PDA

View Full Version : Drugs, sex, freindship, and suside.



Pages : [1] 2

Sentaku senshi
08-01-2002, 10:36 PM
Please read my entire post before you put words In my mouth, say I am something, and flame me.

A few years ago I belived in what sociaty told me was moral and immoral. I belived that people had sex before mariage were immoral. That smoking and drinking were immoral activies for people that are underage. I belived that someone who is in school sports was moral, and should be respected and those kids against the wall with cigirates are to be avoid because all they want to do to get you hooked.

Life however seems to be diffent.

I work with those people who stand against the wall with the cigirate in there mouth. Never once have the even tried to get me to smoke, and have only done the opposite and threatend me not to smoke. I know people who have lost there virginity by the age of 14. I know people who have sold there body on the street. These people are among the nicest people I know, I owe some of them for the countless time they have stood up for me.

Time and time again you hear of how teasing has driven teens to commmite suicide or worse kill others. Time and time again the people who push people over the edge are the Jocks, and other groups sociaty belives to be 'moral'. If your the reason someone kills them selve how are you 'moral'?

I myself don't do drugs and I'm a virgin. