porshiepoo is saying (can it be true????) Worrying isn't it? But you'll be ok because you had the guts to admit it. :)
You're scaremongering. If heroin is made available on the NHS for addicts,
it certainly won't be advertised like alcopops. Nor would cocaine. It
"would" make sure that the millions of britains who smoke cannabis and do
other drugs as mature adults, that such persons could get safe, pure,
taxed, known supplies... and if the kids ever did get their hands on it,
like one out of 3 today, at least we know it is pharmaceutical grade.
That someone like you would rather leave the market unregulated that
kids get poisoned... i'm really missing that compassion people see in the
current laws.... maybe its invisible.. thats why! :-)
You are being naive.
The dream of any vicemonger is to go mainstream, why else but to increase sales and consumption. Ok, I grant you that 'Crackopops' won't be the first marketed product but the first legalised drug to go on sale WILL be aimed at those most vulnerable in society, if that includes children and existing drug users then so be it...
sweetheart
06-Dec-05, 19:45
You are being naive.
The dream of any vicemonger is to go mainstream, why else but to increase sales and consumption. Ok, I grant you that 'Crackopops' won't be the first marketed product but the first legalised drug to go on sale WILL be aimed at those most vulnerable in society, if that includes children and existing drug users then so be it...
The war on drugs is a war on the poor. THe persons most likely to fall
afoul of the criminal justice system are the poorest. Rich persons can afford
the legal representation to get them off... prince harry can get a slap on
the wrist, when a caithness teenager gets community service... so the
system you stand for is one that abuses power against the poor. The rich
can hide behind gated estates and do their drugs in privacy, whereas the poor
are busted sitting outside their council flats.... where privacy is less
afforded.
So, for all the progressive sales pitch sir, it appears that the drugs war is
wholly regressive falling most hard on the poor, the weak and the
disenfranchised. These are the primary victems of the drugs war, the
persons on the bottom... gosh, you must get your compassion from the
same place George bush gets it. ;-)
porshiepoo
06-Dec-05, 21:53
The war on drugs is a war on the poor. THe persons most likely to fall
afoul of the criminal justice system are the poorest. Rich persons can afford
the legal representation to get them off... prince harry can get a slap on
the wrist, when a caithness teenager gets community service... so the
system you stand for is one that abuses power against the poor. The rich
can hide behind gated estates and do their drugs in privacy, whereas the poor
are busted sitting outside their council flats.... where privacy is less
afforded.
So, for all the progressive sales pitch sir, it appears that the drugs war is
wholly regressive falling most hard on the poor, the weak and the
disenfranchised. These are the primary victems of the drugs war, the
persons on the bottom... gosh, you must get your compassion from the
same place George bush gets it. ;-)
Think we'll have to nickname you Robin hood Sweetheart! lol.
That, unfortunately is the state of the world we live in today and will be the state of the world in years to come.
We are by nature a destructive race, we don't learn from our mistakes and I don't think the legalisation of drugs - or otherwise - is gonna make the slightest difference to that.
Theres always gonna be those for it and those against it, neither side is wholly right or wrong, it is just their belief.
There is no answer and no end!!!
Cannabis reclassification
In January 2004 Cannabis was reclassified from a Class B to a Class C drug. It is still illegal.
Cannabis is still a controlled drug. Possession, production and supply of cannabis is still illegal. Only the penalties changed in January 2004.
Changes to the law
Changes in penalties for supply, dealing, production and trafficking
The maximum penalty is 14 years imprisonment. This has increased from five years for all class C substances including GHB and Valium.
Changes in penalties for possession
The maximum penalty has been reduced from 5 years to 2 years imprisonment.
Young people in possession of cannabis
A young offender in possession of cannabis will be arrested and taken to a police station where they can receive a reprimand, final warning or charge depending on the seriousness of the offence.
Following one reprimand, any further offence will lead to a final warning or charge. Any further offence following a warning will normally result in a charge being brought. After a final warning, the young offender must be referred to the Youth Offending Team to arrange a rehabilitation programme to prevent reoffending.
This police enforcement is consistent with the structured framework for early juvenile offending established under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
Adults in possession of cannabis
It is unlikely that adults caught in possession of cannabis will be arrested. Most offences of possession result in a warning and confiscation of the drug. But some instances may lead to arrest and possible caution or prosecution, including:
repeat offending
smoking in a public place
instances where public order is threatened
possession of cannabis in the vicinity of premises used by children
The war on drugs is a war on the poor. THe persons most likely to fall
afoul of the criminal justice system are the poorest. Rich persons can afford
the legal representation to get them off... prince harry can get a slap on
the wrist, when a caithness teenager gets community service... so the
system you stand for is one that abuses power against the poor. The rich
can hide behind gated estates and do their drugs in privacy, whereas the poor
are busted sitting outside their council flats.... where privacy is less
afforded.
So, for all the progressive sales pitch sir, it appears that the drugs war is
wholly regressive falling most hard on the poor, the weak and the
disenfranchised. These are the primary victems of the drugs war, the
persons on the bottom... gosh, you must get your compassion from the
same place George bush gets it. ;-)
So, we weren't really talking about drugs and what misery they can bring, we were really talking about your prejudices towards the inequality of our society. I thought so, I had you sussed out from your first post on this subject...
Well, if I'm gonna jump into this fray, I may as well jump with both feet. Not only should cannibis be legalised, and heroin be available to addicts via NHS, but prostitution should also be legalised.
An appropriately zoned, taxed and health-regulated legal prostitution industry would bring in much needed revenue and free many police officers to focus on real crime. Sex between consenting adults should be ok with everyone, whether for love or money or both LOL. Guess why its the world's oldest profession; humans cant live without it.
Here's the drugs link...craving the release of endorphins.
-Helen
Helen I must say I was surprised at your response at first glance, then I realised where your coming from....being one of the origional flower children of the Californian 80's, well what can I say....I bet your poor owld Caithness Grannie is spinning in her grave if she heard you now.
As for prostitution I agree with you there I have been to a legal brothel in Curacao run by the Dutch Government.....I was only a visitor and 16 so was not allowed partake of any of the offers I was given.
But hey why not go the whole hog and Legalise Euthenasia, Stem cell cloning,
Abortions for under 14s, Why not eh?!!!!
Say NO to DRUGS
I think i might recognise the wallpaper
better then lookin at your ugly boat race all night lol lol
Try to keep up with the times Owld Mannie, stem cell research is legal, alive and well in California, and when yer quiverin in yer wheelchair with the palsy, ye'll come crawlin for the results.
Euthanasia is legal in the state just north of me, and here's hoping that compassion will rule in all states, and the terminally ill in unbearable pain will be able to choose when they go.
Any unfortunate who wishes an abortion should be able to get one, by a licensed med in a sterile safe clinic. Better this than backroom jobs where the death rates soar from septic shock.
Why Not Eh, indeed!!!!!
Helen I must say I was surprised at your response at first glance, then I realised were your coming from....being one of the origional flower children of the Californian 80's, well what can I say....I bet your poor owld Caithness Grannie is spinning in her grave if she heard you now.
As for prostitution I agree with you there I have been to a legal brothel in Curacao run by the Dutch Government.....I was only a visitor and 16 so was not allowed partake of any of the offers I was given.
But hey why not go the whole hog and Legalise Euthenasia, Stem cell cloning,
Abortions for under 14s, Why not eh?!!!!
Say NO to DRUGS
In shahmanic teachings, a plant has an other-worldly presence, a sort of guardian spirit. This comes, obviously as well, from a different system of knowledge and plant classificatons that have come about with cook, darwin and that recent lot. In the older thinking, to get to know a plant, you can grow it, you can eat it, smoke it, meditate on it... there are many ways to know a plant. And around a plant, is a biological energy field, the some forms of photography have captured. So some shahman's burn sage in a room, (a very stinky smoke) to banish evil thoughts, and vibrations.
If say, that a person leaves a trail of litter in every place they walk, a readable trail of thoughts, just like footprints, then the thought-trash that runs through most persons heads is seen by shahmanic priests as a sort of toxic waste, to be cleansed from a room using cleansing techniques.
So by smoking or meditating on a plant, one can tap its otherworldly presence. If you go to India and smoke cannabis with a yogi in the himalayas, they will say "Bom Shiva" before inhaling the smoke, believing that the otherworldly presence invoked by cannabis is that of lord shiva... the god of yoga and transcending illusion. So by that, it is a heavy tool, cannabis, one that if the yogi (practitioner) does not have the intent to transcend illusion, that can backfire, as invoking a powerful energy like that can backfire with bad intent... and a shahman's every act is based on intent first and foremost... and for that, there are only 2 moral intents, to further your own knowledge of the universe, or to help someone else.
Any herbalist realizes the infinte depth of their knowledge domain, but
then herbalism is an art one learns by sampling and experimenting, tasting and smelling, much as a cook learns spices.
I myself am not a herbalist, but i've consulted such persons in past years ago vision quests. Often the drug for a really profound quest would be mushrooms or mescaline... much like LSD. And mushrooms being the natural plants of the north bogs of caithness, clearly the earth is giving the people a sort of gift, and to spurn it is to fall in to another of the curses of white man's ethnocentrism. Yooooo hooooo! I seem to have misjudged you sweetheart. We are at one with plants there girl. I am but a humble beginner in the ancient arts, so please forgive my naive questions. Do plants have consciousness in these teachings? If so, can we share thoughts with them or do they absorb our thought-trash like a tree absorbs our CO2-trash? Where can I see pictures of the biological energy field around plants?
I still don't approve of mind-altering drugs like LSD or even cannabis. They dumb the senses when we're trying to communicate with, and be at one with, the extra-physical side of our extended universe. I'm sorry if I wound you up to the point of combustion the other night, but I still harbour thoughts of violence to the advocates of drugs that harm our children. Lighting metaphorical fire-bombs around the culprits and throwing in verbal hand-grenades is my way of dealing with them. The idea is to provide them with sufficient petrol (borrowing fron your metaphor) to burn themselves without any physical help from me. It's a dangerous tactic but it often works a treat when used against those who least expect it. I use it against intellectual bullies at my work despite it being the passive equivalent of "shock and awe" tactics, and I'm ashamed to have used it against your good self. To me, Rumsfeld's "shock and awe" gloat is probably the most sickening utterance I have ever had the misfortune to observe from a western politician. I thought of innocent people, especially children, dying as I glared with increasing disbelief at that vomitorious evil grin on the tv screen.
I hope you don't mind me asking but are you a native American or black or have close relations with either? Or are you so upset with the Bush-supporting fundamentalist authoritarian white christian right that you've moved away from or simply disowned "white man's ethnocentrism" as practised in the United States?
Whoops, I seem to have posted twice but I don't know how to delete this one. :confused:
I had my drink spiked last year sometime i was ill for days, all drug'ies and pusher's should be thrown over to Stroma and left to do all their dealings with e sheep.
porshiepoo
07-Dec-05, 10:16
The war on drugs is a war on the poor. THe persons most likely to fall
afoul of the criminal justice system are the poorest. Rich persons can afford
the legal representation to get them off... prince harry can get a slap on
the wrist, when a caithness teenager gets community service... so the
system you stand for is one that abuses power against the poor. The rich
can hide behind gated estates and do their drugs in privacy, whereas the poor
are busted sitting outside their council flats.... where privacy is less
afforded.
So, for all the progressive sales pitch sir, it appears that the drugs war is
wholly regressive falling most hard on the poor, the weak and the
disenfranchised. These are the primary victems of the drugs war, the
persons on the bottom... gosh, you must get your compassion from the
same place George bush gets it. ;-)
That seems a rather strange point of view sweetheart.
The point is not really about what punishment is given but rather the fact that one is needed at all.
The poor can't be expected to have allowances made for them just because they can't afford representation, they shouldn't commit crimes in the first place, no matter what your wealth or lack of it. If the rich can afford a good brief, good for them.
As for sitting outside their flats, smoking whatever and getting arrested, so they should. They can sit inside their flat and not get arrested at all, the choice is theirs.
Poorer people tend to defend themselves with the old 'discrimination' act but the truth is that if they want to participate in any illegal action then they have to be willing to accept the consequences of it. It has nothing to do with how much money they have but everything to do with the fact they committed a crime in the first place.
Drugs of any kind that aren't regulated are a danger! Thats a fact.
Legalising them will not change that fact. The way in which they're obtained will obviously change but would it be such a good thing?
I don't think I would want to be waiting in boots behind people purchasing cocaine or heroin etc, uurgh! And then how long would it be before people are smoking these drugs all over the place? So those of us that choose not to use them, have to be subjected to it anyway!
Bottom line? Legallize cannabis. This will solve most of Britain's addiction problems
I don't get this, I really don't. I've been thinking about it since I first read your post, but I can't come up with any argument that says:
Legalising cannabis will solve most of Britain's addiction problems.
I simply don't see why this should be the case. After all, legal alcohol doesn't cure alcohol-addition problems.
This has been driving me crazy. Please enlighten me.
sweetheart
07-Dec-05, 10:32
That seems a rather strange point of view sweetheart.
The point is not really about what punishment is given but rather the fact that one is needed at all.
The poor can't be expected to have allowances made for them just because they can't afford representation, they shouldn't commit crimes in the first place, no matter what your wealth or lack of it. If the rich can afford a good brief, good for them.
As for sitting outside their flats, smoking whatever and getting arrested, so they should. They can sit inside their flat and not get arrested at all, the choice is theirs.
Poorer people tend to defend themselves with the old 'discrimination' act but the truth is that if they want to participate in any illegal action then they have to be willing to accept the consequences of it. It has nothing to do with how much money they have but everything to do with the fact they committed a crime in the first place.
Drugs of any kind that aren't regulated are a danger! Thats a fact.
Legalising them will not change that fact. The way in which they're obtained will obviously change but would it be such a good thing?
I don't think I would want to be waiting in boots behind people purchasing cocaine or heroin etc, uurgh! And then how long would it be before people are smoking these drugs all over the place? So those of us that choose not to use them, have to be subjected to it anyway!
I've made a whole series of arguments for changes in the drugs laws, and
one of them, is that it is regressive. The scottish parliament just recently
rejected a 10p per plastic shopping bag tax because it would be regressive,
(means the poor pay the tax more proportionally than the rich do).
Similarly, the drugs war has fallen disproportionately on the poor, and as
much as i agree any person should be arrested on breaking a real law, the
drugs laws are criminal laws, and don't count the same in my book.
Realistically, heroin would be perscribed and fulfilled by the NHS, with a
person receiving regular medical care, so that AIDS, hepatitis C and other
dangerous conditions affecting heroin users can be avoided.. not boots.
As well, i would expect cocaine and extacy to be similarly available from a
doctor who would give the person a checkup before they could purchase
their medication from the nhs.
The only drug i see being sold over teh counter would be cannabis. So
as much as it seems odd, we have a choice, to either follow 50 years of
failed "rheghead" cognitive dissonance, repeating the mantras of a failed
war so we can kill another generation of kids... or we grow up and save
our kids REALLY this time round, by making sure our war doesn't kill them.
But different people are motivated by different arguments:
1. liberty and free will - that liberty alone is enough reason to end the drugs war
2. freedom of religion - that if taking a sacrament is part of your religion...
3. regressive laws - laws that wind up being applied against the poorest
persons and not against the rich... who get the kate moss 1st class flight
to a 5-star resort rehab clinic and a coupla new jobs for 1,000,000 quid.
4. wasted money - a total waste of taxes
5. Kids taking unregulated chemicals, killing some -
6. Drugs being cheaper and more common on the street today than ever
before in the history of this failed drugs policy... (true measure of failure).
Over this thread, depending on the day, i've taken from various of these
arguments, as you can see, i'm merely a reapeater of arguments made long
and thoroughly by professionals in drugs war reform, professionals whos
books and materials i have studied, and who i trust have a more coherent
solution to ending drugs troubles in my lifetime than any number of
tired repetitions of "rheghedism".
sweetheart
07-Dec-05, 10:54
I don't get this, I really don't. I've been thinking about it since I first read your post, but I can't come up with any argument that says:
Legalising cannabis will solve most of Britain's addiction problems.I simply don't see why this should be the case. After all, legal alcohol doesn't cure alcohol-addition problems.
This has been driving me crazy. Please enlighten me.
I was recently having a chat with an inverness alcohol and drugs social
services worker. After telling me about his job, i asked him if he actually
*believed* in the drugs war. He thought about it, said "no", and that he
thought that the criminal justice system was doing more damage to the
kids he was workng with than the drugs were.
In that conversation, i've learned that an unsaid solution to drinking
problems in the highlands is to get the person using cannabis instead,
something that is credited with many cases of success in treating dangerous alchoholism.
A few things would change with cannabis legallization. Firstly, the cannabis
would be regulated, and of safer varieties that are less addicting, that
the person be less effected by the negative side effects of weed by not
having them in the commerically refined product.
I've said before that there is a second variety of cannabis that is cheaper
to grow that the black market selects, (indica), because it's flowering time
is 6-8 weeks... whereas (sattiva) has a flower time of 12-20 weeks, and
is not preferred for money-making cannabis growing. So the illegal market
has selected a more dangerous version of the drug, one that has more
addictive and negative properties, on top of the fact that not a single
cannabis smoker today, outside of growers, is UNaware of exactly what is
in their smoke.
Many users who use harder drugs, would swtich to cannabis when it
becomes legal. You see, the drugs war favours potency. The smaller and
more potent your drugs, the easier it is to hide them from the police.
Cannabis is easier to detect in pee, so people use heroin. Cannabis
smells a lot and is very bulky, so people use heroin and cocaine as they
are small and very easy to imbibe discreetly without smoke clouds.
That is say, that the drugs war is what is creating the demand for
these super-potent chemical drugs, all as a way to find the ultimate
microchemical for smuggling.... when if cannabis were legal, the market
would then allow people to get a stinky, bulky legal item and forego their
chemical verision of a fifth of whiskey for a pint of lager.
Have a look at this graph so you can see the relative addictions and
problems of these drugs:
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/addictiv.htm
As well, with the drugs legal, then all the closet cannabis users can come
out of the closet, get cleaner supplies and healthcare when they can be
honest with their doctor about what drugs they really take... then doctors
can better help patients who experience addiction. As long as it's illegal,
doctors are out of the loop, and a decent person can't get help for a
dangerous addiction without the prison/police establishment trying to break
them and destroy their lives out of sheer malice.
sweetheart
07-Dec-05, 11:15
"polce officers will use their discretion along with the case circumsances
before deciding whether to arrest or not.
http://www.essex.police.uk/advice/v_dru_02.php
Cannabis reclassification
In January 2004 Cannabis was reclassified from a Class B to a Class C drug. ...
Interesting golach, that the words you publish are out of sync with the
home office's advise to police, which is better recorded in the link above.
It sounds like you're an older person who has grown up brainwashed about
the drugs war and how its working.... someone who will fight tooth and
nail to stay dissonant, and avoiding all truth that the drugs war is a
failure. Rather than face truth, the police type would rather get on with
killing another generation of kids with bad laws.
Its all pointing to the failure of the incompetent scottish executive to
realize that the home office is for the whole country. And increasingly,
that opportunist maconnell is disagreeing with the home office from
immigration to drugs, and westminster is having difficulty keeping him
in line... as why bother, if he wants to destroy scotland's youth and
keep the country in the dark ages, then at least nobody but the scots
will be to blame this time round.
"polce officers will use their discretion along with the case circumsances
before deciding whether to arrest or not.
http://www.essex.police.uk/advice/v_dru_02.php
Interesting golach, that the words you publish are out of sync with the
home office's advise to police, which is better recorded in the link above.
It sounds like you're an older person who has grown up brainwashed about
the drugs war and how its working.... someone who will fight tooth and
nail to stay dissonant, and avoiding all truth that the drugs war is a
failure. Rather than face truth, the police type would rather get on with
killing another generation of kids with bad laws.
Its all pointing to the failure of the incompetent scottish executive to
realize that the home office is for the whole country. And increasingly,
that opportunist maconnell is disagreeing with the home office from
immigration to drugs, and westminster is having difficulty keeping him
in line... as why bother, if he wants to destroy scotland's youth and
keep the country in the dark ages, then at least nobody but the scots
will be to blame this time round.
Well check this out,
this is where I got my info
http://www.urban75.com/Drugs/cannabis.html
sweetheart
07-Dec-05, 12:11
Well check this out,
this is where I got my info
http://www.urban75.com/Drugs/cannabis.html
golach, if you *really* have ever worked for government, then surely you
must be able to find a more credible source for UK laws, like perhaps a
police website.
I'll explain, as many people many not know this. The home office did an
extensive and very expensive research on cannabis laws, considering the
5 million regular cannabis users in the UK. Cannabis was downgraded from a
class B drug to a Class C drug, we all know. Then jack maconnel decided to
show us all that he was a big tough drugs warrior, and he pronounced
that police departments north of the border would be continuing to arrest
persons against the advise of the home office.
And so, the UK is coming to have multiple drugs laws depending on which bog of political louses you're house is in. It is simply unacceptable this
confusing and deceptive laws... what is really happening is that backdoor
legallization is taking place, and persons like yourself are confused, as to
how to understand the trend.
The trend be towards libertarianism. The tory party just has the most
libertarian leader i've ever heard speak.... i expect that with cameron
winning a general election, based on what he said, we can expect an
end to criminalization of drugs in the UK. I don't agree with torys much,
but i can't help it that my blood is libertarian... you can burn me at the
stake, and i will still insist that human free will, choice and liberty are
values worth standing for, especially when the laws stand between the
individual and their freedom.
liberty and invidual freedom are the most important core values in
society. They foster maturity, responsibility and moral learning as people
act in the world and discover the fruits of their actions, each being
responsible for his or her self, and through this, fulfilling partly their
obligation to the whole, that the society as a whole, is one where
jesus christ would be left free to be a political activist, to wander and
teach his disciples his message, even if that freedom is very scary
for the roman establishment. But individual freedom allows persons to
"LEARN" and not have the moral lessons of live taken away from persons
by laws... because if you don't like cannabis, and don't smoke it, you are
a much more coherent than if you don't smoke it just because somebody
in authority ordered you not to... the latter weakens a social person, as
they no longer retain the moral ability to make sound decisions has been
taken away from a generation, and that generation is prone to
authoritarianism, police state thinking and dangerous totalitarianism,
expecially in the USA... and this manifests in society through the drugs
war.
So the judicial indictment of the war, per a book i recommended earlier
in the thread, is that the laws are producing a generation of ethicless
prison-kids who have grown up in prison due to the drugs war, who are
institutionally violent because of this, and will need to, in the case of
hundreds of thousands of ameircans, be incarcerated for life because of
exercising their freedom to take drugs.
It is civil disobedience in a global civil war, where the totalitarians want
to, as usual, disenfranchise the poor, the addicts, the immigrants, the
women and the black people. And it turns out, in all these areas, the
drugs war provides a way to attack these classes of people, so that
the upper classes have a permanent means of breaking and controlling
their societies, shaking people down, searching houses and generally
using the war on drugs in a very similar way to nazi's or much
more deplorable previous regimes who used brainwashing to get people
to create massive prison camps of their own youths, destroying their
own kin, all for being a good nazi.
And i think the people of caithness are smarter than good nazis... but that
is pretty much how i look at an advocate of the drugs war... just pin a
little "SchutzStaffel" SS on the old collar along with an american flag, as
that is the new reich... and then make us all wear patches on our clothes
indicating what our religion and recreational drugs of choice are... and
then we can burn all books about drugs, and print lies like the O'Groat
journal about the drugs war, all to perpetuate a nice clean "SS" state
where the town people work in the drug-concentration camps, keeping
inmates clean, knowing that they are more racially and morally
pure, because they don't do drugs, and knowing that the persons in
the prison-camp, deserve it because of their moral depravity.
And the towns people will talk like many on this thread... "I did not know
it was a concentration camp?"... those poor german civilians didn't know.
Gosh, we can't change the drugs war, its just not possible to control
our own destiny... and for all these reasons, i believe it is possible...
http://www.ukcia.org/
golach, if you *really* have ever worked for government, then surely you
must be able to find a more credible source for UK laws, like perhaps a
police website.
I'll explain, as many people many not know this. The home office did an
extensive and very expensive research on cannabis laws, considering the
5 million regular cannabis users in the UK. Cannabis was downgraded from a
class B drug to a Class C drug, we all know. Then jack maconnel decided to
show us all that he was a big tough drugs warrior, and he pronounced
that police departments north of the border would be continuing to arrest
persons against the advise of the home office.
And so, the UK is coming to have multiple drugs laws depending on which bog of political louses you're house is in. It is simply unacceptable this
confusing and deceptive laws... what is really happening is that backdoor
legallization is taking place, and persons like yourself are confused, as to
how to understand the trend.
The trend be towards libertarianism. The tory party just has the most
libertarian leader i've ever heard speak.... i expect that with cameron
winning a general election, based on what he said, we can expect an
end to criminalization of drugs in the UK. I don't agree with torys much,
but i can't help it that my blood is libertarian... you can burn me at the
stake, and i will still insist that human free will, choice and liberty are
values worth standing for, especially when the laws stand between the
individual and their freedom.
liberty and invidual freedom are the most important core values in
society. They foster maturity, responsibility and moral learning as people
act in the world and discover the fruits of their actions, each being
responsible for his or her self, and through this, fulfilling partly their
obligation to the whole, that the society as a whole, is one where
jesus christ would be left free to be a political activist, to wander and
teach his disciples his message, even if that freedom is very scary
for the roman establishment. But individual freedom allows persons to
"LEARN" and not have the moral lessons of live taken away from persons
by laws... because if you don't like cannabis, and don't smoke it, you are
a much more coherent than if you don't smoke it just because somebody
in authority ordered you not to... the latter weakens a social person, as
they no longer retain the moral ability to make sound decisions has been
taken away from a generation, and that generation is prone to
authoritarianism, police state thinking and dangerous totalitarianism,
expecially in the USA... and this manifests in society through the drugs
war.
So the judicial indictment of the war, per a book i recommended earlier
in the thread, is that the laws are producing a generation of ethicless
prison-kids who have grown up in prison due to the drugs war, who are
institutionally violent because of this, and will need to, in the case of
hundreds of thousands of ameircans, be incarcerated for life because of
exercising their freedom to take drugs.
It is civil disobedience in a global civil war, where the totalitarians want
to, as usual, disenfranchise the poor, the addicts, the immigrants, the
women and the black people. And it turns out, in all these areas, the
drugs war provides a way to attack these classes of people, so that
the upper classes have a permanent means of breaking and controlling
their societies, shaking people down, searching houses and generally
using the war on drugs in a very similar way to nazi's or much
more deplorable previous regimes who used brainwashing to get people
to create massive prison camps of their own youths, destroying their
own kin, all for being a good nazi.
And i think the people of caithness are smarter than good nazis... but that
is pretty much how i look at an advocate of the drugs war... just pin a
little "SchutzStaffel" SS on the old collar along with an american flag, as
that is the new reich... and then make us all wear patches on our clothes
indicating what our religion and recreational drugs of choice are... and
then we can burn all books about drugs, and print lies like the O'Groat
journal about the drugs war, all to perpetuate a nice clean "SS" state
where the town people work in the drug-concentration camps, keeping
inmates clean, knowing that they are more racially and morally
pure, because they don't do drugs, and knowing that the persons in
the prison-camp, deserve it because of their moral depravity.
And the towns people will talk like many on this thread... "I did not know
it was a concentration camp?"... those poor german civilians didn't know.
Gosh, we can't change the drugs war, its just not possible to control
our own destiny... and for all these reasons, i believe it is possible...
http://www.ukcia.org/
What are you on, it must be a strong strain, yes I did work for the UK Government as a Customs and Excise Officer for 33 years amd here is the official link to HMRC as they are now known
http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageVAT_ShowContent&propertyType=document&featurearticle=true&id=HMCE_CL_001327#P53_6017
sweetheart
07-Dec-05, 13:55
You are being naive.
The dream of any vicemonger is to go mainstream, why else but to increase sales and consumption. Ok, I grant you that 'Crackopops' won't be the first marketed product but the first legalised drug to go on sale WILL be aimed at those most vulnerable in society, if that includes children and existing drug users then so be it...
I actually agree with you rheghead, but for very different reasons, politically,
about markets regulation of advertising to children, but you are swapping
an apple for an orange. We have proven that we can, as a culture,
restrict advertizing of vices with potential health impacts. I agree with
this point of vew on regulating advertising, so i am inclined to agree with
you. But i don't for a second think that this has anything to do with
how it would be if cannabis and other drugs were legallized.
As a first step, i propose to legallize only cannabis, and to medicalize
all the other drugs, monopolizing their supply through the NHS. Then
the public will buy out the illegal dealers and bankrupt them, a worthy
investment indeed. There are plenty of medicalized drugs that the
doctor MUST perscribe what a patient asks for. The patient knows
their body and pain thresholds better than a doctor, and has the right
to be their own master.
Then when you go to the doctor to get cocaine, the doctor can fill
your perscription. The doctor can know that at least you were
administered this powerful drug, and how much, and its purity. This is
critical in administering to a person's overall health, and it makes a lot of
sense to medicalize the strong drugs, bringing persons in out of the cold
to be looked after, as our "compassionate" society needs to.
Cannabis, i envision being sold in little glass bottles, very similar to the
bottles of whiskey, except tiny, in sizes of a few grams to an ounce.
Then personal posession won't be rational, as persons will simply be able
to get their weed from the corner shop. Growing cannabis will be absurd.
HOw many people do you know who grow their own tobacco? Once it
is legal, commercial farmers make private growing extremely expensive.
My point in this, is that the small amounts for sale achieve 2 things, it
de-inventories the marketplace, because today people who smoke cannabis
hoard it, keeping as much as they can reasonably get to support their
use. Yet, how many drunks hoard whiskey? Exactly. If it were legal,
these persons would burn through their stash and keep less around.
The second impact of this, is that people will use less. Consider that the
crime of "selling" cannabis makes it undesirable to sell small amounts, as
small amounts means many customers and a high likely hood of exposure.
So, amounts change hands in quarter, half ounces, and less often in
individual grams. However, if you could just buy a gram for a nights
top-off, then there would be no half ounce to keep smoking the next
4 days. Effectively, before whiskey was legal, people sold it in barrels,
and big casks,.. and now its sold in much smaller bottles, so that try
as he might, a man can't get blinded on a half bottle.
Do your children drink? That is the biggest danger to your health.
Unless you denounce drink, you are on thin ground to preach about
the morals of protecting our children from dangerous drugs as the
basis of some sort of dissonant consensus.
Really now, we can allow people free choice, and in opening our hearts
and embracing 5 million british persons able to leave the closet and the
whole air of a great peace that a toxic divisive social war is finally ended.
porshiepoo
07-Dec-05, 14:33
The only drug i see being sold over teh counter would be cannabis. So
as much as it seems odd, we have a choice, to either follow 50 years of
failed "rheghead" cognitive dissonance, repeating the mantras of a failed
war so we can kill another generation of kids... or we grow up and save
our kids REALLY this time round, by making sure our war doesn't kill them.
But different people are motivated by different arguments:
1. liberty and free will - that liberty alone is enough reason to end the drugs war
2. freedom of religion - that if taking a sacrament is part of your religion...
3. regressive laws - laws that wind up being applied against the poorest
persons and not against the rich... who get the kate moss 1st class flight
to a 5-star resort rehab clinic and a coupla new jobs for 1,000,000 quid.
4. wasted money - a total waste of taxes
5. Kids taking unregulated chemicals, killing some -
6. Drugs being cheaper and more common on the street today than ever
before in the history of this failed drugs policy... (true measure of failure).
Over this thread, depending on the day, i've taken from various of these
arguments, as you can see, i'm merely a reapeater of arguments made long
and thoroughly by professionals in drugs war reform, professionals whos
books and materials i have studied, and who i trust have a more coherent
solution to ending drugs troubles in my lifetime than any number of
tired repetitions of "rheghedism".
[/quote]
[/QUOTE]
But Rheghed is just as entitled to state his opinion and his opinion is just as valid as yours Sweetheart.
I understand alot of where you're coming from Sweetheart, really I do, but your postings are starting to sound more and more 'rights' related than anything else. Is this so? Even just a smidging?? lol.
What does the Sweetheart future look like? Do we have a country where people are openly high, smoking whatever they wish, wherever they wish?
Do we sacrifice our rights as non drug takers in order for this deadly habit to consume our streets?
Needles everywhere, more so than now because they don't feel the need to hide it.
Our children having easier access to hard drugs at vulnerable and influential times in their life?
Why do you suggest only legalising cannabis to start with? Why not the whole lot?
Drug dealers will never be eradicated because drugs will never be available on the NHS. If drugs were ever made legal we would no doubt have to pay for them and how long would it be before the price inflates in proportion with say, petrol? Then what do we have? Many more people than ever before on a drug that they can no longer afford? We'd be worse off than we are now.
My point in this, is that the small amounts for sale achieve 2 things, it
de-inventories the marketplace, because today people who smoke cannabis
hoard it, keeping as much as they can reasonably get to support their
use. Yet, how many drunks hoard whiskey? Exactly. If it were legal,
these persons would burn through their stash and keep less around.
The second impact of this, is that people will use less. Consider that the
crime of "selling" cannabis makes it undesirable to sell small amounts, as
small amounts means many customers and a high likely hood of exposure.
So, amounts change hands in quarter, half ounces, and less often in
individual grams. However, if you could just buy a gram for a nights
top-off, then there would be no half ounce to keep smoking the next
4 days. Effectively, before whiskey was legal, people sold it in barrels,
and big casks,.. and now its sold in much smaller bottles, so that try
as he might, a man can't get blinded on a half bottle.
I'm struggling with this one.
If someone with a drug addiction bought enough substance for one night, there may not be any left for the next day but they would still go out and get it the next day, thats what an addiction does to you.
An addiction of any kind is not just in the taking. They have to know they have a supply, whether it's used straight away or not.
Whiskey was sold in Barrels yes and isn't now, but thats more down to the greed of manufacturers than anything else.
It hasn't decreased the amount of alcoholics we have though, in fact we have more now.
So answer me this Sweetheart.
Do you believe (honestly now) that legalisation is the only way forward? By that I also mean do you believe that we have taken every other possible step to ease the drugs crisis in every other way?
sweetheart
07-Dec-05, 14:43
What are you on, it must be a strong strain, yes I did work for the UK Government as a Customs and Excise Officer for 33 years amd here is the official link to HMRC as they are now known
http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageVAT_ShowContent&propertyType=document&featurearticle=true&id=HMCE_CL_001327#P53_6017
That's much better, don't you think? :-)
As for your slight about what i am on, i am on a coffee.
I think your comment is very rude. I have written a
coherently a comprehensive set of arguments for progressive,
healthy, dynamic and good hearted reforms, and you respond
with insults, when you yourself can't write an argument of any
coherency FOR the status quo.
You believe in a heirarchy in life, it is your religion. YOu think you are
more moral and more important because of your career, by the very
fact you've placed it on the table, your personal history, as if history
is relevant to the present. In my more zen-religion, there is no
history... that is just pretentious bully talk, and i'm supposed to kiss
your buttons your royal highness. ha! :-)
I've no respect for your authority, it enrages doesn't it!... its like
goading a pig. I am no terrorist sir. I am no criminal, and I object
to your rude presumption about what medicines i take.
It's called "ad hominem" in argument, and is used by the neocons, the
people behind george bush. It is distracting an argument by attacking
the invidiual making the argument, and is not polite or morally superior
in online discussion, sir. You and your law-abiding buddies on this
thread are the ones using this threatening way of argument. You can
aways win your argument if you can kill me, shoot me with a gun,
have me declared insane, or on drugs... yes?
Yawn. I'n my work, i write 1000's of pages of text every year, and i
can touch type as fast as most people can talk. That you might save
face, i won't accuse you of being rude, but you should consider that
throwing your police badge on to the internet is a direct act of
authoritarian control of civil debate... something this libertarian
really objects to just on principal... you represent a line of vindictive
authority that is not nice, not civil, but thuggish, and this is the thing
i want to point towards, how the opponents of realizing the drugs war
is failed over 50 years, are angry men using threats and not a shred
of logic of evidence-of-success except a list of rules, that you now have
pointed towards the proper website for... than you very much.
Your authority is unearned, and the authority of the laws, is based on
a similarly unearned imposing thuggishness, not civility, threats,
big baddies with prison clubs and guns... not civil sir,
make an argument, but please grow up and cut out the insults...
YOU are an example of why the drugs war is a failure... that 1
person behind it is such an authoritarian... it gave your authoritarian
blood wings, and now you fly around with them like a vampire. :-)
Write an argument sir, write some poetry and show us you've got the
depth to deal with the fact that 5 million persons in the UK use drugs
today, and many are a lot more sophistocated and civilised than
you, no matter your service with HM customs. You are very angry,
judgemental and authoritarian, and you've a moral calculator in your
mind that empowers you to be my judge, when i see that as rather
a massive serious ego-complex on your behalf, and you should grow up,
go hill walking and fall in love with a lass, rather than dumping such
angry-white-man-on-line... LOL!
porshiepoo
07-Dec-05, 15:35
O gawd, Golach a vampire?!! lol.
You obviously believe wholeheartedly in your convictions Sweetheart!
I may not agree with you on the entire subject but I know what it's like to be on here and get abuse for stating your opinions.
I am assuming though that you don't want to reply to anything I addressed to you in my last posting?
I wasn't ranting, accusing or being rude, I was just opinionating lol. However, you seem to answer most posts pretty quickly so I'll assume mines to be left unanswered.
Shame! I would have loved to insight into Sweethearts world.
Sweetheart, that attack on golach was rather rude, presumptuous and uncalled-for. I happen to know the man personally so I can happily report that it's inaccurate too. I would have thought an experienced poster like yourself would have learned that it's extremely counterproductive to resort to hubris and cheap insults when someone disagrees with you -- you'll never convince anyone of anything with posts like that. I was beginning to be persuaded by your considered response to crayola's question on legalisation of cannabis: it was logical and linear, and it was clear in its assumptions. But now you're coming over as more extreme than those extremists you so decry. You are mixing your politics, your religion and your arguments for legalising drugs in a most unappetising way, but perhaps you don't see this.
You're in danger of losing perhaps the most avid reader of your posts, and more's the pity, because I was genuinely interested in your arguments. Contrary to popular opinion on here, I am far more open to "alternative" ideas than most, but not when they are being rammed down my throat with overdoses of libertarianism and zen.
As a research scientist, I'm extremely well-practised at spotting irrational inconsistent rubbish very quickly and from a great distance, but I don't see any such flaws in your semi-detailed proposals for legalisation of intoxicating drugs. They seem rather well-thought-out and objective to me -- although I suspect you're making more assumptions than you might think. Having said that, I once thought Marx & Engels' Communist Manisfesto was a masterly merger of the egalitarian and libertarian dreams -- so please feel free to take my opinions with a pinch of salt! But that was a long time ago, and I've learned a few things about life since then. One of those things is that you get nowhere with posts like your most recent one. If anything, I suspect the net effect of your posts on this thread is to do a little damage to the campaign you feel so strongly about. I hope I'm wrong but I have my doubts...
You've clearly thought long and hard about these issues, and perhaps taken a long time to come to the conclusions you espouse with such admirable passion, but please have a little patience with those of us who're just beginning to think about them and are perhaps suffering from severe cognitive dissonance. :eek:
sweetheart
07-Dec-05, 16:58
http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=8571&mesg_id=8571
Bless you sweetheart your just as crazy as the rest of them witches and plantgurus. Well, maybe, but that doesn't mean (s)he's not right. Sweetheart's proposals for legalisation of drugs should be considered on their own merits.
Hmm, does that contradict my previous post? I hope not. :confused:
Firstly I never attacked you, I asked a question sic what were / are you on?
and you then subsiquently begin what I can only call a rant against me, from calling me a Vampire to a pig. If it made you feel better then go ahead, I have been called worse, many many times.
I have noted a few of your comments / rants and have listed them below can you elaborate?
I believe in heirarchy in life its my religion.... How can you assume to know my religion?......anyway I am an Agnostic and have never been ashamed to tell all on CCWS.
You go on about my Morals What can you ever know about me or my morality?
You say I would like you to "Kiss my Buttons" ........Again I am nonplused, Where have I ever said that?
You say your rantings are like goading a pig to me I think that like a lot of Junkies and yes I class all drug users as Junkies you cannot accept authority
You say you can type as quickly as most folks can talk So what!!
You also state that I represent a line of vindictive authority that is not civil I was a Civil Servant that means an employee of HM Government and a Law abiding citizen of the UK
You spell Whiskey not as most Scots would spell it as in Scotland we spell it Whisky, so from the I assume you are not Scottish
And lastly you call our American allies Nazis Where are you coming from?
You and I will never agree Sweetheart as I am Against All Illegal Drugs and always will be, that is my personal choice long before I ever became a member of HM Customs & Excise
porshiepoo
07-Dec-05, 19:08
I am incredulous at your suggestions Sweetheart.
There is no way on god's earth that we should ever ever live in a society that you have portrayed in that explaination. No way!
You say an age limit of 20 to this legalisation of drugs. What of the thousands of people under that age that are abusers? They'll still have to go to the dealers, or the ones that are getting them from the doctor perhaps will become the dealers!
The illegal drugs world is a lucrative business for those involved, how long will it be before doctors are on the 'payroll' and supplying drugs? It couldn't ever be controlled in a way that is fair and just.
'special schools' where children can sample drugs. Are you serious??
Why would anyone want to encourage anyone let alone children to sample drugs of any kind?
And I find the thought of 'mommy' supplying the drugs absolutely sickening. What you are suggesting is encouraging those that may never ever intend to do drugs, to experiment. With the help and encouragement of 'mommy' dearest.
I'd move to the moon before I would ever want to be a part of a society that found it acceptable to live like that.
If the doctors limit patients to 100 wraps as you say, what happens when they've all gone and can't get any more cos they've used their quota? They go back to the drug dealers, or others that are getting them from the doctor.
What about those people that will get them from the doctor under the pretence of using but are actually intending to sell them instead?
I find it no suprise that the drug you propose to legalise first is the very one that you admit to using!
I'm sorry but I have to agree with Drszin (eek), your well thought out debates are now turning into rantings of a world that should never ever be allowed to be. For the safety of us now and in 100 years time.
I had my drink spiked last year sometime i was ill for days, all drug'ies and pusher's should be thrown over to Stroma and left to do all their dealings with e sheep.Ok Dumbo, why put them to Stroma and not to your house? I take it you don't know anyone who comes from Stroma or you wouldn't be so insulting....
Fed-Ex:- I know lot of people who came from Stroma, what i said was figure o speech, it's a comman saying round here that you should know if ye come from here or are ye anither sooth moother or a simple dope heid, if so a visit to Stroma might just be the answer and the cure.
Fed-Ex:- I know lot of people who came from Stroma, what i said was figure o speech, it's a comman saying round here that you should know if ye come from here or are ye anither sooth moother or a simple dope heid, if so a visit to Stroma might just be the answer and the cure.Actually im anythin but a sooth moother or a dope heid as you would put it, and i have visited Stroma on many occassions,some of my family coming from there. I do know that it is a figure of speech here but never the less an offensive one......Leave all the drugies in Wick where they seem to blend in quite well thank you very much..
Actually im anythin but a sooth moother or a dope heid as you would put it, and i have visited Stroma on many occassions,some of my family coming from there. I do know that it is a figure of speech here but never the less an offensive one......Leave all the drugies in Wick where they seem to blend in quite well thank you very much..
Stroma is a lovely island to good for any dope head.
Leave all the drugies in Wick where they seem to blend in quite well thank you very much.. And why shouldnt anybody from Wick or with family still there not take offence to your stupid comment fed ex, why don't we have them in your house, it seems its ok for you to blast a town, but god no no no, dont mention anything about some island out back, maybe you'd be best with an extended stay on stroma, like a life sentence maybe as you sound such a sociable chap
sweetheart
07-Dec-05, 22:43
I see your point about "age 20", just i was telling you my own sentiment
about youths using any drugs, even cigarettes... that the right to
destroy your body comes with an adult, maybe at 18.
Yes, underage kids will get ahold of it, like they do now with alcohol,
but the supplies will all be safe.
How many "dealers" of alcohol do you know, now that it is legal?
The way to keep kids off addiction is to provide a comprehensive activites
and schooling program for them until adulthood. What i see in a lot of
highland communties are an absence of sports centers, scouts and the
sorts of things that keep kids disengaged from teenage drugs use. The
idea is to keep kids so busy they've not got time to bother with drugs.
This is proven all over americana to protect kids from addiction and has
worked very well (community centers/acitivities) in getting urban kids
away from drugs exposure.
/*
The illegal drugs world is a lucrative business for those involved, how long will it be before doctors are on the 'payroll' and supplying drugs? It couldn't ever be controlled in a way that is fair and just.
*/ How many doctors are corrupted today selling their more controlled
medical stock... look legallization and harm reduction is not "harm
elimination"... it is accepting that people will do drugs and adapting
the laws and the social institutions to support people surviving and moving
on from the down side of addiction.
/*
I thought you'd like htat part: "'special schools' where children can sample drugs. Are you serious??"
*/
:-) I saw a "brass eye" episode about that very thing and it made for a
good laugh.
Well, mummy, would you rather your kiddies get drugs from the street.
Have YOU ever bought street drugs... its done through referral and trust.
when you are referred to a new dealer, its him who is taking the risk,and
so the drugs user generally buys what's on offer trusting the dealer,
and the dealer trusts the person not to grass them out to the police.
And in that relationship, you must feel your child is getting better
drugs supplied.
If cider is 1 pound a tin at the corner store, do adults sell it to minors for
2 pounds a tin pocketing the profits? No... with licensed distributors,
minors have less chance of getting in contact with drugs, and if they do,
the drugs will be pure and safer than today.
If your kid say, in their teenage years, is caught for drugs, and thrown in
prison, then you'll realize what is worse than the worst nightmare
society you're worried about... the nightmare is the way it is now..
A doctor supervised system is not perfect erfect.... but it is a far cry more
powerful in health management than simply having persons sucking drugs
off toilet seats in clubs with the doctor unable to perscribe anything
as strong as the toilet seat drugs for fear of being arrested as a drugs
dealer. The doctor system works today, and there is no sustained
illegal market in the legal NHS pharmaceuticals...so that concern is not
grounded on much evidence. A legal approach would be revolutionary,
in the sense that not a single social divisive act would exist to
criminalize except violence and property crime... somethng that would
restore respect for police and make public safety more effective.
If the doctors limit patients to 100 wraps as you say, what happens when they've all gone and can't get any more cos they've used their quota? They go back to the drug dealers, or others that are getting them from the doctor.
I find it no suprise that the drug you propose to legalise first is the very one that you admit to using!
The drug i propose dealing with first, is the one that 5 million persons in
the UK use, and is the proxy for "drugs" amorphously being by far the
largest in-use illegal drug today. I have used cannabis, just like others
of 5 million and 1 out of 3 scottish teenagers. I propose, out of
enlightened self interest, if i am to accept your charge of intent, that
it is in the public interest that cannabis users not be criminalized,
stigmatized, and rather, that the public should make sure that all those
persons got regulated known chemicals, so that during a lifetime, when
perhaps a million of those persons quit smoking cannabis, the longer
term medical effects will be minimized as we'll know we've done all we
could do... today, that is not the case... today we are stingy and
destructive towards drugs users... and lets hope that if you ever get
with your kids afoul of the prohibition laws that your life will not be as
destroyed as the laws have done to other people.
In 100 years time, the drugs war will have been long over, and much like
alcohol prohibition, a think we take for granted.
And why shouldnt anybody from Wick or with family still there not take offence to your stupid comment fed ex, why don't we have them in your house, it seems its ok for you to blast a town, but god no no no, dont mention anything about some island out back, maybe you'd be best with an extended stay on stroma, like a life sentence maybe as you sound such a sociable chapActually im a girl... and i live inthe oh so lovely town of Wick. Put all the druggies round to my house if you like. I'd make them more than welcome because unlike some others I am a very sociable person. Its not the druggies I have the problem with its the town of Wick itself and people like you.........
all drug'ies and pusher's should be thrown over to Stroma and left to do all their dealings with e sheep.
I hope the sheep will get their say in this!
sweetheart
07-Dec-05, 23:08
I believe in heirarchy in life its my religion.... How can you assume to know my religion?......anyway I am an Agnostic and have never been ashamed to tell all on CCWS.
You go on about my Morals What can you ever know about me or my morality?
You say I would like you to "Kiss my Buttons" ........Again I am nonplused, Where have I ever said that?
You say your rantings are like goading a pig to me I think that like a lot of Junkies and yes I class all drug users as Junkies you cannot accept authority
You say you can type as quickly as most folks can talk So what!!
You also state that I represent a line of vindictive authority that is not civil I was a Civil Servant that means an employee of HM Government and a Law abiding citizen of the UK
You spell Whiskey not as most Scots would spell it as in Scotland we spell it Whisky, so from the I assume you are not Scottish
And lastly you call our American allies Nazis Where are you coming from?
You and I will never agree Sweetheart as I am Against All Illegal Drugs and always will be, that is my personal choice long before I ever became a member of HM Customs & Excise
In the first point, your religion, in the way i was using it, is your core
values, your un-questioned core values... and in that sense, you've
relied very heavily on authoritarianism, obviously a life in authority and
positions of such stuff.
really, ive no bone to pick with you. Please lay off calling me names or
asking me what i'm on, and i won't respond in colour. I was born in the
US, and most of the people i know in the US are planning to leave the
country to avoid the nazi republicans, or they have left already. People
who stay, are getting generally prepared for a civil war as bush has
plunged millions in to poverty with his supply-side incompetent econoimcs,
and the lying criminals are all getting indicted over in washington DC,
as the better half of americana is coming out of the woodwork to check
the power of these nazis.... ANd tony blair was very foolish to cooperate,
as the real majority of america will never forgive him for helping bush to
win a second election. That is just like getting hitler elected again in
my book and i hope blair pays for the suffering he's laid on the american
people 10000 fold... he's no loyal ally, he's a criminal just like bush, and
the american and british people should lock the both of them up along
with their other wars like the drugs war, an the planned nuclear attack
on iran. Bush and cheney are following a very simple global domination
plan to stake out the oil rights of the caspian basin, and they've lied and
decieved everyone, that good hearted persons in other nations think that
these persons are americans... when they are traitors at best,and in the
longer term, we find out who our real friends are. Neville chamberlain
was no friend of the german people.. nor is tony blair any friend of
the american people.... appeasement does not work... you'd think
somebody would have learned that.
but i've not a bone with calling bush
and his party nazis... that is what they are about... they have thieved
and stolen the future of a billion people, leaving us with a failed occupation, a bunch of zealot christian theocrats preaching "just say no
to sex" in subsaharan africa... much like the hardline "just say no"
that you yourself repeat..
But britain seems to realize that condoms are better at protecting people
from AIDS than "just say no"... maybe that common sense applies to other
areas of the just-say-no fallacy.
I realize we won't agree on this golach, but good luck to you anyways.
ANd tony blair was very foolish to cooperate,
as the real majority of america will never forgive him for helping bush to
win a second election.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that he won a second election because more people voted for him than voted for Kerry, idiots though the former may be. Since when did Blair get the vote in the US? ;)
The real majority of America should perhaps have given more thought to the implications of their votes than to a foreign Prime Minister waffling about "standing shoulder to shoulder" and other nonsense about the "special relationship" between the US and UK.
That is just like getting hitler elected again in
my book and i hope blair pays for the suffering he's laid on the american
people 10000 fold... he's no loyal ally, he's a criminal just like bush, and
the american and british people should lock the both of them up along
with their other wars like the drugs war, an the planned nuclear attack
on iran. Bush and cheney are following a very simple global domination
plan to stake out the oil rights of the caspian basin, and they've lied and
decieved everyone, that good hearted persons in other nations think that
these persons are americans... when they are traitors at best,and in the
longer term, we find out who our real friends are. Neville chamberlain
was no friend of the german people.. nor is tony blair any friend of
the american people.... appeasement does not work... you'd think
somebody would have learned that.
Ummm, what? I may be no fan of either Dubya or Blair, but what on earth have you been smoking this evening?
sweetheart
07-Dec-05, 23:39
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that he won a second election because more people voted for him than voted for Kerry, idiots though the former may be. Since when did Blair get the vote in the US? ;)
The real majority of America should perhaps have given more thought to the implications of their votes than to a foreign Prime Minister waffling about "standing shoulder to shoulder" and other nonsense about the "special relationship" between the US and UK.
Ummm, what? I may be no fan of either Dubya or Blair, but what on earth have you been smoking this evening?
He did not win the second election. There was significant evidence of
voting fraud in ohio, and statistical evidence of voting fraud in 7 states,
as in 2000, deliberately planned by the republicans to subvert the
democratic process. The majority hasn't a clue, as american media, unlike
british media, are entirely entertainment driven, without a single public
broadcaster charged with telling "truth". And so an election in the US
is based purely on money, who can raise the most to use the most
television in a country where it is impossible to campaign personally,
where television advertizing and the money that buys it has usurped
any concept of democracy with a very well functioning plutocracy.
To hear bush use the word democracy makes me ill.... his party stands
for the systematic disenfranchisement of all persons from voting, run by
a bunch of barely-reformed white racist theocrats... these nutters are
outstanding... and their followers are militant like brownshirts...
I look forward to what a free election would look like, but that last
american poll was a fraud.... and blair helped them keep up the
imagery, by not reporting the war crimes and lies that he and bush
helped sell to us so they could bomb and kill 1000's of civilians in a
oil theft.
These republicans are evil people. I've met a lot of them and i don't
trust them at all... they are by far the most dangerous threat to global
goodwill and civilized society anywhere on earth... and it is downright
absurd that the UK is tied up in a special relationship that has become
nothing more than a cooperative effort to conceal a war crime... some
special relationship that has become.
sweetheart
08-Dec-05, 00:14
The majority did not vote for bush. There was outrageous election fraud,
the kind that would have invalidated an election anywhere else on earth.
Here is an Ok discussion of the fraud, but there are much more detailed
and (Frankly spooky) ones if you dig around... its not pleasing to read that
the world's largest economy and a potentially positive ally is implementing
systematic voting fraud and increasing a social attack program against
women, minorities, poor people and other fringe groups, to diminish their
civil rights... just like what the nazis were doing early on in their
administration with their war against homosexuals and that stuff.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=106&topic_id=21589
The media are used mercilessly to destroy all opposition to bush, using
slander and reputation destruction, much as how a film was aired just days
before the US election last year, as much as would be illegal under UK
election statute, and this film slandered and smeared one of the candidates
with what turned out later to be lies... very artful propaganda, but really,
the persons who use such devices are not friends of britain.... really and
truly, and i'm shocked that some persons believe that the bush persons
are allies.... As a born ameircan, those men are the enemy of all that is
american more than any foreign enemy... they have proven to be, by
their deeds... I see no difference between them and the nazis... both
believed unquestioningly in the moral superiority of their mission to find
oil and llebensraum for their people.
We must be wary of authoritarians everywhere, because they are leading
us off a precipice towards world war. And if we don't act now, it will
be too late, and no amount of crying will fix what is being broken.
I don't have to smoke anything to be sickened at the tragic incompetence
of bush and his lack of subtlety. The post ww2 imperial consensus is
broken and the geopolitical plates are shifting bigtime... with the dollar
having lost 1/2 its gold value since bush came in office... he's destroyed
more value than any world leader EVER in the history of man, and i fear,
that the competetive empires model of the bush geopolitic bears a marked
resemblance to pre-world war 1 europe.... a world of bilateral alliances
and no global multilateralism.
Sorry for sullying this forum with any mention of criminals... better we
stick to discussing drugs and leave the real dross of society over in the
us government where they worship the money of their corporate
constitutents.
The majority did not vote for bush. There was outrageous election fraud,
the kind that would have invalidated an election anywhere else on earth.
Here is an Ok discussion of the fraud, but there are much more detailed
and (Frankly spooky) ones if you dig around... its not pleasing to read that
the world's largest economy and a potentially positive ally is implementing
systematic voting fraud and increasing a social attack program against
women, minorities, poor people and other fringe groups, to diminish their
civil rights... just like what the nazis were doing early on in their
administration with their war against homosexuals and that stuff.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=106&topic_id=21589
The media are used mercilessly to destroy all opposition to bush, using
slander and reputation destruction, much as how a film was aired just days
before the US election last year, as much as would be illegal under UK
election statute, and this film slandered and smeared one of the candidates
with what turned out later to be lies... very artful propaganda, but really,
the persons who use such devices are not friends of britain.... really and
truly, and i'm shocked that some persons believe that the bush persons
are allies.... As a born ameircan, those men are the enemy of all that is
american more than any foreign enemy... they have proven to be, by
their deeds... I see no difference between them and the nazis... both
believed unquestioningly in the moral superiority of their mission to find
oil and llebensraum for their people.
We must be wary of authoritarians everywhere, because they are leading
us off a precipice towards world war. And if we don't act now, it will
be too late, and no amount of crying will fix what is being broken.
I don't have to smoke anything to be sickened at the tragic incompetence
of bush and his lack of subtlety. The post ww2 imperial consensus is
broken and the geopolitical plates are shifting bigtime... with the dollar
having lost 1/2 its gold value since bush came in office... he's destroyed
more value than any world leader EVER in the history of man, and i fear,
that the competetive empires model of the bush geopolitic bears a marked
resemblance to pre-world war 1 europe.... a world of bilateral alliances
and no global multilateralism.
Sorry for sullying this forum with any mention of criminals... better we
stick to discussing drugs and leave the real dross of society over in the
us government where they worship the money of their corporate
constitutents.
http://members.aol.com/rheghead/bored.jpg
Im glad you said it Rheghead......................
sweetheart
08-Dec-05, 00:49
Man i'm impressed at american propaganda, that a nation of people that
has not lived there supports the bush repukes. The equivalent political
radicalism in the UK is right wing thatcherism. I am very grateful not to be
in the US right now, truth be told, and i've had many discussions with
americans making plans to escape to neutral or safe haven until/if ever
the neocon right is taken down.
Just don't say i din't warn you. The united states will get only sicker and
sicker, more and more volatile as it's currency and economy implode under
these economic incompetents, and the destabilizing effect of this will cause
a global recession that may last the rest of our lives.
I love america, the land, the freedom, obviously, by the way its in the blood
of my argument, but this small clan of corrupt republican leaders, now
getting indicted on felony charges in washington for premeditated planning
of an aggressive war. are tragically-imperial values. They
are oppressive fascists.... really by the letter of the word... and scotland
and its people should be a very bit more concerned as the economic
and social interconnection is very high, and a depression will be all of
ours to share. We are back in a world of competing empires... a very
interesting historical time.. well, i see your guizes point, since nobody
will bomb caithness in a nuclear war, why give a toss that they might
start another world war. Like in the drugs war, its easy to conscience
until the war is in your town, killing your family, and then its just not so
saleable.
Go work in the US, on a minimum wage job, living in your dumpy flat without healthcare or any retirement provision and you'll wish you were
back in your cush scottish digs with heathcare, clean air and some
space. The new slave of the american empire is the untouchble low
wage labour at the bottom, and a life bearing little difference to forms
of slavery, and for those millions of persons for the 1 out of 4 american
women who will be raped in her lifetime, for the real life person who has
to live with the social results of a regime like bush, i wish you guys
cared a little more, special relationship and all, about the slavery
and avoidable death you support when you stand by bush.
Sweetheart, I find your ranting (and it is just ranting) wearisome and bizarre. Just because I find it wearisome and bizarre reflects solely on the absence of a rational argument. It does not mean that I support Bush in any way, shape or form. Please don't flatter yourself in thinking that anyone who finds your latest posts yawn-inducing must be a Neo-Con.
The American people are solely to blame for Bush being where he is today. Whether I stand idly by or not makes no difference whatsoever.
Yes, the US is in big trouble. Yes, there are right-wing fundies who want to make the US even more puritanical and backward than it is today. The American people stand idly by while the teaching of creation science is introduced in schools. They do the same when efforts are made to remove women's rights over their own bodies. They do it again while they watch greater tax cuts for the rich, all because their delusional "American dream" means that one day they might be rich too and paying only a small proportion of their income in tax. They ignore their underclass of citizens who cannot afford healthcare. But heck, it's all right, there are more guns that people so life must be okay.
You get what you ask for, Sweetheart. And the American people got theirs. What you want us to do about it... send sympathy cards?
sweetheart
08-Dec-05, 02:16
Sweetheart, I find your ranting (and it is just ranting) wearisome and bizarre. Just because I find it wearisome and bizarre reflects solely on the absence of a rational argument. It does not mean that I support Bush in any way, shape or form. Please don't flatter yourself in thinking that anyone who finds your latest posts yawn-inducing must be a Neo-Con.
The American people are solely to blame for Bush being where he is today. Whether I stand idly by or not makes no difference whatsoever.
Yes, the US is in big trouble. Yes, there are right-wing fundies who want to make the US even more puritanical and backward than it is today. The American people stand idly by while the teaching of creation science is introduced in schools. They do the same when efforts are made to remove women's rights over their own bodies. They do it again while they watch greater tax cuts for the rich, all because their delusional "American dream" means that one day they might be rich too and paying only a small proportion of their income in tax. They ignore their underclass of citizens who cannot afford healthcare. But heck, it's all right, there are more guns that people so life must be okay.
You get what you ask for, Sweetheart. And the American people got theirs. What you want us to do about it... send sympathy cards?
It IS ranting, yes, first draft stream of consciousness ranting, ... it is my writing style online... all i got.
Sometimes, i get it really spot on. Sometimes the writing sucks.
I won't apologize as the writer, give me an editor and some days distance
and i'll give you all refined polish draft, but no miracles in a first draft.
What can you do about it? Break off cooperation in the drugs war by
making a radically positive test of a way past prohibition, and
help drain the hegemon's political will in attempting to keep all world
nations in its UN drugs war pact?... challenging an empire gently
but firmly, and with a broken consensus, maybe a new momentum
on social justice. By a nation showing the initiative to take social
justice in its own hands ending criinalization would be big.
That would be the best dream if you could grant me a wish, to see
ONE country successful in ending the drugs scourge by adopting
the "freedom" tonic of the bush rhetorical doublespeak; making
cannabis legal if not decriminalized entirely, and showing how a
more civilized nation can do it better for their own youths.
You could not cooperate on any more wars please, and expose the
documents that show criminal planning to bomb al jazerra and a general
freedom of information on "the run up to iraq and beyond". It is the
british memos that are breaking the truth of the lie to war to the american
people. "We" the real american people, the masse of millions, ask for you
to expose all truth and evidence so we can deal with our problem.
So i'm done speaking as an american. It makes me too angry to
think about those people.... upsetting, so many emotions of dismay
and incredible anger at having my civil society usurped by a load of
ignorant gorillas.... dammit!
PS. end the drugs war. ;-)
Man i'm impressed at american propaganda, that a nation of people that has not lived there supports the bush repukes. There you go again -- you are so presumptuous, and this is utterly counterproductive. I have lived in the US, I have spent a lot of time there over the past quarter-century; I have visited almost half of the 50 States; I work with a lot of Americans in the States; I work with ex-pat Americans in Scotland -- all of them hate Bush and I would guess that all of them would agree with everything drutt says -- including drutt's comments on your posts.
I'm sorry sweetheart, but you are doing neither yourself nor your drugs campaign any good with your incessant paranoid rants. Many of our readers identify you with the same American cultural imperialism they see daily from Bush and Rice.
If it makes you happy to sit and smoke your weed whilst putting the world to right at your PC in Armadale, then so be it. I'm sufficiently liberal-minded that I'm not gonna call the cops. However, you are beginning to make me believe that paranoia is indeed a long-term side-effect of over-indulgence in cannabis.
Sorry sweetheart, but I'm bored of your rants. So, I'll not trouble ye again. It's a sad case of...
Goodnight Sweetheart. :)
PS Loved the photo of the rainbow. But where did the elephant come from?
sweetheart
08-Dec-05, 03:28
i'm feeling abused. I accept that i've opened my big gob and come out
with some remarks that upset some folks, but really the judgement,
the threats and implied threats, are unnecessary creme. I've made no
personal judgements about you, your life or behaviours, nor have i asked
for any personal judgements of myself. I've lived and worked in 49
states and over 50 countries, but i don't leap to character judgements
by reading essays. Yet by opening some arguments, instead of joining
me in discussing, people have chosen generally to snipe harshly and threaten.
I don't have to be paranoid to read this thread and notice that a whole
set of indivdiuals have made implied threats and very rude judgements
about my private life and person. I don't know if i want to write on
caithness.org anymore.
The rainbow elephant is from Rajistan, India.
Believe it or not ive always struggled with the idea of all drugs being legal. For a while a few years back I was even sure cannabis should stay illegal. I dunno how to say prohibition doesnt work without defending the legalisation of heroin.
I dont believe prohibition is working in the drugs war nor do I believe heroin should be legalised willie nillie.
Ive never takien heroin but ive seen it in action. Its a terrible drug but it must be wonderful for the people who use it. its not going to go away unless some government comes along with a zero tollerance attitude towards drugs but thats unlikley. So ewhats the alternative?
Golach make a good enough case for the straight talking, alcohol using, drugs prohibitor whilst sweetheart opens our minds to a world of our nightmares.Why is that? Why is it cool to stand in a supermarket queue watching mothers kids and dads loading up their trolleys with bucketfulls of booze but to be concerned about the sale of heroin in Boots. Why for goodness sake if alcohol is such a problem do they have it being sold in garages and sweetyshops? Surely thats a moral equivelant of DrSzins and porshiepoos concerns about standing in the same queue as drug addicts?
Whats wrong with questioning injustices in society Rheghead? Thats how women and slaves and dogs and cats and even drug dealers and publicans got their rights.
Sweetheart makes a good case for legalisation although I have no comment on the methods s/he would use nor the politics and language s/he uses, but Ive seen just as much diatribe coming from the rest of you on caithness.org directed at both the American and British governments. S/he has a right to feel abused by the rest of you and just like the rest of you are aware of the damage caused by alcohol I too am aware of the damage being caused by prohibition and illeghal drugs.
Something that may appeal to some of you and maybe also to DrSzin Is this little bit I enjoy from an old psychology book I was reading. The author was talking about how scientists observe facts and draw conclusions from them. He said;
" we have, however, now come to appreciate that everybody's observations are dictated by specific interests, by pre-concieved ideas and by an - often unconscious- attitude which collects and selects facts accordingly"
My religion, if I may be so crazy as to call it that, is based on that idea and because of that I see the answer to the drugs problems more one of education than prohibition. By the nature of the comments from even the most liberal of you education would also be seen as a danger if the topic was, Why Do I hate drugs so much but am cool with alcohol?!
If anyone wants to refrence the quote pm me.
porshiepoo
08-Dec-05, 10:20
Believe it or not ive always struggled with the idea of all drugs being legal. For a while a few years back I was even sure cannabis should stay illegal. I dunno how to say prohibition doesnt work without defending the legalisation of heroin.
I dont believe prohibition is working in the drugs war nor do I believe heroin should be legalised willie nillie.
Ive never takien heroin but ive seen it in action. Its a terrible drug but it must be wonderful for the people who use it. its not going to go away unless some government comes along with a zero tollerance attitude towards drugs but thats unlikley. So ewhats the alternative?
Golach make a good enough case for the straight talking, alcohol using, drugs prohibitor whilst sweetheart opens our minds to a world of our nightmares.Why is that? Why is it cool to stand in a supermarket queue watching mothers kids and dads loading up their trolleys with bucketfulls of booze but to be concerned about the sale of heroin in Boots. Why for goodness sake if alcohol is such a problem do they have it being sold in garages and sweetyshops? Surely thats a moral equivelant of DrSzins and porshiepoos concerns about standing in the same queue as drug addicts?
Whats wrong with questioning injustices in society Rheghead? Thats how women and slaves and dogs and cats and even drug dealers and publicans got their rights.
Sweetheart makes a good case for legalisation although I have no comment on the methods s/he would use nor the politics and language s/he uses, but Ive seen just as much diatribe coming from the rest of you on caithness.org directed at both the American and British governments. S/he has a right to feel abused by the rest of you and just like the rest of you are aware of the damage caused by alcohol I too am aware of the damage being caused by prohibition and illeghal drugs.
Something that may appeal to some of you and maybe also to DrSzin Is this little bit I enjoy from an old psychology book I was reading. The author was talking about how scientists observe facts and draw conclusions from them. He said;
" we have, however, now come to appreciate that everybody's observations are dictated by specific interests, by pre-concieved ideas and by an - often unconscious- attitude which collects and selects facts accordingly"
My religion, if I may be so crazy as to call it that, is based on that idea and because of that I see the answer to the drugs problems more one of education than prohibition. By the nature of the comments from even the most liberal of you education would also be seen as a danger if the topic was, Why Do I hate drugs so much but am cool with alcohol?!
If anyone wants to refrence the quote pm me.
But I'm not ok with alcohol! It's another dangerous substance. However it's not illegal so we have no say whatsoever on how it's used.
Drugs are slightly different. At the moment they are illegal and many of us want to keep them that way. Just because alcohol is legal and readily available doesn't mean we have to be ok with hard drugs coming to the same end.
I for one have not made any nasty comments towards seetheart. I appreciate the fact that he has a right to his opinion but I just don't agree with a lot of it.
Sweethearts insight into a world whereby drugs are supplied by mothers makes me sick to the stomach.
There are many children out there - mine included hopefully - that will never touch a drug because of the information they've been give growing up, there is absolutely no way I'm going to encourage my kids to sample drugs supplied by me just so that I know they're getting pure stuff.
In this worls of sweethearts where mothers are supplying the drugs, where are the mothers getting all the relevant info from? I've never even seen a drug first hand let alone know enough information about each individual drug to be able to hand them out to my kids safely.
Sweetheart made a comment about how would a mother feel if their child was arrested for drugs use, which he seems to think could perhaps be avoided if mothers were dealing the drugs. To be honest sweetheart, if my kids are arrested for drugs use after all they've learnt about them then as far as I'm concerned they take the punishment for breaking the law and thank their lucky stars they're not dead!
Any parent that hands out drugs is in fact a dealer and I'd rather never have the displeasure of being able to call myself that.
You're certainly right about the lack of facilities for youngsters today though sweetheart, but I don't believe the answer is to legalise drugs just to give them something to do.
I think having read all the fors and againsts of this argument, my decision would have to be against.
Thats not because I am denouncing any of sweethearts well thought out arguments - although I do have to admit to thinking them dispicable on the whole - but because enough hasn't be done to crack down on the drug world and rid them from our streets.
Sweetheart basically appears to be saying , don't bother with the education etc, just legalise drugs (which he proposes to do in a very 'drug abusers' way of thought) and our problems will all be over.
I think not sweetheart, on the contrary, it would be the catalyst for a very different world and a whole new war.
cullbucket
08-Dec-05, 10:28
porshiepoo, do you have an inside track on sweetheart's gender?
I was convinced (s)he was a woman but you seem sure he is a man.....
porshiepoo
08-Dec-05, 10:31
If you notice I'll call he/she male or female at different times.
I'm usually pretty good at these things and at first I went by the name and assumed female but I think the postings are more male in 'feel'. Unless of course it's a mush mault! lol
My religion, if I may be so crazy as to call it that, is based on that idea and because of that I see the answer to the drugs problems more one of education than prohibition. By the nature of the comments from even the most liberal of you education would also be seen as a danger if the topic was, Why Do I hate drugs so much but am cool with alcohol?!
If anyone wants to refrence the quote pm me.
Now my owld mate, this I can understand and relate too, I just hope you can be as open minded and see that because I take an opposite view (and a few of us in here are of the same ilk) that we are not necessarily wrong, its just that we disagree with your opinion on this matter. But that does not make us bad people does it?
The reason people take drugs is because it makes them feel good,for a time.Then they find they cannot do without them.Life is hard,the youngsters of today stay at school longer,a lot of them do not want to be there,so what to do with these bored children?Is it no wonder that drugs are rife in schools and other places where kids congragate.The words,stoned out of their minds,refers not only to soft and hard drugs but to alcohol as well.I have seen the damage done by alcoholism in my own family.It seems ironical to me that the Government can come down hard on cigarette smokers and yet are so wishy washy about how to deal with other drugs.Children today need to have knowledge and self discipline on drug use.
Sweetheart (if you’re still there),
I’ve read through the pages of this thread and would like to make a few comments on the various arguments you have used to justify your ignorance.
Let me start by asking that you don’t refer to yourself as a libertarian when you clearly are not. At most you might – might – be justified in describing yourself as an aspiring libertarian. I say this because if you were indeed a libertarian you would not call for doctors to be given the ability to prescribe heroin, you would call for heroin to be freely available to anybody at any time (regardless of the age of the user). Free choice, remember – not a choice restricted to the confines of what you find to be acceptable.
Moving on… I notice that you are concentrating only on those drugs which are derived from plants. Certainly, you seem to have little or no understanding of the tragic cast of Leah Betts, whose death you blamed on the government. In fact, she died after taking a single MDMA tablet (not a plant in sight). Despite initial speculation that the tablet was contaminated, she actually died of hyponatremia, a known side-effect of the drug.
This case brings me to two other issues I have with your postings. First, your belief that a good family-life prevents drug addiction and second, your belief that legalisation and regulation will lead to ‘safe’ drugs.
Okay, one at a time…
The good family-life thing.
I am afraid to say that a loving hug does not encase your child in a protective bubble through which drugs cannot pass. Neither does it fill their bodies with addiction-repelling chemicals which will save them from their own physiology. Leah Betts’s parents loved her. She still took ecstasy. She still died.
Legalisation and regulation leading to ‘safe’ drugs
On several occasions you seem to have suggested that drugs are dangerous because they are impure and that legalising them and regulating them would lead to more control over the source of the drugs and therefore safe drugs. I believe that somebody else has already used the word poppycock so I am going to have to opt for drivel instead. Drugs are dangerous, fact. Leah Betts did not die because her ecstasy was impure; she died because she took ecstasy.
You stated that the best way to prevent your child from becoming a drug addict is to give her loving hugs. I’d have to disagree and say that they best way to prevent your child from becoming a drug addict is to teach her the dangers of drugs and not fill her head with nonsense about pure drugs being safe drugs.
I think the rest of the points I’d make about drug use have already been made.
Moving on to Bush….
I think if you look back through my posts here you’ll agree that I am no lover of Bush. Neither am I much taken by Blair. That said, where do you get off trying to blame Blair for the idiocy of your fellow Americans?
Blair is a fool and New Labour should have been kicked out of government at the last election. That they weren’t is not Bush’s fault, it is the fault of the British voters.
Bush is a fool and the Republicans should have been kicked out of the White House at the last election. That they weren’t is not Blair’s fault, it is the fault of the American voters.
Cry conspiracy all you like, but the guy won an election on the back of fear-mongering and religious intolerance. Rather than blame Blair for that, why don’t you tell us all what it is like to spend the entire election campaign following Airforce One around the US so that you could lead the campaign against Bush? What’s that you say? You didn’t campaign against Bush? I am shocked! Shocked I say!
As for your comparison with the Bush administration and Nazism... Whilst I have no respect for Bush (or the Americans who voted for him), your comparison is shameful and shows a complete lack of understanding for the horrors of Nazism.
Finally, can I just say that I find the stamping of your little cyber-feet and your threats to leave this board to be utterly childish. You were just as abusive (if not more so) to posters here as they were to you.
If you are going to accuse posters of being part of the drug problem, of beating people up and of being responsible for killing kids then you are going to have to accept that they will defend themselves as vigorously as their vocabulary allows. If you cannot cope with that then I suggest you keep your accusations to yourself.
sweetheart
08-Dec-05, 18:30
Sweetheart (if you’re still there),
I’ve read through the pages of this thread and would like to make a few comments on the various arguments you have used to justify your ignorance.
Let me start by asking that you don’t refer to yourself as a libertarian when you clearly are not. At most you might – might – be justified in describing yourself as an aspiring libertarian. I say this because if you were indeed a libertarian you would not call for doctors to be given the ability to prescribe heroine, you would call for heroine to be freely available to anybody at any time (regardless of the age of the user). Free choice, remember – not a choice restricted to the confines of what you find to be acceptable.
Moving on… I notice that you are concentrating only on those drugs which are derived from plants. Certainly, you seem to have little or no understanding of the tragic cast of Leah Betts, whose death you blamed on the government. In fact, she died after taking a single MDMA tablet (not a plant in sight). Despite initial speculation that the tablet was contaminated, she actually died of hyponatremia, a known side-effect of the drug.
This case brings me to two other issues I have with your postings. First, your belief that a good family-life prevents drug addiction and second, your belief that legalisation and regulation will lead to ‘safe’ drugs.
Okay, one at a time…
The good family-life thing.
I am afraid to say that a loving hug does not encase your child in a protective bubble through which drugs cannot pass. Neither does it fill their bodies with addiction-repelling chemicals which will save them from their own physiology. Leah Betts’s parents loved her. She still took ecstasy. She still died.
Legalisation and regulation leading to ‘safe’ drugs
On several occasions you seem to have suggested that drugs are dangerous because they are impure and that legalising them and regulating them would lead to more control over the source of the drugs and therefore safe drugs. I believe that somebody else has already used the word poppycock so I am going to have to opt for drivel instead. Drugs are dangerous, fact. Leah Betts did not die because her ecstasy was impure; she died because she took ecstasy.
You stated that the best way to prevent your child from becoming a drug addict is to give her loving hugs. I’d have to disagree and say that they best way to prevent your child from becoming a drug addict is to teach her the dangers of drugs and not fill her head with nonsense about pure drugs being safe drugs.
I think the rest of the points I’d make about drug use have already been made.
Moving on to Bush….
I think if you look back through my posts here you’ll agree that I am no lover of Bush. Neither am I much taken by Blair. That said, where do you get off trying to blame Blair for the idiocy of your fellow Americans?
Blair is a fool and New Labour should have been kicked out of government at the last election. That they weren’t is not Bush’s fault, it is the fault of the British voters.
Bush is a fool and the Republicans should have been kicked out of the White House at the last election. That they weren’t is not Blair’s fault, it is the fault of the American voters.
Cry conspiracy all you like, but the guy won an election on the back of fear-mongering and religious intolerance. Rather than blame Blair for that, why don’t you tell us all what it as like to spend the entire election campaign following Airforce One around the US so that you could lead the campaign against Bush? What’s that you say? You didn’t campaign against Bush? I am shocked! Shocked I say!
As for your comparison with the Bush administration and Nazism... Whilst I have no respect for Bush (or the Americans who voted for him), your comparison is shameful and shows a complete lack of understanding for the horrors of Nazism.
Finally, can I just say that I find the stamping of your little cyber-feet and your threats to leave this board to be utterly childish. You were just as abusive (if not more so) to posters here as they were to you.
If you are going to accuse posters of being part of the drug problem, of beating people up and of being responsible for killing kids then you are going to have to accept that they will defend themselves as vigorously as their vocabulary allows. If you cannot cope with that then I suggest you keep your accusations to yourself.
There is a long litany here.
I said, that when i suggested doctors perscriptions, that it was a
comprimise of my libertarian views, perhaps i did not stress that well.
I posted a series of websites, that show a range of facts that you might
look at regarding the drugs war. The deaths from violent crime around
the trade, and from overdose, HIV and other realities of today's unregulated
market are extremely high, much more than leah betts, however tragic
that was.
Good family life... its a proven statistic that children from broken homes are
more likely to fall afoul of drugs addiction. But i myself advocate activites
and successful careers, that, peoples lives are on fire and the need to be
an addict never transpires. However, in adulthood, the children should
have freedom of religion and the right to take mind altering
plants if they so choose.
I accept all your critiques on my political comments.
You don't know that i worked during 2004 writing for campaign websites
and doing activism and calling volunterring in the democratic campaign,
so stuff your rude presumption.
I have attacked no person indivdiually here. I have not threatened the
person or welll being of any person here. However, persons here have
threatened my well being. You are not a very fair judge if you don't notice
that. I bit back when bitten first. It seems that people insult and
threaten on this board, and i can take an insult or a threat in jest, but
i find it absurd that the board does not tolerate swear words but lets
people threaten a person offline. On all the other boards i write on, such
threats or implied threats are not allowed, as it is considered an uncivil
check on free sharing of ideas.
I have modelled the flippancy i've seen develop in drugs users towards
authority, and i used this tone in the first few posts to get the discussion
going, realizing that to a drugs user, the police and the community are the
enemy, as it is a war, after all, and when you are a kid on the other side,
on top of dealig with whatever drugs, is the knowledge that the police
state and its agents are the ultimate enemy in life, and if a foreign enemy
comes along like the US toppling saddam, then just pray that the new
invader does not keep up the same divisive war on drugs users.
The drugs war is killing hundreds of thousands, it is the primary way the
bush administration and the republicans in general maintain a stranglehold
on people, as the police have been given carte blanche search and
seizure powers, and so the prisons fill again with drugs users, and for each
the taxpayer forks out 20K per year. Its a failed formula, repeated for
decades, and that you are all afraid of drugs and their impacts, is a sign
of just how failed it is after so many decades of prohibition.
All i'm really saying in this thread, is that its time for us all to open our
minds and look at ways to end the tragic waste. I wrote/painted a
series of radical images to help show the boundary conditions of the
greater debate, and rather than take my work as a coathook to discuss an
improvement, some persons rather just attack.
Its a sign that debate is repressed because of social and state
censorship, and you and the presumptive attack dogs here have tried
to make this a witch burning instead of a discussion... but i'm happy
that the painting's overall shade is that of gleeber and poshipoo who are
gently considering ideas... and that was all the reason i wrote really,
so some persons could consider some alternative ideas in this, and maybe
that will be productive.
Yes Away, i am glad to hear you moved away from Wick some time ago.
Could you please explain who or what I have actually been "gossiping" about or what stoties I have been making up? I can quite assure you that I am no curtain twitcher either, in fact I couldn't care less what goes on outside my own home. When did I moan about living in Wick...... I simply said that i did not like Dumbos comments on sending all the druggies to Stroma...
Yes Away, i am glad to hear you moved away from Wick some time ago.
Could you please explain who or what I have actually been "gossiping" about or what stoties I have been making up? I can quite assure you that I am no curtain twitcher either, in fact I couldn't care less what goes on outside my own home. When did I moan about living in Wick...... I simply said that i did not like Dumbos comments on sending all the druggies to Stroma...
As theres very little else to do or concern yourselves about in wick, the town is renouned for being a hive of gossips, and not just old dears that go to the same shop on the same day at the same time and then the cafe wee maggie for their cuppie o tea, cause thats the way its always been. But even when you go out socially in Wick, peers have nothing else to talk about but what others are doing, or what others have been caught doing, I was poking fun at your reference to being a sociable person and what I have just stated above. Take a chill pill and get of your high horse about some back water island that has even less to offer than wick, Ive even heard the idea before that it should be made into a prison to cope with over crowding problems down here in englandshire, by the way Im sure chill pills are legal but dont get yourself a habit now ;)
So who blasting the Town of Wick now then? And the people?
I notice you didn't reply to what i've been gossiping about and just incase you've forgotten this thread is about the dangers of drugs not what your opinion is of me............
I was poking fun at your reference to being a sociable person and what I have just stated above.
I think that explained well enough that I wasnt pointing any finger at you specifically. ROFLMAO @ Shame train nice one hehehehe :D that will be the only train then the same one that leaves town what is it now twice a day? lol :D
So you actually have nothing to back up the things you've accused me of.
Why did you even bother replying to my post in the first place.....
So you actually have nothing to back up the things you've accused me of.
Why did you even bother replying to my post in the first place.....
casue you got on your high horse that someone should make reference to Stroma and I found it quite amusing that you should feel it ok then to blast wick, why should either be any different. and besides I agree with alot of the postings regarding the topic of drugs :)
I said, that when i suggested doctors perscriptions, that it was a
comprimise of my libertarian views
As I said, an aspiring libertarian at best.
Good family life... its a proven statistic that children from broken homes are more likely to fall afoul of drugs addiction. But i myself advocate activites and successful careers, that, peoples lives are on fire and the need to be
an addict never transpires.
I don’t think that anybody could reasonably argue that a good family-life won’t make a statistical difference to a person’s chance of becoming addicted to drugs. But neither do I think that this is as the result of some kind of transference of anti-addiction hormones between parent and child. Rather I think that it is due to most parents recognising that drugs are bad for their children and that in wanting the best for their child the loving parent is more likely to ensure that their child knows not to partake. Seems more likely than a mystic shield, don’t you think?
You don't know that i worked during 2004 writing for campaign websites and doing activism and calling volunterring in the democratic campaign, so stuff your rude presumption.
No, I think I shall leave my ‘rude’ (oh, how you like that word) presumption to stand. Even if you campaigned – and as you so ‘rudely’ (yes, I believe you were rude) dismissed Golach’s claim that he has worked for the government I am inclined to treat your claim with the same scepticism – I don’t see how that puts Blair in the firing line for the blame that you should be levelling at your fellow Americans. If anybody failed you, it was them.
I have attacked no person indivdiually here. I have not threatened the person or welll being of any person here. However, persons here have threatened my well being.
You haven’t threatened anybody? Really? When Chillie asked if Crayola should be ‘put on a cross and burnt’ you thanked him/her for their support and called it a ‘very kind gesture’ and ‘justice’.
The worst way in which anybody else has ‘threatened’ your own well being is when it was suggested that you be imprisoned for drug use. Let’s be clear here – however you might wish otherwise, this country considers some drugs to be illegal. That’s the law. You have openly admitted to flouting that law. The punishment for flouting that law is imprisonment. Nobody has done worse than call you on your actions.
That said, it is true that your life has been threatened in this thread. It has been suggested that you be beaten up, be declared insane, be shot (with a gun no less) and even killed. However, these suggestions have ONLY been made by you. I’m almost tempted to remind our audience of the link between cannabis-use and schizophrenia.
Oh, and by the way – you were responsible for the worst insult here when you accused everybody who wasn’t in agreement with you of supporting Bush.
The drugs war is killing hundreds of thousands, it is the primary way the bush administration and the republicans in general maintain a stranglehold
on people
You know, I think you may have forgotten that Caithness is not a small town in South Dakota and that it is not subject to the laws you decry… or perhaps you really are unaware that the UK is not the 51st state.
I wrote/painted a series of radical images to help show the boundary conditions of the greater debate, and rather than take my work as a coathook to discuss an improvement, some persons rather just attack.
A nice sentiment and you almost had me convinced that you truly were looking for real discourse here… almost.
You see the problem is that you have attacked absolutely everybody who has disagreed with you. Discussion runs two ways but you are only open to one of them.
the presumptive attack dogs here have tried
to make this a witch burning instead of a discussion...
How ironic – Witch burning is the very thing that you congratulated Chillie for suggesting back on page two. Not that I am suggesting that you made this link deliberately. You seem to have problems keeping up with your own posts, let alone those of other people. For example, on page five of this thread you said to Golach:
YOu think you are more moral and more important because of your career, by the very fact you've placed it on the table, your personal history, as if history is relevant to the present. In my more zen-religion, there is no
history... that is just pretentious bully talk, and i'm supposed to kiss
your buttons your royal highness.
Yet three pages earlier, you had already written:
As for my profession and life, I've advanced degrees from universities on multiple continents, am published in peer reviewed academics, an ex-member of the IOD, and have worked in London, San Francisco, New York, Seoul, Mexico city, Toronto, Frankfurt, chicago, Boston and Paris amongst many, where i've managed business operations bigger than most businesses in caithness.
Clearly libertarianism isn’t the only thing to which you are still aspiring – your ‘zen-religion’ also seems to be something you casually discard when the mood takes you.
The Pepsi Challenge
09-Dec-05, 00:47
Does laughing gas constitute as a drug? I know a nurse who can get her hands on canistors of the stuff. Maybe I should sprinkle a little round here, no? Just lightening the mood, folks, just lightening the mood.
sweetheart
09-Dec-05, 02:39
To be a true libertarian in this world is to be an impractical silly dreamer,
as not a single government on this earth is libertarian, so what are you
hammering about my being willing to moderate libertarian free choice,
with the common sense of the medicines regulation we have today
in all other areas of medicine.
Part of the past that makes me so rude, is surviving a drugs war since
my youth as one of the kids who fell on the other side of 1 out of 3.
You have the luxury of indulging in a policy that exports its externalities
to the streets of glasgow, new york and los angeles, and i'm suggesting
please, that please people be willing to do a primal rethink of the
vindictive judgementalism and hatred behind the war on drugs. And i
would like to admit the tone behind your posts as part of this general
tone, that i have drummed up like a ghost, by acting agent provocateur.
The subject of the thread, as you might recall, had more to do with the
judgemental state of mind people apply to drugs users. And by my
essay work, i raised the demon of that judgement by addressing it head
on in tone and form. That judgement is like you, willing to walk on top
of the bodies of all the fallen and dead in the drugs war, willingly killing
them with a failed policy, anything than admit it was a wrong approach.
It is a wrong approach. You've tried desperately to make this personal,
but i've written for too many years on such forums to be baited by a
word-twister.
Writing online is like shakespeare, you write one character, i write another,
they interact. Your character seems very angry and accusatory, i can
foil off that, for the sake of the thread.
Ok, regarding Golach, i challenged him for waving around a certain kind of
police authority, and saying things to repress free speech. He was blocking
subtly the collective right to free speech, IMO, and i challenged him not
to bully with his past, his ego, his badge, and come off his high seat for
a real discussion. He made very personal suggestions about what
medicines i've taken, and i responded that he might look, at what he
represents in the discussion, again, an extremely judgemental patriarchal
figure, judging persons who do drugs or contemplate exercising their free will.
/*
The worst way in which anybody else has ‘threatened’ your own well being is when it was suggested that you be imprisoned for drug use. Let’s be clear here – however you might wish otherwise, this country considers some drugs to be illegal. That’s the law. You have openly admitted to flouting that law. The punishment for flouting that law is imprisonment. Nobody has done worse than call you on your actions.
*/
What i have done is make a well published political case that is printed on
documents all over westminster for a change in the laws, and persons
have attempted to squelch that thinking by using an ad hominem attack
suggesting that by defeinding the freedom to take drugs, that i am by
that taking them and guilty of a crime, and this presumption is what i take
offense at. I accuse you of cheating on your taxes, of not picking up
dog poop, of driving over the limit.... and if we remove the faux anonymity
for a second, as the accusing poster suggested, then i am being tried and
indicted for supporting a political POV. This is not personal, i've published
about cannabis legallization on many websites over the years, and i frankly
din't figure it would be such a big deal here, as in most places, people do
realize that criminalization is a failure.
How is anyone to freely discuss the failure of a criminal law not to be
accused immmediately of violating that law, and this is an absurd
proposition, one that is entirely around defaming my person, and i
object to the approach in argument, and if you cliam to be a civil
person yourself, you'll drop it too... this personal attack stuff is really
showing me why people do drugs around here... people are really
judgemental of each other, and it must cause a lot of social pain.
I ask everyone to please forgive me of my ill spoken remarks on bush
and this whole issue. I work for the CIA and my job is to discredit
american drug taking liberals and democrats in the eyes of their natural
allies in liberal nations by parodying a hippie drugs legallizer and then
inflating the dream to sound really druggy... and then people hate
liberal americans a little bit more, and cling to bush a little bit harder
showing that it's ok to fall back in to the fold of big daddy and not
the whiles of that evil sweetheart. ;-)
And then the stereotype of drugs taking liberals allows the republicans
to imprison all liberals on suspicion, that liberalism is the drugs gene,
and end the whole thing once and for all by interring all those persons
in concentration camps. LOL!! :-)
Please laugh. You know, a lot of forums like this have a "lounge" or
"personal" area, where people can talk using their personal ego-identities,
but usually general discussion is a full blown shakespeare stage, and
hopefully the actors have left their egos at the door. It makes, IMO,
for better art in such discussion like this, and people are more expressive
when not being personally threatened.
And all was framed as being in rheghead's mind, which is find very
"john malkovitch" about it truth be told.
Caithness is in the UK, my forefathers left during the english civil war
and so I, 400 years a colonial yes. And the english civil war has moved
across the atlantic in this historical time, and the repression that was
carried out via religion and economic imperialism back then, is repreated
today, and 40 million american drugs users are criminalized and hated
because some people can't just chill out and leave other people alone.
We are still discussing, so stop with the finality then... Would that in the
final act of the play, jesus christ himself inspires everyone to forgive
each other for flames past and move on, or vindictive ego-persons,
living in the pasts and their self importance to order people around and
suggest innocently that they know what is best, and god bless, your
opinion is different, and laws are just paper.
Lets clarify zen, shall we? Zen is without pretense, without past and
future, letting the truth of this moment speak for itself without dragging
any ANY past in to it. Let every post alone in its own context in the
discussion and we are in act 5 now, the realization, where anyone
can change.
I apologize for all insults not deserved, and i accept all the insults you've
laid on, all of you, in my reputation box too, my being a "rude yank" and
all of them. These words are lost off the footnotes of the play, but must
be included, if we account for teh full barrage of venom this thread has
drawn. That is the purpose of public art and discussion, and you are
an unwilling participant, however much you expose only flesh and blood,
and another heart just like your own and the end of it.
Would you be willing to make peace in the war on drugs?
Its not about the laws today because they have lead us in to the failed
situation that has killed and destroyed the lives of so many otherwise
decent people who rot in the american prison system, in the 3 strikes
life sentences, that some evil taxpayer must fork out for the rest of the
poor person's lives, to imprison them for drugs possession. The wickedness of the system is so vile that it has come to taint all those
who support it, and even upstream in this little higland nook, where
you think you can scare away the drugs war of the big world; the problem
might not be as far advanced here, but i think its rather unrealized, as i'd
be willing to wager, that no matter the statistics, in their private lives,
that the majority of persons use drugs addictively at some point during
their lifetimes... can we make peace with that, and not war with the person?
I live here, and i thought i'd speak my mind, being a free country and all.
I din't mean to trouble you, just an orthodoxy of judgement.
namaste,
-s
The Pepsi Challenge
09-Dec-05, 03:37
Sweetheart, that's some very passionate and gut-felt material there. You clearly feel very strong about the subject. I've enjoyed reading your thoughts.
Awrabest...
I've enjoyed reading your thoughts too, sweetheart. :)
Good for you Sweetheart. jjcs a" silly impractical dreamer" Thats both the nicest and maybe the most accurate description I have heard to describe him. Makes me see him in a new light. Bless him. lol
You make some fantastic points about some of the other reasons for the drugs war being a failure. From my position, and I am not completely biased in your favour, you have no need to add any more to your argument. Well done for helping to expose the hypocrasy that endangers, not only our children, but ourselves and our grannies. Drugs have become a major problem in all areas of society. The time will come when the dinosaurs of prohibition will, like the preachers of the Old testament, have had their day.
cullbucket
09-Dec-05, 09:35
Whats going on here!
You'd better watch out sweetheart, you've dragged the big guns, jjc and drutt out of semi retirement which is a compliment in itself as they obviously see you as a worthy oponent.
Keep up the good work.....
Ok, regarding Golach, i challenged him for waving around a certain kind of
police authority, and saying things to repress free speech. He was blocking
subtly the collective right to free speech, IMO, and i challenged him not
to bully with his past, his ego, his badge, and come off his high seat for
a real discussion. He made very personal suggestions about what
medicines i've taken, and i responded that he might look, at what he
represents in the discussion, again, an extremely judgemental patriarchal
figure, judging persons who do drugs or contemplate exercising their free will.
-s
Oh your good, any relation to Marc Anthony in Shakespeare's Julius Caeser are you?
You like to spout your propoganga for the use of drugs and expect us all to fall into your way of thinking. But when anyone such as myself or Rheghead dares to disagree you become abusive and personal.
I am and always will be anti drugs and anti Junkies, that is my personal choice not because I used to work for HM Customs. I in my 50 years of working life have been in many different jobs, and have travelled around the world a few times, even working in the US in the good days, so I think I am a good judge of my own destiny and I have chosen well I think.
You seem to have a disciple in my owld mate Gleeber, thats Gleeber's choice, for Gleeber is an honouable man but none of his phsyco babblings will make me turn to illeagal drugs.
Keep up the good work Sweetheart, your arguments are amusing and useless to me and most of CWWS
To be a true libertarian in this world is to be an impractical silly dreamer,as not a single government on this earth is libertarian, so what are you
hammering about my being willing to moderate libertarian free choice
You declared yourself to be a libertarian, not me. Whilst it may be that you wished to present yourself as such, I was merely pointing out that you aren’t. I’m glad we agree.
That judgement is like you, willing to walk on top
of the bodies of all the fallen and dead in the drugs war, willingly killing
them with a failed policy, anything than admit it was a wrong approach.
It is a wrong approach.
No, I’m sorry but I cannot let that stand. How dare you accuse me, or any member of this forum, in this manner? You accuse me of willing complicity in killing people and of walking on their bodies? What kind of sick and bitter person are you? Colourful rhetoric to make one’s point is all well and good, but you have overstepped the mark considerably here. :mad:
Allow me to make something clear, just to avoid further inaccuracies in your spiteful accusations; the reason I disagree with your stance is not that I believe that the current policies are fantastic and should remain unaltered until the end of time. I disagree with you because you ignorantly claim that controlling the supply of drugs will remove the dangers those drugs pose.
Whenever we debate this subject here (this isn’t the first time and I am sure that it won’t be the last) somebody always mentions that those people who would continue to criminalize cannabis turn a blind-eye to alcohol and nicotine, so let’s look at them now. Both are controlled substances, legalized but restricted along very similar lines to those that you propose would magically remove the dangers of cannabis. But in 2003 there were 6,580 deaths in England and Wales as a result of alcohol and an estimated 120,000 people die from smoking-related causes each year. Something doesn’t seem to be working here, so why would you want to throw cannabis into the mix?
He made very personal suggestions about what
medicines i've taken
Sorry, but you lost the right to complain about that when you accused me of walking over dead bodies and willingly killing people.
What i have done is make a well published political case… and persons have attempted to squelch that thinking by using an ad hominem attack
suggesting that by defeinding the freedom to take drugs, that i am by
that taking them and guilty of a crime, and this presumption is what i take
offense at.
But it isn’t a presumption. On page 1 of this thread you stated “I have used cannabis, just like others of 5 million and 1 out of 3 scottish teenagers”. Like I said, you seem to be unable to keep track of your own posts.
How is anyone to freely discuss the failure of a criminal law not to be accused immmediately of violating that law, and this is an absurd
proposition, one that is entirely around defaming my person, and i
object to the approach in argument, and if you cliam to be a civil
person yourself, you'll drop it too.
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear… once again, nobody is 'defaming your person'. You openly and freely confessed to violating the law. If I can remember reading it, surely you can remember writing it? :confused:
sweetheart
09-Dec-05, 15:37
Oh your good, any relation to Marc Anthony in Shakespeare's Julius Caeser are you?
You like to spout your propoganga for the use of drugs and expect us all to fall into your way of thinking. But when anyone such as myself or Rheghead dares to disagree you become abusive and personal.
I am and always will be anti drugs and anti Junkies, that is my personal choice not because I used to work for HM Customs. I in my 50 years of working life have been in many different jobs, and have travelled around the world a few times, even working in the US in the good days, so I think I am a good judge of my own destiny and I have chosen well I think.
You seem to have a disciple in my owld mate Gleeber, thats Gleeber's choice, for Gleeber is an honouable man but none of his phsyco babblings will make me turn to illeagal drugs.
Keep up the good work Sweetheart, your arguments are amusing and useless to me and most of CWWS
We may bet along after all, that earlier exchange was a gruff introduction
by any standard indeed. :-) Its not the argument, its the ontology. The
very fact that the argument is spoken, and we can see it interacting with
so many minds, makes it more than an argument as drugs law reform is on
us now, with the new tory opposition hinting at decriiminalization and a
new approach. Finally with a modernizer in opposiiton things could change.
We both agree that drugs can be destructive, you and i.
We both find it tragic, the crack, heroin and abused lost lives.
It makes us human, our breaking heart, watching so much tragedy,
I only suggest that to repress freedom of choice and human free will
an even worse tragedy.
In my high school, 50% of the students were smoking grass, easily, and
this was a "good" school in the Los Angeles district, that has 850,000
students. You do the math to figure out how many criminals you create
by criminalizing smoking cannabis. Kids could seldomly drink alcohol, and
i myself was exposed to grass before alcohol in life, as the drinking age
is 21, but because grass is illegal, people smoke it from 14-21 if they
ever graduate to alcohol at all ever. Then, half the kids in the school
district, graduate as potential fodder for the california prison system that
imprisons more people than the UK. At current incarceration trends,
by 2025, every californian will either be in prison or working in the prison
police industry. The drugs war has become the only major industry in
california outside military factories and a little remaining computer stuff.
Marijuana is the largest cash crop of hawaii and california, where poor
people try to pay for their kids school and medical care by growing
cannabis, in places where theare are no jobs.... i've seen way to much
of the bottom, the abuse of the drugs war to support it, and i
appreciate your civility in our interactions honourable sir.
Best regards to you and yours,
-s
sweetheart
09-Dec-05, 16:10
/* You openly conessed to violating the law.*/ No i didn't. You don't
know where i was when i've tried cannabis, and i've smoked it in places
where it is not a crime. You are presumptive. I've also smoked it at
different times in my life, and not for other times. So, today i'm talking
to you as someone who is not smoking grass, and i expect the decorum
you yourself would expect given that i've committed no crime.
Ok, you're angry, i've insulted you, You started our relationship by using
a perscriptive, inflamatory, upbraiding and judgement, really harsh and
accusatory... and i gave a little back like you dished out, and now you're
whining. Are we even?
/*
I disagree with you because you ignorantly claim that controlling the supply of drugs will remove the dangers those drugs pose.
*/
aah!!! I only put forward part of a greater solution, and obviously drugs
is a demand problem too, one we can treat at both ends, if
we can be honest and truthful in the medical relationship of the doctor
patient... one where psychological addiction can be treated much like
a common cold, but only if drugs are decriminalized and people can come
forward for treatment without the permanent social stigma. without
decriminalizing it, there is no way to give people the self respect that
they need to successfully recover from addiction problems.
My observation of places where drugs addiction is least, are where people
have constructive careers, jobs, activities and education, that their lives
are so full of positive developments, that drugs addiction is an afterthought. I recommend getting your economy spiffed up
so you your kiddies and young adults can find engaging employment,
or ship them off down south en-masse... but the real solution to the
drugs problem is full employment.
I postulated that offering drugs supplies on an internet-only sales scheme,
would keep them much lower key, out of the streets, as people would
get them from official supplies, and the crime and street violence of the
drugs trade can be put to rest once and for all. the ones shot over drugs territories when suppiers argue.
/*
Whenever we debate this subject here (this isn’t the first time and I am sure that it won’t be the last) somebody always mentions that those people who would continue to criminalize cannabis turn a blind-eye to alcohol and nicotine, so let’s look at them now. Both are controlled substances, legalized but restricted along very similar lines to those that you propose would magically remove the dangers of cannabis. But in 2003 there were 6,580 deaths in England and Wales as a result of alcohol and an estimated 120,000 people die from smoking-related causes each year. Something doesn’t seem to be working here, so why would you want to throw cannabis into the mix?
*/ /* on edit add quote of jjc*/
I don't like drinking and i don't smoke cigarettes. I find them distasteful,
and i undestand why you don't like them. I would throw cannabis in to
the mix because its already there. Cannabis smokers are citizens too,
and they have the right to be as best taken care of as society can.
Now that you've actually engaged an agument, i'd ask you to explain
the blank space in your drugs reform proposal?
regards,
porshiepoo
09-Dec-05, 17:34
[quote=sweetheart]/* You openly conessed to violating the law.*/ No i didn't. You don't
know where i was when i've tried cannabis, and i've smoked it in places
where it is not a crime. You are presumptive. I've also smoked it at
different times in my life, and not for other times. So, today i'm talking
to you as someone who is not smoking grass, and i expect the decorum
you yourself would expect given that i've committed no crime.
Tut tut, this topic is most definately turning into a 'he said, she said' argument. What has this forum come to when people can't even have a civilised converstaion without mud throwing? lol. :rolleyes:
*/
aah!!! I only put forward part of a greater solution, and obviously drugs
is a demand problem too, one we can treat at both ends, if
we can be honest and truthful in the medical relationship of the doctor
patient... one where psychological addiction can be treated much like
a common cold, but only if drugs are decriminalized and people can come
forward for treatment without the permanent social stigma. without
decriminalizing it, there is no way to give people the self respect that
they need to successfully recover from addiction problems.
So by this sweetheart I take it to mean that you are suggesting that those of us who have never and will never take drugs and who don't want to live in the world you predict, should compromise that and agree to the legalisation of drugs just so that those who have chosen the path of destruction we call 'drugs', can get the treatment we pay for and not have to feel bad about getting it???
Sorry but not happening. That self respect you harp on about should have been shown to themselves in the first place and they wouldn't be in the position they find themselves when crawling the walls in desperate need of a fix. I'm all for rehabilitation for those that genuinely want to overcome their addiction but not at that cost.
I postulated that offering drugs supplies on an internet-only sales scheme,
would keep them much lower key, out of the streets, as people would
get them from official supplies, and the crime and street violence of the
drugs trade can be put to rest once and for all. the ones shot over drugs territories when suppiers argue.
Why would this do away with crime, street violence and the drugs trade?
All we'd be doing is giving legal access to another way of getting hold of drugs. I assume there'd have to be an age restriction to it and if thats 21 (for example), what happens to all the addicts under that age? They'd still need a dealer wouldn't they!
At one point you sounded quite intelligent sweetheart, but all that was blown to the wind with these unrealistic ramblings of legal drugs, dealer mommy's, internet drug shopping etc.
For someone who claims to work for the CIA I found your comment "Law and police is wrong, criminally wrong, and I've as much respect for them as the nazi ss", very strange.
Do we take it from that comment then that either A) You work for and support a body that you think is criminally wrong but do their bidding anyway AND earn a wage from it or B) You do actually respect the Nazi ss?
You don't know where i was when i've tried cannabis, and i've smoked it in places where it is not a crime.
Okay, let’s put it this way. Honestly and truthfully, are you saying that you have not smoked even a ¼-ounce of cannabis, used a vaporiser or mixed your pot in chocolate in a country where it was illegal to have done so? Are you saying that you have never used cannabis, or even opium, to help to release your creativity when writing (as Edgar Allen Poe did) if you were doing that writing whilst in a country that criminalized the drug?
Ok, you're angry, i've insulted you, You started our relationship by using a perscriptive, inflamatory, upbraiding and judgement, really harsh and
accusatory... and i gave a little back like you dished out, and now you're
whining. Are we even?
Let me think. I presumed – you say mistakenly – that you did not actively campaign against Bush in the election. You accused me of killing people and walking on their corpses. Are we even? No, not even close. And that you think the two are comparable is a damning insight into your moral fibre.
if we can be honest and truthful in the medical relationship of the doctor patient
Are you losing track of your argument again? You have stated that you would like to see cannabis available over the counter. Where does the doctor/patient relationship factor into that?
the real solution to the drugs problem is full employment.
I have to disagree. Full employment doesn’t stop people from using - and becoming addicted to – drugs. All that employment does is give them the financial ability to feed their habit (for a time at least) without having to resort to other crimes.
I postulated that offering drugs supplies on an internet-only sales scheme, would keep them much lower key, out of the streets, as people would
get them from official supplies, and the crime and street violence of the drugs trade can be put to rest once and for all.
Really? And those people who don’t have access to this internet-only sales scheme will go where? A large number of people don’t have credit cards. A large number of people don’t have bank accounts. A large number of people don’t have access to the internet, or have a postal address to which they could have their drugs shipped. Just as people buy black-market cigarettes, so people would still buy black-market cannabis or heroin. Your website would do nothing to prevent that.
I don't like drinking and i don't smoke cigarettes. I find them distasteful, and i undestand why you don't like them. I would throw cannabis in to
the mix because its already there. Cannabis smokers are citizens too, and they have the right to be as best taken care of as society can.
Of course cannabis users have the right to be taken care of by society, just as everybody does. But that does not mean that the laws prohibiting cannabis use should be lifted. Likewise, that a lot of people break a law is not a good enough argument to remove that law.
My point about cigarettes and alcohol is that both are regulated in almost the same way as you have called for cannabis to be regulated. We have major health problems in this country as a result of both cigarettes and alcohol despite that regulation, so why do you think that regulating cannabis would make it safe? What are you suggesting we do differently to ensure that selling cannabis over the counter doesn’t cause the same long-term misery as selling nicotine over the counter has?
Now that you've actually engaged an agument, i'd ask you to explain the blank space in your drugs reform proposal?
Not knowing which of the many blank spaces you are referring to, I’m afraid I’m going to have to ask you to enlighten me. Ask and I shall endeavour to answer.
[QUOTE= The same you can say for someone that enjoys the odd spliff. The problem comes from addiction not every person that enjoys alcohol is addicted to it. Most people that smoke are addicted to the nicotene, most people who smoke joints are also addicted to nicotene. I believe the other substance is just for enjoyment and is not the addictive part of it,.[/QUOTE]
It has been scientifically proved that Cannabis can cause schizophrenia. It is claimed by experts to be more damaging to mental health than heroin.
Perhaps that is why it is still illegal.
If my 16 year old daughter took a unregulated drug and died of it, i would
not blame the drugs, but the government, and would spend the rest of my
days taking the war to the criminals who decided in parliament not to regulate
the drugs my daughter took.
.
So you're trying to say that if ecstacy had been legal, Leah Betts would not have taken it?
There I am back to education again. It has to be the basis of any new decisions made about drugs, whether we decide to keep them illegal or otherwise. And I think it needs to be hard education too, the results of using drugs has to be shown as well not just talked about. Put the fear of god into em I say! And yes it does work, one of my kids insisted she wanted to smoke - at 11 - so I sat her in front of the computer and showed her a smokers lung, needless to say it put her off.
This I totally agree with. The horrors of all drugs, along with how, anyone buying many illegal drugs support terrorism, should be part of the curriculem.
Theres something about jjc as an internet identity that makes me aware of my own. Somehow I assume anyone who would know me in real life would probably know who I am on the internet. I was in Safeways recently and I saw someone who would normally say hello to me but this person went out of their way to avoid me, Maybe Im suffering from the long term effects of too much cannabis smoking even although i gave all that stuff up 20 years ago. Maybe they thought i was a nice guy until we met on the internet. Anyway Im sure jjc would be able to label it, probably as paranoia and I wouldnt disagree with him but I would argue that a little paranoia never hurt anyone!
Im also aware of Katerinas concerns and the venom in her posts is evident. I thinks its awful how they throw around the name of the tragic Leah Betts. I could just as easily say her father used her image to fuel his own prejudices against illegal drugs. Of course he was mourning and in shock. I accept that but its no defence for some who have used it in this thread. Rarely does a story about alcohol deaths hit the screens unless your names georgie Best but there are hundreds in Britain every week. How does that square with the pictures you want us to remember about Leah?
I dont know of 1 (one) death attributed to cannabis in the past 20 years or for that matter ever, but Im not using that as a defence for cannabis. This is not about statistics even though I would win my case by a long way if it was.
One of jjcs major concerns in the dangers of drug taking or for that matter alcohol or nicotine consumption is the dangers of addiction. Lets talk about addiction. I say drug addiction is a very very small part of the whole problem. If he was serious about doing something about the drugs problems that are a cancer to every society who have made them illegal he would at least accept that people like sweetheart and maybe even me have a right to challenge his staunch prohibitionist stance as a part of the problem. Katerina blames drugs for funding international terrorism. I blame prohibition.
How a society handles its taboos is one of the fundamental issues in human relationship and social contact. If proof is needed for that See how ma owld mate Golach and myself disagree about this one. The same thing happens on a social level but throw all sorts of different agendas into the pot and we have a drugs problem but the problem is much more than drugs. Perhaps drugs are only a symptom. Maybe they expose an addiction.
I could offer jjc a million personal experiences I had in the years I puffed dope like he sips red wine and his response would be as hard as the hardest dictator. Send him to prison cos drugs are illegal. Thats whats uncomfortable about jjc for me. Hes always right.
I just had a wee skim of the thread and I had forgotton about htwoods earlier proposal to legalise prostitution. Why not? Properly run "parlours" managed by licensed madams. Someones daughter has to work there though. Its that taboo thing again. Thats what gets me about the people who condemn cannabis but are perfectly comfortable with the image presented by alcohol. Taboo in action.
Theres a close link between drugs and prostitution. Lots of police time is spent on chasing drugs and stalking prostitutes. Golach spent years chasing prostitutes in Edinburgh cos they wernt paying their VAT. Seriously though the only way forward is to soften extreme views like jjcs by offering proper answers to his concerns about addiction or for that matter talk about the nature of our own addictions and ask the question, What is addiction and do we need drugs to be addicted?
Could education solve the drugs problem? I think it could.
I just looked at my latest reputation. In case anyone wonders if I have used it against them the answer is no. Ive only used it once to be complimentary and would never use it otherwise. Anyway I got 4 new comments. The first one said "still stirring it gleeber eh? I suspect I know who that one was from. The second one said grrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!. I like that one. Sounds like someone has taken their bone lol.
The third one says starting trouble. Maybe they are right but should I feel ashamed?
The 4th one gave me a red square whatever that is.
sweetheart
10-Dec-05, 02:44
It has been scientifically proved that Cannabis can cause schizophrenia. It is claimed by experts to be more damaging to mental health than heroin.
Perhaps that is why it is still illegal.
I read that thinly veiled political propaganda too. Let's presume you are a
scientist. You study people who claim to have taken a certain drug over
years. You don't exactly know what is in this drugs, the variations are
extreme, and personal lifestyles are extreme.
"some" persons are prone to experiencing psychotic episodes when exposed to
"some" drug that nobody can measure or test in a blind study on a population
of people who are probably not telling the truth, to keep the police from having
records of them.
I don't trust this research, when a medical researcher is pronouncing the
results of a drug that has no clinical testing, i'm a bit suspicious as to how
the leap from faith to conclusion was met.
They don't actually know what sort of cannabis peoples have been taking.
They don't actually have a full statistical sample of all the poeple in
society who take cannabis. They don't know what drugs poeple are taking,
and in the middle of this muddle, a load of politicical doctors announce
conclusive results that cannabis, a drug that this thread well evidences,
nobody knows what they're taking, is producing definitive results.
I say that is a load of lies to sell as research, and they really need to be
more careful about what kind of lies they expect that people will believe
when they spin the cloaque for the drugs war... but i can't accept
research on an unknown drug, taken in unknown dosages, at unknown
frequencies, with unknown externalities. It is crap research, and any
person with a scientific mind will take it with more grains of salt than
this government does.
If i smoke cannabis, and then say all police are out to get me because i've
got a gram of cannabis in my pocket. Then i am speaking the truth, not
being paranoid. All the police are out to get me and throw me in prison
because a gram of cannabis is making me prison bait. They call this
feeling of self preservation "paranoia."
I'm sure it is very easy to misdiagnose practical self preservation under
these circumstances.
The fact that they have no serious research for their conclusions leads me
to think that the story you post is just another of a long volley of "reefer
madness" lies... and when i sift through it, what kernel is to be found but
chaffe? what kind of researcher announces causative conclusions on a
drug that they don't know the content of... if it were in any other area
of research, they would laugh these jokers out of the room.
I think the Swedish Army did some research of around 50000 conscripted recruits and kept track of them for over 20 years afterwards. There was a clear connection between psychosis and cannabis consumption. However, different researchers come up with different reasons for the results. Obviously the prejudices of the researcher was a major contributory factor in the interpretation of the results.
sweetheart
10-Dec-05, 03:07
This I totally agree with. The horrors of all drugs, along with how, anyone buying many illegal drugs support terrorism, should be part of the curriculem.
In all truthfulness, the suppliers are pensioners and poor people, british
pensioners supplementing a meagre pension with some cannabis flowers, all
because they paid a lifetime of taxes to finance the inflated price of cannabis,
why not cash in on it? That is the realpolitik economic truth of it.
So you're buying from your own pensioners, morrocan farmers, french
pensioners, and your money is going to poor people, and a network of
people that cuts across all classes of society, across all professions, because
1 out of 3 do drugs.... EVERYONE does drugs... and the network services
everyone, and even if you don't do drugs, your clone somewhere else IS.
What does it take in adam smiths country for people to realize that persons
are economic creatures.
The black market pain killers market is there for everyone in the world, and
200 million persons, worldwide smoke cannabis regularly, and if we are real
economists, and REAL statisticians, we are able to notice the FACT that
these persons existance is not a need for persecution, but accomodation.
It is a new inquisition, in a new time, using thinly veiled, unproven
soundbyte rhetoric, like that which you repeat.
sweetheart
10-Dec-05, 04:08
I think the Swedish Army did some research of around 50000 conscripted recruits and kept track of them for over 20 years afterwards. There was a clear connection between psychosis and cannabis consumption. However, different researchers come up with different reasons for the results. Obviously the prejudices of the researcher was a major contributory factor in the interpretation of the results.
Some persons have a "genetic" disposition towards psychosis when
exposed to cannabis. It is not a conclusive fact for society.
I object to its sudden eleveation in the increasingly opportunistic
prohibitionist rhetorical spin cycle, to sell a new reason for continuing a
failed prohibition, and these are the "wmd's" of the drugs war. This research
is the false positive that lets them start a new all-out assault on the
private lives of more millions of persons than are in any single
european country.
The studies do not know whether the person smoked cannabis indica or
cannabis sattiva. They do not know this specific genetic code of the
genotype exposed to this paranoia, but worse and more embarassing, is
that they can't actually say what amounts of what chemical's the
patients have been taking to produce these results.
I am told, studying the british population, that tea causes death. And
the study proves conclusively, that dead people drank tea. The fact
that more poeple die in automotive accidents than from any drug, has not
stopped us from banning cars. The argument that we are defending
ourselves from a possible individual cataclism has not prevented us from
recognizing differentiation in lifestyle.
The government is doing a relatively professional job at selling its
participation in the ameircan drugs debacle. It would be more prudent
of them, if they expect to be taken seriously, to be more conservative
with blimey conclusions about a class of plants they can't measure.
Until a research can show exactly what chemicals were imbibed by a
control set, on what schedule for what period, i am deeply suspicious of
general indictments of cannabis. Some persons are more likely to have
used a particular cannabis strain, and that one of them is specificically
more prone towards the results indicated in the general research. As well,
resin and all the methods of imbibing cannabis widely affect the chemical
mix actually recieved by the subject. If we had specific, labelled, known
chemicals that persons took voluntarily like they do know, then we would
actually "know" something medically about cannabis, but to push this
junk on a population otherwise trained to understand clinical drug testing.
... come on. Its all part of a disconcerting trend of media towards
fearful inflationism, one that is based around fear, and a collapsed
vision of the future as a place of paranoid nightmares of terrorism and
stoned youths. " Fear, be afraid, run away, be sscared of cannabis,
don't learn about it, don't demystify it, don't challenge and command it,
no, run away..." the whole society makes its laws based around institutional
paranoia, and thankfully the HOL has the common sense to shoot down
this legislation based on the fear... would that they take action similalry
on the drugs war before more blood is spilt.
In this, the drugs war is the same as the war on terror, as this thread
suggests, all the basis for the war is ultimately, in a word, "fear". And
with the war on terror, similarly, ultimately, in a word, "fear", all replacing
the old fear i remember growing up "the soviets". And oh dear, the new
fear is sold to replace the old fear, and would that the population would
be wise enought to see they don't need any fears. That government by
fear is doomed to perpetually create more fear and misery. And so, we
have seen the results of several years of (fear) war on terror, and (fear)war on drugs, and with both cases, the results are a viscious
erosion of the very fabric of society both wars are said to be protecting
us from.
"There is nothing to fear but fear itself." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt
sweetheart
10-Dec-05, 07:39
I am not discussing my personal consumption of food and
medicine, you can discuss yours if you like.
If drugs were legal, then patients who do drugs, would share the
details with their doctor, and the doctor could better treat them. As it
stands, the doctor is practically an official agent of the court, and
is put in a very difficult position by criminalization, in that it prevents
a way of treating addiction more openly.
/*
I have to disagree. Full employment doesn’t stop people from using - and becoming addicted to – drugs. All that employment does is give them the financial ability to feed their habit (for a time at least) without having to resort to other crimes. */
The problem, is that you're presuming all drugs usage is addictive and
needs to be "fed". On soft drugs, this line of approach is not credible.
By your definition, were i to classify "food" as a drug, then all full
employment is, is a way to feed your family... not a vice or an
addiction, but a good healthy feeling of working self sufficiency.
The areas where crystal meth and crack are worst in the US, are rural
and city ghettos where there are no jobs, and people rot out their skulls
with crystal meth. There defninitely is a correlation between employment
and the net social destructiveness of drugs in society.
Good point about the interent, ok, then perhaps postal is a better way
of saying it, ordered by post, not carried at a shop. When i go to the
local shop, there are many packages of drugs waiting there to be picked
up by various persons on various medications delivered out the postal
shop. What's wrong with that model, it already delivers powerful
medications safely to all persons in the UK.
/*
Likewise, that a lot of people break a law is not a good enough argument to remove that law... */
I never advanced that argument.
The reason to remove the law is more to do with empowering the civil
rights of the individual over their own body, and to save the taxpayer
huge savings of policing people who would be better empowered to
make free decisions. When a law is broken constantly, it undermines
the credibility of the rest of the law, and all of its agents.
/*
My point about cigarettes and alcohol is that both are regulated in almost the same way as you have called for cannabis to be regulated. We have major health problems in this country as a result of both cigarettes and alcohol despite that regulation, so why do you think that regulating cannabis would make it safe? What are you suggesting we do differently to ensure that selling cannabis over the counter doesn’t cause the same long-term misery as selling nicotine over the counter has?
*/
By not selling them over the counter except by telephone and internet.
Then, the cannabis would not be in your face, not on display, yet
existing users could get secure, clean supplies, and the misery of
alcohol and tobacco, both sold over the counter... maybe a bit too easy
to get ahold of. If cannabis was like that, then it woudl be destigmatized,
very low key, vastly preferred over illegal channels, and yet not seen
by children, not available to children, and as a rolling stones generation
gets older, maybe cannabis will be a generational drug, whos popularity
wanes once it is de-stigmatized.
sweetheart
10-Dec-05, 08:47
/*
So by this sweetheart I take it to mean that you are suggesting that those of us who have never and will never take drugs and who don't want to live in the world you predict, should compromise that and agree to the legalisation of drugs just so that those who have chosen the path of destruction we call 'drugs', can get the treatment we pay for and not have to feel bad about getting it???
Sorry but not happening. That self respect you harp on about should have been shown to themselves in the first place and they wouldn't be in the position they find themselves when crawling the walls in desperate need of a fix. I'm all for rehabilitation for those that genuinely want to overcome their addiction but not at that cost.
*/
Are you saying, as it seems, that drugs users don't have equal rights
with you to be tolerated for their choices as well? Even in private?
If you object to persons having freedom, what am i doing discussing
this with you, you've taken the position of a slave master, and i
thought we abolished slavery centuries ago. I am not your slave, nor
the slave to no law, i am free. That is the entire tradition of western
free socity ,the enlightenment, rousseau, that the social contract
exists that ALL persons have liberty, not just poshipoo. How can you provide a solution for people you're willing to conscience destroying...
I mean really, what is all this but a "final solution" to the drugs problem,
lets round them all up, and killl them all, and burn their bodies in ovens,
and then we won't have drugs around any more... and no matter that
nixon did freely equate drugs usage with being jewish. If the prisons
actually rehabilitated, but they don't, so what really happens is that
prison is just punative... its just about hate, institutional hate between
the government and the slave.
/*
Why would this do away with crime, street violence and the drugs trade?
All we'd be doing is giving legal access to another way of getting hold of drugs. I assume there'd have to be an age restriction to it and if thats 21 (for example), what happens to all the addicts under that age? They'd still need a dealer wouldn't they!
*/
If drugs came in the post at 1/10th the street price, how many people
would pay the street price? How long could street dealers survive
being undercut like that? Not even a day. I don't know if you have a
screwfix.com catalogue, but i've got a few of them round, and you can
call an order, or internet an order, and it arrives in the post very short
after. For a kid to get ahold of it, they'd need to either defraud the
age limit, or get it from an adult who ordered it. In both cases, in the
worst case, the kid gets clean supplies. If no adult will get the underage
an order, the now-bankrupt street dealers won't be there for an alternative. In global businesses, ruthless monopolists have made it
virtually impossible to compete against them, why not unleash this power
of capitalistic monopolism to destroy the drugs marketplace.
Once a monopolist has undercut the entire market, the whole illegal
marketplace folds, and the inventory is never restocked.
Do you actually think, that if i worked for the CIA that i would say it?
There was a wink-smiley next to that paragraph. ;-)
I'm not here to think for you, or to be your oracle of the future. I'm just
calling for the opening of our eyes to the fact that we're repeating the
same drugs war comments in our rhetoric, that i was hearing in my
school back in 1970, ... 35 years of failed policy without any improvmeents, and today, people blindly follow the same prescription that
will now fail for the next generation like it failed for the last one.
I know how to fix the problem. I've studied it my whole life, and i know
in my gut that its right to challenge this orthodoxy. ANd the only way
to do this is to get others to think about what exactly that orthodoxy
is and how they fit in to it... and the whole thing is cemented
together with fear. Before you carry on too far insulting my
now diminished intelligence, it is not very intelligent to build a policy around the institutional fear of indivdiual free will.
porshiepoo
10-Dec-05, 12:23
Are you saying, as it seems, that drugs users don't have equal rights
with you to be tolerated for their choices as well? Even in private?
If you object to persons having freedom, what am i doing discussing
this with you, you've taken the position of a slave master, and i
thought we abolished slavery centuries ago. I am not your slave, nor
the slave to no law, i am free. That is the entire tradition of western
free socity ,the enlightenment, rousseau, that the social contract
exists that ALL persons have liberty, not just poshipoo. How can you provide a solution for people you're willing to conscience destroying...
If you want to talk about slavery sweetheart, in a sense that is the path that all drug abusers have taken in a form for themselves. They have an addiction and are slaves to that addiction.
That is their choice, I'm not disagreeing with that, but why should us that work hard, pay our taxes and choose not to take drugs be forced into a system whereby we will be paying for the rehabilitation of those that have chosen that destructive path?
You rant on about freedom and the rights of everyone, but what you really seem to want to put across is that drug abusers should have the right to carry on abusing, legally, and we should all be ok with that therefore compromising our rights to never have to come into contact with drugs.
I mean really, what is all this but a "final solution" to the drugs problem,
lets round them all up, and killl them all, and burn their bodies in ovens,
and then we won't have drugs around any more... and no matter that
nixon did freely equate drugs usage with being jewish. If the prisons
actually rehabilitated, but they don't, so what really happens is that
prison is just punative... its just about hate, institutional hate between
the government and the slave.
I have never mentioned sending them to jail just because they do drugs. I have said that if someone is jailed for taking a substance they know to be illegal and end up with a jail term, then so be it. If they can't handle the punishment don't do the crime.
Would you feel the same about a drunk who got behind the wheel of a car and killed someone? Would you be saying that it was his / her right? Has it made a difference to alcohol related deaths just because it's legal to drink? No!
You are the one that keeps referring to the goverment you seem to hate so much against what you describe as slaves, not me, so don't even think of turning that one around to me. I've actually kept very quiet on this subject up till now, i've been very guarded in the answers I have given as it is a very serious and emotive subject. Don't go thinking though that you can go around being rude and obnoxious just because I don't agree with what you're saying, your argument is starting to lose any grounding it had just because you now seem to be losing all rationality in your posts.
If drugs came in the post at 1/10th the street price, how many people
would pay the street price? How long could street dealers survive
being undercut like that? Not even a day. I don't know if you have a
screwfix.com catalogue, but i've got a few of them round, and you can
call an order, or internet an order, and it arrives in the post very short
after. For a kid to get ahold of it, they'd need to either defraud the
age limit, or get it from an adult who ordered it. In both cases, in the
worst case, the kid gets clean supplies. If no adult will get the underage
an order, the now-bankrupt street dealers won't be there for an alternative. In global businesses, ruthless monopolists have made it
virtually impossible to compete against them, why not unleash this power
of capitalistic monopolism to destroy the drugs marketplace.
Once a monopolist has undercut the entire market, the whole illegal
marketplace folds, and the inventory is never restocked.
If drugs were available on line the way you suggest, it wouldn't be long before the 'new age' dealers learn to get a hold of it, start cutting it and mixing it with god knows what and selling it to those that are under age and can't get it.
You will never ever in a million years do away with the drugs marketplace. Everything you suggest is simply moving from one illegal dealer to a legal dealer of another kind.
I'm not here to think for you, or to be your oracle of the future. I'm just
calling for the opening of our eyes to the fact that we're repeating the
same drugs war comments in our rhetoric, that i was hearing in my
school back in 1970, ... 35 years of failed policy without any improvmeents, and today, people blindly follow the same prescription that
will now fail for the next generation like it failed for the last one.
No, you want the opening of eyes into what YOU believe is the way forward, that does not make it THE way forward.
I know how to fix the problem. I've studied it my whole life, and i know
in my gut that its right to challenge this orthodoxy. ANd the only way
to do this is to get others to think about what exactly that orthodoxy
is and how they fit in to it... and the whole thing is cemented
together with fear. Before you carry on too far insulting my
now diminished intelligence, it is not very intelligent to build a policy around the institutional fear of indivdiual free will.
[/quote]
Again, no you don't know how to fix the problem, your going by your gut instinct. How obnoxious to assume that we should all agree to challenge what we believe is right and just because one druggie is up in arms about his rights to take drugs.
You complain constantly about your free will to take drugs, what of the free will of those babies, children and adults who choose not to breath the fumes of these drugs.
I would suggest that if you don't want your intelligence insulted by me or anyone else then you should stop ranting, raving, insulting and try listening to those of us that never want to live in a society that you seem to cry for. Stop accusing people of erring on the side of slavery and against free will just because it doesn't back up what you want, I am using my free will and freedom of speech to state my opinion on this subject and I certainly don't feel in fear of using it.
Anyone that takes drugs has no respect for themselves or others around them. Imagine how much you must hate yourself to take a substance knowing what it will do to your body and mind! It's the psychological process that got you there in the first place that needs addressing not the effects of that process. By legalising drugs you are fuelling the symptoms not dealing with the cause.
A healthier mind leads to a healthier body!
In all truthfulness, the suppliers are pensioners and poor people, british
pensioners supplementing a meagre pension with some cannabis flowers, all
because they paid a lifetime of taxes to finance the inflated price of cannabis,
why not cash in on it? That is the realpolitik economic truth of it.
.
I wondered why my granny had so many poppies in her garden - excuse me while i fall about laughing!!!
champagnebaby
10-Dec-05, 16:00
Notice how none of you have compared crime statstics, cancer related deaths, common psychological problems etc for Holland(where cannabis is legal) compared to the UK.
I was going to but i can't find much, can anyone else get this info as i'm curious??? :confused:
crime and mental problems (don't know about cancer although I have read that cannabis and nicotine mix is eleven times more likely to cause cancer than notine alone) have risen since legalising cannabis in holland. Mental hospitals are full and cannot cope with the demand.
the interesting thing though, is that these problems are every bit, if not more so, as prevalent in London as in Amsterdam.
Over ninety per cent of psychotic patients are found to regularly smoke cannabis.
One leading psychiatrist in a TV interview, said he was much more concerned with the lasting effects of cannabis than that of heroin.
Cannabis in the sixties was fairly harmless, but is now been cultivated to be many times stronger.
In all truthfulness, the suppliers are pensioners and poor people, british
pensioners supplementing a meagre pension with some cannabis flowers, all
because they paid a lifetime of taxes to finance the inflated price of cannabis,
why not cash in on it?
Eh? You have just blown any credibility you had. Poor people in Afganistan maybe. Via the terrorists and the RICH drug barons i.e organised criminals. But of course, I forgot, big Mags is a grandmother.... but if you want to fool yourself and go on supporting these people.... it is your free will.
porshiepoo
11-Dec-05, 01:12
Think sweetheart may finally understand the ludicrousy of his suggestions and is now keeping quiet! lol.
It never ceases to amaze me what as trange bunch of people this world is filled with.
Legalising drugs indeed! And supplied by mothers and the elderly no less!
Hopefully Sweetheart has finally come to his senses and realised that his were the ramblings of a cannabis damaged mind. We'll forgive you though sweetheart as long as you limit the damage to your brain and those others that choose your fate and not to those of us who can actually see the damage it's done and choose to have no part of it.
Think sweetheart may finally understand the ludicrousy of his suggestions and is now keeping quiet! lol.
It never ceases to amaze me what as trange bunch of people this world is filled with.
Legalising drugs indeed! And supplied by mothers and the elderly no less!
Hopefully Sweetheart has finally come to his senses and realised that his were the ramblings of a cannabis damaged mind. We'll forgive you though sweetheart as long as you limit the damage to your brain and those others that choose your fate and not to those of us who can actually see the damage it's done and choose to have no part of it.
Strange people indeed Porshiepoo. Shame on you.
porshiepoo
11-Dec-05, 01:33
Strange people indeed Porshiepoo. Shame on you.
I feel no shame Gleeber. I've stated my opinion just like loads of others on here claim to do!
One of jjcs major concerns in the dangers of drug taking or for that matter alcohol or nicotine consumption is the dangers of addiction.
No, it really isn’t.
sweetheart
12-Dec-05, 16:20
Eh? You have just blown any credibility you had. Poor people in Afganistan maybe. Via the terrorists and the RICH drug barons i.e organised criminals. But of course, I forgot, big Mags is a grandmother.... but if you want to fool yourself and go on supporting these people.... it is your free will.
I know, having seen direct evdence, that pensioners are significant growers
in much of the UK. You haven't a clue, have a look at the booming
legal business trade in the UK today, in your clueless world, these
businesses are selling to morocoo and affganistan??:
http://up-in-smoke.co.uk/catalog/default.php?cPath=22_36
http://www.everyonedoesit.co.uk/cannabis_information/growing/index.cfm
I read that thinly veiled political propaganda too. Let's presume you are a scientist. You study people who claim to have taken a certain drug over
years. You don't exactly know what is in this drugs, the variations are extreme, and personal lifestyles are extreme.
I don’t accept what you say, but let’s suppose for a minute that I do.
You are suggesting that we open the market and allow anybody to purchase cannabis over the counter, just as they can cigarettes and alcohol. Those two, cigarettes and alcohol, are perfect examples of just how difficult it is to close the floodgates once they have been opened, so I’d like to think that you are one-hundred percent certain that cannabis is entirely without health-risks before you go ahead and put packets of the stuff on the shelf next to the aspirin.
I’d therefore like to ask; if you reject all studies of cannabis use as being inherently flawed, how do you know that it is safe?
The black market pain killers market is there for everyone in the world
Surely there’s some mistake here, because your entire proposition for the legalisation of all drugs seems to hinge on your belief that if a drug is controlled by doctors then there will no longer be a black market for it… pain medication is controlled by doctors, yet the black market still exists. What makes you think that the black market for heroin, or any other banned substance, would simply disappear under the same circumastances?
By your definition, were i to classify "food" as a drug, then all full
employment is, is a way to feed your family...
What? I mean, what?
Good point about the interent, ok, then perhaps postal is a better way of saying it
Perhaps… if you live in the only country in the world where everybody has a postal address, a telephone and a credit card or bank account. Personally, that country isn’t one which I am too familiar with.
You have criticised the ‘drug war’ as being a “war on the poor” and in trying to make it seem as though Rheghead didn’t care about this section of society you said that he got compassion from “the same place as George Bush gets it”. Yet here you are, advocating a policy (drugs by telephone/internet only) that would enable the legal sale of narcotics to all but that poorest section of society you claim to represent.
I would suggest that you don’t truly understand the plight of many of this country’s poorest, and are simply using their situation as a convenient pedestal from which to win yourself the right to smoke your home-made, copper cannabis-pipe.
The reason to remove the law is more to do with empowering the civil rights of the individual over their own body, and to save the taxpayer
huge savings of policing people who would be better empowered to
make free decisions […] If you object to persons having freedom, what am i doing discussing this with you, you've taken the position of a slave master.
So which laws would you keep? People are constantly assaulting one another: do they not have a right to express themselves however they see fit? Would it not save a huge amount of policing effort simply to legalise assault? What about burglary, rape and murder? Where do you draw the line?
I’m going to hazard a guess here and say that you are like most people – myself included – and draw the line based on the selfish belief that your own moral code is right and just.
porshiepoo
12-Dec-05, 16:37
I know, having seen direct evdence, that pensioners are significant growers
in much of the UK. You haven't a clue, have a look at the booming
legal business trade in the UK today, in your clueless world, these
businesses are selling to morocoo and affganistan??:
http://up-in-smoke.co.uk/catalog/default.php?cPath=22_36
http://www.everyonedoesit.co.uk/cannabis_information/growing/index.cfm
This is all just a moot point now!
You cannot legalise drugs based on the drugged up rationalities of the minority in this world that choose to risk their lives by taking these drugs. What kind of a world would this be if we let decisions of that nature be made by such stupid, idiotic, self loathing people? We will not allow our country to be dragged down to the gutter levels of those idiots who chose to live a life of drugs, and then express their 'genuine'? concern that legalisation is the only way forward.
Legalisation may be the only way forward for a drug user but not to those of us who respect ourselves and those who love us, enough to poison our systems that way.
Carry on with your seedy 'behind closed doors' inhalation or needle pricking habbit if thats the life you choose but please do not expect the rest of us to relish the sight of such lunacy and even more, want to legalise it.
People such as sweetheart will try their damdest to make us all feel that the stigma attatched to drug takng is due to the rest of us not 'understanding' the way forward or keeping the stigma alive enough to predjudice people against it. Well, personally, I think it's a dirty, degrading habit bought about by self loathing and disrespect and the stigma of it should be kept well and truly alive even if it's enough to save just one person turning to this habit.
I could care less whether drug abusers feel their rights are being compromised by society's inabaility to accept this habit. You choose to live your life taking drugs and living the degredation that comes with such a filthy habit. My only concern is for those innocent kids and teenagers who fall foul of such poor excuses for human beings that trade this drug.
Draw attention to the dealers all you want sweetheart, yes, they have a very large part to pay in this drug war, but without the users there would be no dealers, so why don't we turn our attention to the users as musch as the dealers and come to a solution that way. And not one that involves legalisation.
I dont know of 1 (one) death attributed to cannabis in the past 20 years or for that matter ever, but Im not using that as a defence for cannabis.
Woman died on cannabis drug trial (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/4522108.stm)
I guess we’ll just have to wait and see what the inquest finds…
sweetheart
12-Dec-05, 18:33
/*Why should us that work hard, pay our taxes and choose not to take drugs be forced into a system whereby we will be paying for the rehabilitation of those that have chosen that destructive path?*/
Cost/benefit analysis. You will get more bang for your buck with
less drugs on the street than today. You are already paying a fortune
in taxes for the drugs war, to incarcerate someone, and to make them
a criminal destroys a lifetime earning asset just like injecting them with
HIV. It is economically destructive, and the lost humanity, plowed under
as worthless in the prisons deserves more from us than that. The wages
on prisons and police do not create value in an economy.
So it is less expense and more value, that's why. As well, i'll wager that
the tax stamp takings of the drugs themselves, cover the cost of
treatment and youth afternoon activities as well. Because it is the view
of a true conservative to not spend government effort restricting choice.
This place seems a conservative area, i'm suprised the opposition, not
"tory" conservative, but paleoconservative.
I did not get to this website yesterday, as i was busy writing on
democraticunderground. It seems that the american vision of a drugs
war liberalization may be the legallization of cannabis, but a continuation
of the drugs war on harder drugs just because of the entrenched police
and prison lobbies who need the prisoner-flow to keep their jobs. But i
don't believe that just treating cannabis differently helps us, as the
problem is in the externalization of a threat, when if we internalize it,
we can end it without the threat of violence. As a society then, it means
to say that it is "our" drugs problem and our child, not someone elses,
to take full ownership of all the bad outcomes everywhere in the world
of this tragedy, all across humanity, all driven by the choices of persons
just like yourself who are honourablly seriously wanting the freedom to
live a drugs free life and to not finance one. Yet by an external
consequence of the decision, the knock on effect is that this society is
perpetually at war to find the bad guys who supply the drugs our babies
love to eat. .. and in other parts of the world, the strife of that war has
decimated millions of lives.
In speaking with a drugs user. I would hope only of them that they follow
their inner most heart in life choices. Do drugs users really want to be
drugs users, or is there something else as well? To befriend a drugs user,
be friends outside of drugs, and make no judgements about that person,
listen to their story, as usually, if a drugs user sits with someone who
does not judge them, oftehn the'll tell you a very frank story. And in that
story are so many ways to love and engage someone.... so in treating
drugs problems, do not get identified with the drugs, do not take a position,
be outside the criminalization and the judgment or you'll never
gain the trust.
/* If they can't handle the punishment don't do the crime.
Would you feel the same about a drunk who got behind the wheel of a car and killed someone? Would you be saying that it was his / her right? Has it made a difference to alcohol related deaths just because it's legal to drink? No! */
If i respond to that as a pure-libertarian, it'll incite a whole distraction
from this discussion, as the crime is killing someone, and you are held
responsible for killing a person's lifeliberty. I'm very much for criminalizing
crimes of violence, rape, irresponsible killing, property crime, and making
our socity safe in all regards, but if we lay off persecuting
these faux-crimes, the more weight the real criminal laws will have.
You insult my intelligence madame, and expect the slap you get back,
so i've verbally upbraieded you, not personally, but as a character
in this thread/play. This system has become about the tyrrany of the
majority, maybe john steward mill was no very popular in britain.
/* it wouldn't be long before the 'new age' dealers learn to get a hold of it, start cutting it and mixing it with god knows what and selling it to those that are under age and can't get it.
*/
Ok, because you don't know the drugs, that is sorta nonsensical, what you
said.
Cannabis was the one i suggested gets sold over the counter at the
chemist and online and by post. You cannot "cut" cannabis. You can
only repackage it, to give it to kids.
here: http://civilliberty.about.com/od/warondrugs/f/DWFAW008.htm
/*
No, you want the opening of eyes into what YOU believe is the way forward, that does not make it THE way forward.
*/
Whatever.
/*
try listening to those of us that never want to live in a society that you seem to cry for */
Fine, then that society not worth participating in, that is why i don't
participate in society offline, because it is judgemental and nasty, like
the last 3 paragraphs of your post.
I'd rather walk with my dog by the ocean or hang out with people who
are not so attached to their judgement of others.
After reading the last 3 paragraphs you wrote
Your basically say "its my way or the highway", or as bush says it "you're either with us or against us". then i'm against.
porshiepoo
12-Dec-05, 19:32
Sweetheart, sweetheart, sweetheart, shame on you!
What anal rubbish is spewing from your mouth now!
If you choose not to take part in the day to day life of society as you claim to, then I suggest you look into your soul yourself and discover the real reason behind this isolated action. Don't try to convince yourself or us that it has anything to do with the convictions of people like myself, living our lives the best way we can without using drugs as a crutch.
There are many of us that dislike the vulgarities of this world - drugs being one of them - but we don't claim this as our reason for burying our heads in the sand, complaining 'woe is me and all other druggies'.
Get over yourself, grow up and accept the fact that drugs abuse, maim, kill and cause untold misery in this world. yes, there are many other causes of said destruction but for some unfathomable reason you claim to believe that to legalise these drugs would make everything ok.
See now, if you pull your head out that sand long enough to take a good look around before plunging it back in again, you'd see there is no place in society for what you are requesting.
The utter rubbish you state about the prison system is laughable. You will never, ever in a million years rid the streets of drugs, users or dealers whether they are legalised or not.
As I said before, if you want to self destruct and carry on with such a degrading, self loathing habit, feel free. It makes no odds to me.
BUT do not try to bring the rest of us 'clean' people down to your gutter level and do not try to make us believe that legalising a drug that does so much damage to our young and vulnerable, would be of any benefit to this country or to us.
Your motives for the legalisation of any drug are purely selfish, don't lose sight of that fact.
Perhaps you and every other drug user should look inside themselves and ask yourselves why you do this to yourself. You have no respect yourself, and if you have no respect for yourself how can you expect others to respect you?
I find it most amusing how a druggie is so slap happy with the notion of other people being responsible for the deaths of people with habits just because we stand against it.
Grow up man! The drug user is the one that smokes the joint, that uses the needle, that buys the drugs.
Stop blaming everyone but yourselves and do something about it, maybe then more of us will afford you the respect that you so think you deserve.
Till that point, you carry on smoking whatever, I'll carry on calling you a druggie and an idiot for doing it, drugs will carry on being illegal and we'll carry on doing whatever we can to educate youngsters today to stay away from losers such as yourself that abuse their own bodies with drugs and try to blame the world for their inadequacies.
Take that little lot as an insult if you will, however it's merely my opinion.
On the other hand, every post you make that insists we should legalise drugs is insulting in it's entirety.
sweetheart
12-Dec-05, 19:51
/*
You cannot legalise drugs based on the drugged up rationalities of the minority in this world that choose to risk their lives by taking these drugs.
*/
*that* is a drugged up rationality if i've ever heard one, what are you on.
Say that 10% of all people are risk takers, more prone to risk taking.
Then those persons, when presented with a "risk" to be taken, will take it
on at various levels. In young adulthood, i used to climb rock cliffs
without ropes, of several hundreds of feet, something that is intensely
adrenalin thrilling, due to the proximity of death. It is not the hate of life
that brings one to get high like that, but the love of life. Your premise of
self loathing is entirely misplaced projection, something you're trying to
frame in your new slander mode here..
Those risk-takers are the very same persons who would be your next
generation of sililicon valley, microsoft, oracle, entrepreurs if you did not
punish risk-taking as a systemic social trap.
I'll sift through what you say a bit, so we can not focus on the hateful
judgement, (...ugly enough reading it once.)
/*stupid, idiotic, self loathing people, ingenuine, idiot, seedy, behind
closed doors, needle pricking, dirty, degrading, brought about by
self loathing */
You know an aweful lot about nothing.... what a load of vitriolic
bile for someone who's no experience with drugs whatsoever,
so you have no basis for this judgement in experience except
paranoia, something you accuse cannabis smokers of having a
market on.
in this thread... you've really topped up on hate mate. You've now
decided that the best way to show that the current policy works is to
show how much hate the policy has created in poshipoo after over
half a century of failed prohibition, and what i feel is a hate-addiction.
Your self loathing to be so addicted to hatred must be profound.
That you have found any refuge in hatred or diminishing the voice
of others shows you are addicted to the dark side, taking people
down and destroying them, and its a really sick addiction.
/*
Carry on with your seedy 'behind closed doors' inhalation or needle pricking habbit if thats the life you choose but please do not expect the rest of us to relish the sight of such lunacy and even more, want to legalise it.
*/
Yes master.
/*
People such as sweetheart will try their damdest to make us all feel that the stigma attatched to drug takng is due to the rest of us not 'understanding' the way forward or keeping the stigma alive enough to predjudice people against it.
*/
Whatever you think you said.
/*
Well, personally, I think it's a dirty, degrading habit bought about by self loathing and disrespect and the stigma of it should be kept well and truly alive even if it's enough to save just one person turning to this habit.
*/
Whe american preachers say this on TV, they usually then say,
"praise the lord" and "praise george W. Bush" ahmen to follow up.
You, like every person preaching the same ideology of the bush clan's
drugs war, ultimately use your bully pulpit to attack the individual
because the policies that you are defending are indefensible.
/*
I could care less whether drug abusers feel their rights are being compromised by society's inabaility to accept this habit.
*/
You could care less about the civil rights of 1 out of 3 scots. I find that
to be pretty barbaric, rather third world of you, i'd expect that from
an illiterate right winger with a britsh flag tatooed on his nose, but its
not the moral ground of a civil grovernment to write off 1/3rd of its
youths and virtually ALL of its risk-takers.
Legallization may be coming with a cameron administration that sees the
economic value of these risk takers in the strategic interests of
britain.
I think Sweetheart is living in cloud cuckoo land if he thinks the Tories under David Cameron will legalise drugs.Cameron will not be allowed to go it alone.the Tories have learnt a lot from following the Blair administration.Now Labour is contemplating a u-turn on cannabis after the report associating it with mental health problems.Did they really need a report?
porshiepoo
12-Dec-05, 23:13
DEARY, DEARY DEARY!
Must you post a thread three times sweetheart? It really doesn't give it anymore credence or merit you know, it's still anal flatulence at it's smelliest.
You really do try to turn things around in every thread don't you? Try as you might to try to make me feel as ignorant as you it won't work, but, if you keep getting the same kick out of it then feel free to do it. Anything to get you off those drugs.
*that* is a drugged up rationality if i've ever heard one, what are you on.
Say that 10% of all people are risk takers, more prone to risk taking.
Then those persons, when presented with a "risk" to be taken, will take it
on at various levels. In young adulthood, i used to climb rock cliffs
without ropes, of several hundreds of feet, something that is intensely
adrenalin thrilling, due to the proximity of death. It is not the hate of life
that brings one to get high like that, but the love of life. Your premise of
self loathing is entirely misplaced projection, something you're trying to
frame in your new slander mode here..
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Try a new tact sweetheart, that one just ain't working!
Getting an adrenalin thrill from something such as rock climbing or bungee jumping is a bit different to drug abuse. And if you really need it pointing out then you're more ignorant than you appear to be.
Rock climbers etc get a 'clean' kick from the edrenalin that courses through their body during times of risk, and it puts themselves in no chemical danger or those around them.
Junkies, on the other hand, are so selfish that when they inject or smoke, they not only risk permanent damage to themselves but to those that are around them.
If you believe for one minute that a junkie is actually shooting up or snorting because they are first 'high on life', then that just proves to me more that your ideas are ridiculously dangerous to all of us.
Why would anyone inject or smoke a substance that they know will damage their body? If that's your definition of love of yourself, your family and mankind then you have serious issues that need addressing now before you do more damage than I fear you already have.
in this thread... you've really topped up on hate mate. You've now
decided that the best way to show that the current policy works is to
show how much hate the policy has created in poshipoo after over
half a century of failed prohibition, and what i feel is a hate-addiction.
Your self loathing to be so addicted to hatred must be profound.
That you have found any refuge in hatred or diminishing the voice
of others shows you are addicted to the dark side, taking people
down and destroying them, and its a really sick addiction.
Again, if your definition of self loathing and hatred is to never want to subject my body, my friends, my family, my kids or the nation to drug abuse then I'm guilty as charged!
Whe american preachers say this on TV, they usually then say,
"praise the lord" and "praise george W. Bush" ahmen to follow up.
You, like every person preaching the same ideology of the bush clan's
drugs war, ultimately use your bully pulpit to attack the individual
because the policies that you are defending are indefensible.
Praise the lord! Praise the lord! Praise the lord!
Not preaching Bushs ideology, just my own. You see my mind is 'clean' enough to have rational thought. You should try it sometime!
You could care less about the civil rights of 1 out of 3 scots. I find that
to be pretty barbaric, rather third world of you, i'd expect that from
an illiterate right winger with a britsh flag tatooed on his nose, but its
not the moral ground of a civil grovernment to write off 1/3rd of its
youths and virtually ALL of its risk-takers.
Tut, tut tut.
I say again, I could care less about the rantings of junkies with regards to their civil rights.
But, oh dear, I forgot, you're so concerned about our civil rights as non - junkies, as parents etc aren't you!
British Flag tatooed on my nose! How ridiculous! Everyone knows it's on my shoulder!
sweetheart
13-Dec-05, 01:02
(apologies for the multiple post, my system locked up and died for an hour
and it just said database error for caithness dot org, so i clicked the button
too many times thinking that the connection had dropped. i'll go see
about editing erasing the duplicates.. right after this. )
You don't know why poeple do drugs, you haven't done them. YOU
make a lot of presumption about htings you don't know much about, and
i don't have to bend anything for that. sir. You've defined selfish and a
whole world off socially degenerate frames to hate your fellow mankind in.
YOu are spewing all rhetoric, not a fact in the stream, all invective,
very feeling and expressive, but overly hateful and selfish, the very way
you think and project on to others. It makes you very simple to argue
with, cuz you're actually pretty dim, in my arrogant opinion and that is
why you hate people and think in terms of hatred... like an untrained
dog bites people.
Whatever .bile. .yawn. .sir.
Your mother must have told you ghost stories about junkies when you
were a kiddie. You are the failure of the drugs war, a hateful man given
a way to be hateful in society, who would use it to spread hate invective.
Were it "arabs", "women", "blacks" instead of "junkies" your spew would
fit in the worst racist parts of the south. Its not such a suprise that so
many scots ended up in the south, now seeing the upstream sources on
that, yes.
/*Why would anyone inject or smoke a substance that they know will damage their body? If that's your definition of love of yourself, your family and mankind then you have serious issues that need addressing now before you do more damage than I fear you already have.
*/
If you ride on the tube, its the equivalent in dust-particles-inhalation-terms,
of smoking 5 fags. Then by your hairbrained argument, since it is bad
for us, we should not ride the tube, because it damages our bodies.
Then we should not touch other people, because it might spread disease and could damage your body. If we follow that risk adverse piece of junk
you just dumped on us, we'd not participate in anything like football or
rugby that could damage our bodies. Thank you for offering to save me
from myself. I'm fine thank you. It is only damage when its damage.
I have a friend who died in the world trade center. He thought he would
never want to damage his brilliant mind, so he never smoked cannabis,
and now he's dead.
My definition of love, is silent meditation, what a quaker would call "silent
communion or prayer", in that I find that centering you're talking about.
/*
Again, if your definition of self loathing and hatred is to never want to subject my body, my friends, my family, my kids or the nation to drug abuse then I'm guilty as charged!
*/
That is why you advocate a policy that settle for a 1/3rd rate failure
and call yourself noble for it. You're the savior of 2/3rds of the people
and a thuggish bully to the other 1/3rd. You see yourself as noble, i see
it as criminal the negligent oversight in your judgement; your willingness
to settle for a crap solution that has already failed, means your a
pathological failure lover, not much of a rocket scientist, for all the
stirring.
/*
But, oh dear, I forgot, you're so concerned about our civil rights as non - junkies, as parents etc aren't you!
*/ Well, as a parent too, and knowing many parents, why would i not
be concerned about kids. You spew column inches of hateful bile and
and all i hear from you is fear and ignorance. With wise parents like you
leading the pack, no wonder its not a very bright future for many kids
growing up with so many hateful adults. Its become the blind leading
the thick. God, as much as you want to protect your kid from drugs,
i want to protect mine from hate. You are more likely, between the
two of us, to infect one of our kids with something destructive, because
YOU would spew hate in public, you incite violence in heart and mind here;
whereas i wrote a passionate opinion that soon enough will be swallowed
by time, all the while the internet will keep printing colum meters of
drugs war bile to help restore the drugs war vengance.
It is a sign you can't conscience civil argument on this, your resorting to
personal insults and borderline hate speech, "junkie"... ! you are just
another coward, hiding behind cowardly insults, and not a way forward,
or a positive way of thinking, talking or improving the situtation for us all,
just another negative trash mouth. sad.
Sweetheart,
Sorry, but I just wanted to step away from the debate on drugs to ask if you realised something. Are you aware that you have mentioned George W. Bush a staggering thirty (yes, I did count them) times over the previous nine pages. Thirty times?
I have nothing good to say about the man and I believe that some of his policies are verging on the criminal so I didn’t mention this because I think you might have a problem (but thirty times?!). No, I mention your constant references to Bush because of this:
…as bush says it "you're either with us or against us"
Perhaps you need to take a long, hard look in the mirror.
How many times in this thread have you accused those people who disagree with you of siding with Bush or of sharing Bush’s ideals? It seems to me that you might abhor those ideals, but you’ve certainly embraced his delivery techniques.
So he says “you’re either with us or against us”… guess what – so do you. Bizarrely, I find it more worrying in you. He’s a right-wing, neo-con lunatic. You expect it of him. You are a wannabe-libertarian and you should know better.
Anyway, I’ve said my piece on this. If you do feel like having a constructive discussion, my last response to you is still in need of an answer… however, if you don’t feel able to answer without accusing me of supporting Bush then I’d ask you not to bother.
porshiepoo
13-Dec-05, 01:32
(apologies for the multiple post, my system locked up and died for an hour
and it just said database error for caithness dot org, so i clicked the button
too many times thinking that the connection had dropped. i'll go see
about editing erasing the duplicates.. right after this. )
My apologies for assuming you had triple printed on purpose!
YOu are spewing all rhetoric, not a fact in the stream, all invective,
very feeling and expressive, but overly hateful and selfish, the very way
you think and project on to others. It makes you very simple to argue
with, cuz you're actually pretty dim, in my arrogant opinion and that is
why you hate people and think in terms of hatred... like an untrained
dog bites people.
Dim? Really! Perhaps it is you who should partake of a little research before accusing a person of that!
Whatever .bile. .yawn. .sir.
Your mother must have told you ghost stories about junkies when you
were a kiddie. You are the failure of the drugs war, a hateful man given
a way to be hateful in society, who would use it to spread hate invective.
Were it "arabs", "women", "blacks" instead of "junkies" your spew would
fit in the worst racist parts of the south. Its not such a suprise that so
many scots ended up in the south, now seeing the upstream sources on
that, yes.
Really! Why must I have been filled with junkie stories as a kid? Just because I don't agree with it?
Actually as a child I never came into contact with drugs in the form we're talking about. Cigarettes yes (not me personally) but cannabis etc, not at all.
It wasn't a topic of converstaion either at that time cos it really wasn't a subject much talked about.
No, my opinion of drug hatred is based on the children I have seen abusing these drugs, being supplied these drugs by dealers with no conscience, of the young girls and boys led into the prostitution game to feed a habit they have no hope of controlling, of the many many young people that have died from accidental or intended overdoses and finally, of the people such as yourself who try to convince a nation that it isn't in fact the fault of the druggies or the dealers or the manufacturers of these substances, but is in fact the fault of all those people who strive to eradicate the drugs problem.
/
*/
If you ride on the tube, its the equivalent in dust-particles-inhalation-terms,
of smoking 5 fags. Then by your hairbrained argument, since it is bad
for us, we should not ride the tube, because it damages our bodies.
Then we should not touch other people, because it might spread disease and could damage your body. If we follow that risk adverse piece of junk
you just dumped on us, we'd not participate in anything like football or
rugby that could damage our bodies. Thank you for offering to save me
from myself. I'm fine thank you. It is only damage when its damage.
If I choose to ride on tube then i choose to inhale the pollution all around me.
I choose not to inhale or inject drugs and wouldn't appreciate not having control over whether I am subjected to these drugs while in the company of those that choose to kill themselves in that way.
Do you really believe that just because our world is filled with many poisons already that letting loose another one won't make a difference? Are you serious?
I have a friend who died in the world trade center. He thought he would
never want to damage his brilliant mind, so he never smoked cannabis,
and now he's dead.
I'm sorry for that. That was an awful way to go.
I don't think for one minute though that that friend would riddle his / her mind with drugs if they had their life over again and knew when their time would be up in advance.
*/
That is why you advocate a policy that settle for a 1/3rd rate failure
and call yourself noble for it. You're the savior of 2/3rds of the people
and a thuggish bully to the other 1/3rd. You see yourself as noble, i see
it as criminal the negligent oversight in your judgement; your willingness
to settle for a crap solution that has already failed, means your a
pathological failure lover, not much of a rocket scientist, for all the
stirring.
When did I call myself noble??
When have I said that I settle for the solution as it stands now??
All I have said is that I would never settle for your solution.
*/ Well, as a parent too, and knowing many parents, why would i not
be concerned about kids. You spew column inches of hateful bile and
and all i hear from you is fear and ignorance. With wise parents like you
leading the pack, no wonder its not a very bright future for many kids
growing up with so many hateful adults. Its become the blind leading
the thick. God, as much as you want to protect your kid from drugs,
i want to protect mine from hate. You are more likely, between the
two of us, to infect one of our kids with something destructive, because
YOU would spew hate in public, you incite violence in heart and mind here;
whereas i wrote a passionate opinion that soon enough will be swallowed
by time, all the while the internet will keep printing colum meters of
drugs war bile to help restore the drugs war vengance.
You have written more hateful bile on this thread than many other people.
My kids are actually very well aware of why some people turn to drugs and what they get from it as much as they are aware of how dangerous they are.
I am not commanding my children to never do drugs, I have given them what information is available so that they can make their own informed decisions, aware of the consequences but also aware that it is an illegal habit.
At the end of the day, for many children, it will be the fact that it's an illegal habit that ultimately prevents them from trying it, and you want to take that away.
It is a sign you can't conscience civil argument on this, your resorting to
personal insults and borderline hate speech, "junkie"... ! you are just
another coward, hiding behind cowardly insults, and not a way forward,
or a positive way of thinking, talking or improving the situtation for us all,
just another negative trash mouth. sad.
Thats rather funny coming from a junkie!
I don't care what anyone says i think 'all drugs are dangerous'
And i hope no-one in my family touches them.
Are too - infinity lol
Iam not infinity x infinity x infinity good night lol
sweetheart
13-Dec-05, 02:20
I agree with everything you just said.
Writing propaganda against * these past years, as you mention, dropping
little messages to help shift public opinion away from bush before a bigger
mistake is made, i've been doing for over 10,000 posts, its a bad habit.
My poetry is what it is, and you've given it a fair hearing. Its all
i could ask and you have been more than gracious.
regards, jjc,
-s
Sweetheart, you have failed in at least one respect. I, and perhaps many others, have been driven into the anti-legalization camp by your posts. I would hazard a guess that most readers think you're a despotic junkie. That's not an insult, it's merely my opinion and a summarization of the responses to your posts. As I said previously, my first posts were merely attempts to give you enough gasolene (or should that be red diesel lol?) to set fire to yourself, and you have accepted the challenge with gusto. Not that I should be claiming any credit for this, I think you have indulged in spontaneous combustion without any catalysts from me.
But most of all, I find it sad that you seem to value your online social existence more highly than your physical one. Enjoy your walks with your dog by all means, but please don't blank out your fellow human beings. We don't hate you, we just don't appreciate your insults, and we don't think you're right.
sweetheart
13-Dec-05, 04:57
Sweetheart, you have failed in at least one respect. I, and perhaps many others, have been driven into the anti-legalization camp by your posts. I would hazard a guess that most readers think you're a despotic junkie. That's not an insult, it's merely my opinion and a summarization of the responses to your posts. As I said previously, my first posts were merely attempts to give you enough gasolene (or should that be red diesel lol?) to set fire to yourself, and you have accepted the challenge with gusto. Not that I should be claiming any credit for this, I think you have indulged in spontaneous combustion without any catalysts from me.
But most of all, I find it sad that you seem to value your online social existence more highly than your physical one. Enjoy your walks with your dog by all means, but please don't blank out your fellow human beings. We don't hate you, we just don't appreciate your insults, and we don't think you're right.
I pretty much don't give a toss what anyone thinks. I've only
ever discussed this drugs issue in this first go to test the water of this
board as a place for my pen style. Your crayola work is just
part of the gang-rape i expected on this thread, but it shows the
quality of the wood on the board, and the persons who desisted i have
great respect for. If i stick around, though i may not agree with golach,
rheghed and jjc, i found some new friends i respect for not taking a
cricket bat to my knees; and some kind folks who never even started
with that... much respect indeed. Its not much, but its a start, that
i get to see what kind of friend people are under stress, when someone
they don't know and don't agree with is being hatefully abused.
No, i disagree. There is no worthwhile community reflected in that bile,
nor any coherent rebuttle. It was just *hate*, and for that, ive not an
ounce of respect. No, there is no "we" worth knowing in that.
I don't agree that knowing a community THAT hateful towards
someone, is better than knowing a dog.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=218&topic_id=1339&mesg_id=1339
porshiepoo
13-Dec-05, 10:24
[QUOTE]
[quote=sweetheart]I pretty much don't give a toss what anyone thinks. I've only
ever discussed this drugs issue in this first go to test the water of this
board as a place for my pen style. Your crayola work is just
part of the gang-rape i expected on this thread, but it shows the
quality of the wood on the board, and the persons who desisted i have
great respect for. If i stick around, though i may not agree with golach,
rheghed and jjc, i found some new friends i respect for not taking a
cricket bat to my knees; and some kind folks who never even started
with that... much respect indeed. Its not much, but its a start, that
i get to see what kind of friend people are under stress, when someone
they don't know and don't agree with is being hatefully abused.
No, i disagree. There is no worthwhile community reflected in that bile,
nor any coherent rebuttle. It was just *hate*, and for that, ive not an
ounce of respect. No, there is no "we" worth knowing in that.
I don't agree that knowing a community THAT hateful towards
someone, is better than knowing a dog.
Your whole ideology of the world as you want it is based on supposition on your part.
You are claiming that the world would be a better place for everyone and basing that on your own belief and nothing more than that, and you really believe that we should fall at your feet and 'see the light' based on the junked up ramblings of someone who openly smokes cannabis, calls the rest of us ignorant (at best) just because we don't agree with you and then claim not to give a toss what everyone thinks anyway. Gee, I'd love to put the future of the world into your hands, not!!
And if you don't care what we all think why do you keep trying to change our minds??
You should have asked us first before stating that we all think the world would be full of 'stoned' junkies if drugs were legalised, I don't think that at all.
I think that drug abusers will be less inclined to keep it behind closed doors if it's legalised, I do believe we'll be subjected to junkies openly high for the same reason. It's ridiculous to suggest that that wouldn't be the case. But thats not me saying the world would be full of em.
But at the end of the day, junkies getting high and looking like complete losers is not my main concern. As a parent my main concern is children and vulnerable youngsters being drawn into such an awful world and testing various drugs just because it's legal so at the end of the day must be safe.
Why can you not just happily carry on knowing that your seedy little habit can carry on behind closed doors and we won't have to be subjected to the atrocities of it?
People like you are actually worse than the dealers in my mind. You are just as aware as the drug dealers what damage drugs do and you also know deep down that legalisation could never be controlled (or is that the true reason for you wanting it), yet instead of campaigning for education in all our schools you would rather just destroy us all with legalisation.
You claim incessantly that this drug war is failing, you blame several people other than yourself as a user, yet you suddenly claim to have untold confidence in those same people that they could conrol a legalisation of the same product.
sweetheart
13-Dec-05, 17:10
/*You are claiming that the world would be a better place for everyone and basing that on your own belief...
*/
WRONG. It is the belief of many many millions of people:
http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/2/1/17
http://www.cato.org/research/articles/carpenter-050104.html
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb109/hb_109-60.pdf
http://www.cato.org/current/drug-war
http://www.drugswarfacts.org
http://www.mpp.org
You want to personalize this, because you think, in your little world, that
you've defeated the argument by defeating and destroying the person,
by reducing the person, without morals who just destroys themselves and
others for a living by writing progressive ways to change our laws online.
Your own government is hiding statistics of just how badly drugs
prohibition is failing:
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/394/downingdrugmemo.shtml
You wrongly think that i make this argument "personally" or that you
are worth convincing of anything. Rather, a 3rd party reader will
read both of our works and judge for themselves.
I don't expect anyone to buy the case because "I" make it, but
because the facts back it up; and substantial decades of evidence
have given us the basis to make a policy course correction.
/*
I think that drug abusers will be less inclined to keep it behind closed doors if it's legalised, I do believe we'll be subjected to junkies openly high for the same reason. It's ridiculous to suggest that that wouldn't be the case. But thats not me saying the world would be full of em.
But at the end of the day, junkies getting high and looking like complete losers is not my main concern. As a parent my main concern is children and vulnerable youngsters being drawn into such an awful world and testing various drugs just because it's legal so at the end of the day must be safe.
Why can you not just happily carry on knowing that your seedy little habit can carry on behind closed doors and we won't have to be subjected to the atrocities of it?
People like you are actually worse than the dealers in my mind. You are just as aware as the drug dealers what damage drugs do and you also know deep down that legalisation could never be controlled (or is that the true reason for you wanting it), yet instead of campaigning for education in all our schools you would rather just destroy us all with legalisation.
You claim incessantly that this drug war is failing, you blame several people other than yourself as a user, yet you suddenly claim to have untold confidence in those same people that they could conrol a legalisation of the same product.*/
bile.. hate...bile....FEAR... bile.. yawn... stupidity.. FEAR.... hate..
.. failed drugs war... poshipoo...
Bottom line, i exist, and you can't live with that... you want to have a
genocide and kill all the drugs users... sick little brownshirt.
Go back, and read your own posts, but replace the word "druggie" and
"junkie" with "jew", and have a look at what kind of person you talk like.
You can't deal with the facts of the larger drugs war, so you try to
adapt the argument to a more thuggish paradigm you understand:
persecution of others.
But the war is failed, and the bile in this thread is testement to the hate
that has divided society due to drugs criminalization.
porshiepoo
13-Dec-05, 17:57
Bottom line, i exist, and you can't live with that... you want to have a
genocide and kill all the drugs users... sick little brownshirt.
Go back, and read your own posts, but replace the word "druggie" and
"junkie" with "jew", and have a look at what kind of person you talk like.
You can't deal with the facts of the larger drugs war, so you try to
adapt the argument to a more thuggish paradigm you understand:
persecution of others.
Of course I can live with your existence, you silly little man!
You're not important enough to me for that to be a problem.
Must you really try to twist this into a Jew thing. Seriously!
Is that how you back up and try to defend your anal arguments and ideas?
Save yourself the effort, it won't work with me.
Genocide? Kill all drug users?? When have I said that?
Thats an amusing analogy coming from a junkie who willingly abuses his body with substances he knows could lead to death.
But the war is failed, and the bile in this thread is testement to the hate
that has divided society due to drugs criminalization.
[/QUOTE]
I don't hate you. I don't know you.
I have simply made my judgements on the rubbish you have spewed forth on this topic.
We will never have a united society, and thats not because of the divide between drug abusers and us 'cleanies' but because there are many people in the world like yourself who hate mankind, put no more effort into the betterment of a country than insist we legalise a substance for the selfish indulgences of junkies and who appear to want to push the button on our downfall rather than stand up and say 'Lets do everything in our power to educate and eradicate'.
People like you will never be happy with the legalisation of drugs because that isn't your real issue, you'll then move onto the next item on your subconscious agenda which will no doubt be anything and everything that goes against the likes of George Bush etc.
Perhaps if you looked into what drives you to that then maybe you'll find the root of your desire to abuse yourself with drugs and won't feel the need to drag us all down to the gutter with you.
you want to have a genocide and kill all the drugs users... sick little brownshirt. Go back, and read your own posts, but replace the word "druggie" and "junkie" with "jew"
Okay, enough!
This is the second time in this thread that you have accused somebody of being a Nazi. Stop it.
I’ve tried to be polite in the face of your drug-fuelled rants and I have tried to respond to the few more-sober points with reasoned debate, but I’ve had enough of decrypting your barely-legible diatribe. You are an angry and bitter hypocrite of the worst kind; one who would shout from the highest rooftops to protest your own freedom of expression whilst smothering those who disagree with you to prevent them from being heard.
Perhaps it is the cannabis, LSD, mushrooms and Opium that have made you so bitter. Perhaps you were already that way inclined. I don’t know. But if you cannot restrain yourself and use a little civility when dealing with others then I would suggest that you take your copper pipe and crawl back under the rock you came from where you can fry your brain in peace without having to subject us to your lunacy.
Oh, and Porsiepoo – you can tell as well as I that the drugs have left him paranoid and unsound so stop goading him. It’s like shooting fish in a barrel.
sweetheart
13-Dec-05, 19:14
You have degenerated in to hate speech, filth and slander....
there is nothing to respond to.
The society you are protecting, with yout state of mind as a member,
is so uncivil in its hatred of drugs users that it is not worth supporting.
http://www.whynot.net/view_idea?id=210
You have degenerated in to hate speech, filth and slander....
there is nothing to respond to.
Slander? I'm at a loss to see any indication of slander here. Please do enlighten me, sweetheart.
sweetheart
13-Dec-05, 19:46
what is your point jjc?
People who use hate have lost the plot. I see hate crime when i see hate speech. I see the violence that always follows hate like you guys speak, i've
seen in my whole life, people, who would rather slander someone wrongly
than meet them and be disabused.
sweetheart
13-Dec-05, 19:52
Slander? I'm at a loss to see any indication of slander here. Please do enlighten me, sweetheart.
Yes. you can find an entire series of remarks where persons believe they've
sussed my intent, and it is wrong, what they're projecting. It is slander,
purposefully projected to defame though endemic framed
summary judgements.
I really think i'm done here, you guys are behaving like sharks, unable
to read, or argue a point away from my person... only operating on the
scent of blood in the water.
SAMITCHELL7
13-Dec-05, 20:09
What appears till hev been a topic on drugs and hids whats and wherefores, By Gleeber has turned into a compleatly different dissgusion and a slagging match, if you have something personal to say to someone else do it through Private Message and keep it private, it is now getting a wee bit out of hand and the rest of us, im sure, dont really want to know how you feel about each other
porshiepoo
14-Dec-05, 00:01
speech. I see the violence that always follows hate like you guys speak, i've
seen in my whole life, people, who would rather slander someone wrongly
than meet them and be disabused.
[/quote]
And you calling myself and others Nazi's comes under that description of yours I take it??????
What appears till hev been a topic on drugs and hids whats and wherefores, By Gleeber has turned into a compleatly different dissgusion and a slagging match, if you have something personal to say to someone else do it through Private Message and keep it private, it is now getting a wee bit out of hand and the rest of us, im sure, dont really want to know how you feel about each other
Seems you were ignored then samitchell7 nice try!
Poshiepoo are you sure your not on drug with the amount of rubbish you speak.
porshiepoo
14-Dec-05, 01:14
Poshiepoo are you sure your not on drug with the amount of rubbish you speak.
As far as I'm aware my system is clean as I've never subjected it to such abuse, however, all that will change if Sweetheart gets his way! In his world we'll all be subjected to the inhalation of god knows what just taking a walk to the shops!
Perhaps Michael Jackson has the right idea with the face masks! lol. Maybe he had some foresight into sweethearts world and will bring out a chain of those masks he wears. lol
Poshiepoo i would like to give you a present for xmas . how about a zip for mouth . lol Ive been thinking of different user name and i got one for you how about motor mouth as you never shut up .
porshiepoo
14-Dec-05, 01:34
Poshiepoo i would like to give you a present for xmas . how about a zip for mouth . lol Ive been thinking of different user name and i got one for you how about motor mouth as you never shut up .
Why go along with motor mouth when porshiepoo has been so open to interpretation?
Much more fun being called Poshpoo or pooie etc.
Cheers for the thought though, what a lovely gift!
Poshiepoo i would like to give you a present for xmas . how about a zip for mouth . lol Ive been thinking of different user name and i got one for you how about motor mouth as you never shut up .
HMMM! i think a few of us could think of a few user names
crafty for one.
I poshiepoop you talk a lot of pooie
[quote=lizzie]Seems you were ignored then samitchell7 nice try!
Deary Deary me, i seem to have lost 2 points for saying that,
some numpty is taking advantage of the rep boxes tut tut!!
here's what was left for me--
Why should porshiepoo not repond just because samitchell7 said so? left at 12.14 am hmm! not many was on then that could of made a difference to my points but it does'nt take a genius to work that one out.
how childless is that to bad post someone on that comment?
oh samitchell7 you'd better check your user cp i'd hate to see the comment left for you.
I hate to see mine tomorrow probably wont have many points left lol
left at 12.14 am hmm! not many was on then that could of made a difference to my points but it does'nt take a genius to work that one out.
You needn’t tax your brain, Lizzie; it was me. And as you are so keen to discuss it, here’s why.
As you suspect, I also left Samitchell7 negative reputation. I did so because his first, and at the time only, contribution to this thread was to tell those people posting in it to shut up. Hardly constructive and hardly fair to those of us who at least made the effort to try to discuss the drug situation. As far as I am concerned, there are few messageboard-personas more irritating than those who feel the need to jump in to a thread simply to close it down. Contribute or keep out.
I then left you negative reputation because your first, and at the time only, contribution to this thread was to point out that Porshiepoo ignored Samitchell7’s instruction and posted anyway. Again, hardly constructive.
Since then you have posted twice; one to suggest a new username for Porshiepoo (how very adult of you) and another to whine about my leaving you negative reputation.
Have any of your posts in this thread been on-topic? Have any of them been constructive? I think not.
keep your hair on grumpy, i dinna want to get into this debate and anything i had to say on my view of drugs to be torn to peices by you and porshiepoo.
Big deal i left a remark so do many others and if you go around bad posting them you wont have much positive comments left on your rep box, so go on keep bad posting me mind you have to wait 24hrs before doing that to the same person.
i'll leave you and porshiepoo to your thread then and mind stick to the topic ,no changing it to ask why someone mentioned george bush a staggering 30 times. lol cheer up jjc.
And who said my remark was only directed at porshiepoo
go tax your brain.
Can anyone tell me how to delete a message on this board if you change your mind abour posting it?
I know, having seen direct evdence, that pensioners are significant growers
in much of the UK. You haven't a clue, have a look at the booming
legal business trade in the UK today, in your clueless world, these
businesses are selling to morocoo and affganistan??:
http://up-in-smoke.co.uk/catalog/default.php?cPath=22_36
http://www.everyonedoesit.co.uk/cannabis_information/growing/index.cfm
So - you can buy books on the net to teach you how to grow cannabis! How does that in any way back up your arguement?
If you know pensioners who grow and sell drugs, that only shows the kind of circles in which you move. It follows that if someone breaks the law all their lives they are not going to change just because they reach the age of 60. And as for being poor - no drug baron is poor!
The pensioners I know have worked hard and legally all their lives, and are very concerned about the dangers out there for todays youth. I can assure you, none of them would know what a joint looks like, let alone growing and selling it.
And excuse me for being slow, but what does your next statement about legal businesses in the UK have to do with anything?
I know, having seen direct evdence, that pensioners are significant growers
And I know, having seen direct evidence, the pain and suffering caused to a whole family by one member suffering from cannabis psychosis. A harmless drug? I think not!
Can anyone tell me how to delete a message on this board if you change your mind abour posting it?
Click on the 'edit' button of the post you want to delete and you'll find a 'delete' button in the new page.
Hope that helps.
JJC
SAMITCHELL7
14-Dec-05, 17:17
To Lizzie and jjc I would like to take this oppertunity to say how sorry i am for upsetting you both this was not my intention, what started of as a very good topic on a very serious subject, turned into a bit of a squabble.I also got a bit of a hard time from the person who started this thread, and i had nothing to do with any points thing. And i certainly did not want to stop this thread. So will leave you to it All the best Sam
I think you have ALL lost the plot!!!!
There are points worth considering about the legalisation of drugs but sweetheart you have let those points get lost in your tirades which to be honest are too disjointed and angry to make any sense - even to me and i try to give everyone the benefit of a fair hearing. I cannot follow what your points are because they are lost in a barrage of insults and disjointed rhetoric. Porshiepoo you need to stop prodding him in the shoulder until he lashes out - your contributions lately arent contributing much either!!!!
I believe that its time society looked at different ways of dealing with the drugs issue. Whilst i do not necessarily advocate completely legalising all drugs it seems to me that it is time we stopped throwing our hands up in horror and running away from the idea. By considering it and making a thorough examination of it we might just come up with something new which may make a difference.
Drugtakers are not the antichrist - they are generally using drugs to fill a gap in the same way that alcoholics often use drink to fill a gap too.
Anyone who thinks that all drug users are scum should have watched the episode of Crimewatch when the family of this girl http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4573209.stm
were being interviewed. You couldnt fail to be moved by their grief and to share their devastation that their child should get caught in this terrible world they neither understood nor could protect her from - Emma was offered drugs by her boyfriend when she was in a terrrible state after the death of her sister - she was in pain, vulnerable and not coping with any thing at all well. Once hooked the downward spiral into addiction and prostitution is heartbreakingly familiar and then someone murdered her. Her poor parents lost two girls and its worth remembering that we are none of us perfect and we cannot guarantee that our perfect families wont be devastated by such a situation.... we can only hope and keep our fingers crossed and maybe excercise a little compassion to those people struggling to deal with these issues whether as an addict or the family of an addict.
Sometimes when i read these boards i feel like compassion is a dirty word - its not - remember that.
porshiepoo
14-Dec-05, 18:15
I think you have ALL lost the plot!!!!
lol. Only just noticed. lol
There are points worth considering about the legalisation of drugs but sweetheart you have let those points get lost in your tirades which to be honest are too disjointed and angry to make any sense - even to me and i try to give everyone the benefit of a fair hearing. I cannot follow what your points are because they are lost in a barage of insults and disjointed rhetoric. Porshiepoo you need to stop prodding him in the shoulder until he lashes out - your contributions lately arent contributing much either!!!!
And to start with I did listen to those points, but sweetheart kinda lost any credibility to his ideas when he started talking about mothers dishing the stuff out to their kids.
Idiotic idea!
I beleive that it is time that its time society looked at different ways of dealing with the drugs issue. Whilst i do not necessarily advocate completely legalising all drugs it seems to me that it is time we stopped throwing our hands up in horror and running away from the idea. By considering it and making a thorough examination of it we might just come up with something new which may make a difference.
It won't change the damage that drugs do. By legalising them we are just telling kids that although we don't agree with it itcan't be that bad for us cos we legalised it.
The only way (my opinion) that we can deal with drug abuse is keep it illegal, educate all kids like never before and make them aware of the consequences physically, mentally and legally of using it.
I for one shall save Sweethearts rantings on this subject and use it for future reference to show my kids the lunacy and irrationalities of a mind abused by drugs!!
Drugtakers are not the antichrist - they are generally using drugs to fill a gap in the same way that alcoholics often use drink to fill a gap too.
Granted! But does that mean we should legalise it? Just because we understand where drug users are coming from! Shouldn't we treat the problem rather than the symptoms?
Anyone who thinks that all drug users are scum should have watched the episode of Crimewatch when the family of this girl http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4573209.stm
were being interviewed. You couldnt fail to be moved by their grief and to share their devastation that their child should get caught in this terrible world they neither understood nor could protect her from - Emma was offered drugs by her boyfriend when she was in a terrrible state after the death of her sister - she was in pain, vulnerable and not coping with any thing at all well. Once hooked the downward spiral into addiction and prostitution is heartbreakingly familiar and then someone murdered her. Her poor parents lost two girls and its worth remembering that we are none of us perfect and we cannot guarantee that our perfect families wont be devastated by such a situation.... we can only hope and keep our fingers crossed and maybe excercise a little compassion to those people struggling to deal with these issues whether as an addict or the family of an addict.
The people who fall into the drug scene during times of pain, vulnerability are the ones I sympathise with. Not the ones who take what they feel is an educated and free will decision to take a 'controlled' amount of drugs. The system then becomes addicted and needs more and more just to get the feeling of euphoria that they crave.
Then they'll go on to encourage others they claim to love to try it as well, then the vicious cycle begins again.
Legalisation will not prevent that, it will just encourage experimentation.
Sometimes when i read these boards i feel like compassion is a dirty word - its not - remember that.
The thing is, it's been said many times before on here but it's hard to put across 'feelings' on a forum with emotive subjects such as this.
Yes, things are maybe said that aren't of any value to the topic, but I for one have found that although I may get into arguments on one thread with a person on another thread I could be backing that same persons decision. It's swings and roundabouts.
But does that mean we should legalise it? .
At no point did i say that legalising drug taking is the right thing to do. It is clear that at the mere mention of leglalisation people throw their hands up in horror and begin to mutter about the end of civilisation as we know it. We HAVE to discuss it as an option - only when we can have a sensible discussion about the the benefits of legalisation as well as the problems it may cause can we truly think about moving forward and dealing with drugs in an objective and forward thinking way.
Imagine you were trying to go somewhere but refused to turn right cos you didnt want to have to wait to cross traffic.... wouldnt it take you longer to get where you wanted to be? The time saved by not waiting in traffic would be swallowed up by the fact you took a less direct and longer route.... By ignoring and refusing to even consider that legalisation might have some benefits we might take longer to come to a satisfactory solution - consider ALL the options, seriously sensibly and with a lot of research and we might find the key to tackling drug abuse hidden where we least expect it.
We dont know unless we look - thats all
and
lol. Only just noticed. lol.
yep i have - ive been kinda ....busy
At no point did i say that legalising drug taking is the right thing to do. It is clear that at the mere mention of leglalisation people throw their hands up in horror and begin to mutter about the end of civilisation as we know it. We HAVE to discuss it as an option - only when we can have a sensible discussion about the the benefits of legalisation as well as the problems it may cause can we truly think about moving forward and dealing with drugs in an objective and forward thinking way.
I don't know what the answer is, but I certainly support education like never before. Lets concider the pros and cons.
The pros.
If drugs are legalised it will cut out the drug dealers, And (tongue in cheek) granny will have to go back to living on the pension.
The government can claim tax, which can partly go towards the massive health bill treating those who have damaged themselves in this way,
Since it is controlled, there is less chance of it being mixed with other substances, then less chance of it actually killing the abusers. injectors will have clean needles, lessening the chance of spreading HIV.
The cons.
We will be subjected to cannabis cafes springing up all along our high streets, Doped up druggies haluciating freely in our town centres adding to the mayham already caused by alcohol.
People who would never dream of breaking the law, now trying it because it's legal and adding to the problem.
Prohibition does not work, as it did not work for alcohol, but now the consumsion of same has become so accepted that it has spiralled out of control. do we really want the same thing to happen with drugs?
If we legalise some drugs, the barons will still look for new, more exciting and more lethal ways to ply their trade. The vunerable will always be preyed apon.
We now have generation, many of whom took soft drugs in their own youth and believe that because it didn't harm them it won't harm their kids. It's accepted, so how do the kids rebel? Moving on to hard drugs that's how. Heroin addiction is already spreading quickly through the highlands and the police seem powerless to stop it.
I believe cannabis should be made legal but only for medical reasons, ie. MS.
I pretty much don't give a toss what anyone thinks.
So I'd noticed, and I find it very sad.
Your crayola work is just part of the gang-rape i expected on this thread
My crayola work? Could you elaborate? You surely don't belong to the "crayola and porshiepoo are one and the same" camp. You can't be that daft. :rolleyes:
What's this about "gang-rape" (your words)? Since porshiepoo, katarina, drutt and I are all female (I think), and you say you are male, then I think you should reconsider your accusation.
So I'd noticed, and I find it very sad.
For what its worth I find it admirable to take such a stance against the collective morality of a society fueled by superstitiion and taboo.
I would hazard an educated guess and suggest that all our stresses and strains are due to the fact that we need to be loved and accepted by our fellow men or in your case crayola weemin.
We are brought up from the earliest age to condsider other peoples needs before our own. Im aware theres a need for that if we are all to live in peace and harmony, but, until we do live in peace and harmony Ill reserve my judgement on the wisdom in that method of educating our children.
We are brought up from the earliest age to condsider other peoples needs before our own. Im aware theres a need for that if we are all to live in peace and harmony, but, until we do live in peace and harmony Ill reserve my judgement on the wisdom in that method of educating our children. So until we do live in a world full of peace and harmony you would suggest that we teach our children to think of themselves before all others? Yes, I can certainly see how an entire generation of selfish little ingrates will help to bring about peace. :rolleyes:
Hi every1 Ive just started reading this thread which I thought was meant to be about all drugs are dangerous.I think that it depends on the attitude of the person how dangerous drugs are to them.Everyone has a responsibility to themselves to know there limits and to be careful.The people that take it to far get addicted.I think alcahol can be dangerous because of the attitude everyone has towards it.Its totaly acceptable to go and get hammered in the wknd, infact its pretty normal.I do it, but its so unacceptable and illegal to chill out and get high on a bit of weed.Why?
So until we do live in a world full of peace and harmony you would suggest that we teach our children to think of themselves before all others? Yes, I can certainly see how an entire generation of selfish little ingrates will help to bring about peace. :rolleyes:
Actually, I would only suggest that children could be taught to think about what it is that is making them feel what they think. Important questions that are never answered like; How do I work as an organism? Why do I feel this way about myself? Why do I think the whole world is against me? Its all about the inner and hidden world of you and me. The bits we hide and gaurd like a miser gaurds his hoard. The bits that may be responsible for a majority of all crime, all addiction, relationship break-ups, wars, squabbles and everything that comes with human existance. Theres a theory that the relationship we have with ourselves reflects the relationship we have with the world.
Ive no comment about your selfish little ingrates conclusion. Obviously I would disagree with it but at this stage it is not my concern but yours.
.Its totaly acceptable to go and get hammered in the wknd, infact its pretty normal.I do it, but its so unacceptable and illegal to chill out and get high on a bit of weed.Why?
Is it totally acceptable? Certainly not to me or many others I know. the drinking culture is getting out of control. Many deaths and a lot of misery is contributed to it. Why is it that in other countries, where they already have 24hr drinking, there is no, or very little yobbish behaviour and 'hammered' youth except for the british holiday maker? What has gone so wrong with us that we can't enjoy our lives without artificial stimulants? I feel ashamed because of the way other countries view us.
Drugs are not unacceptable by those who use them. Getting 'hammered' every weekend is an abuse and only accepted by those who set out to do just that. What we need is for a few of you to break free of the 'sheep' mentallity, and make it 'cool' to be in charge of your own lives for a change. It might be surprising how many more would follow.
Actually, I would only suggest that children could be taught to think about what it is that is making them feel what they think. Important questions that are never answered like; How do I work as an organism? Why do I feel this way about myself? Why do I think the whole world is against me? Its all about the inner and hidden world of you and me. The bits we hide and gaurd like a miser gaurds his hoard. The bits that may be responsible for a majority of all crime, all addiction, relationship break-ups, wars, squabbles and everything that comes with human existance. Theres a theory that the relationship we have with ourselves reflects the relationship we have with the world.
Ive no comment about your selfish little ingrates conclusion. Obviously I would disagree with it but at this stage it is not my concern but yours.
Isn't that a bit deep for a kiddy? Maybe they'd cope a lot better with a few common sense ground rules. And don't you think all children go through a stage of wondering about those things anyway - I would say in early teens. I certainly did. And yes the oppertunity and encouragement to discuss these things should be there. Educating them about the dangers of modern day living, that includes drugs and sexual encounters to name a few is a completely different issue.
Are you saying that it's better to be psychoanalysed about why you lit up that first fag, rather than told the health risks?
The latest information that I have about drugs tells me that the ammount of liver disease in Scotland has doubled over the last ten years which would indicate that at least one drug is dangerous. Alcohol,of course.
I don't think anyone has denied that gleeber
The latest information that I have about drugs tells me that the ammount of liver disease in Scotland has doubled over the last ten years which would indicate that at least one drug is dangerous. Alcohol,of course.
E ayes have it (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=2523&highlight=binge)
Did you address your last post to Gleeber or did you mean Gleber2. Same beginning,totally different fowk.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.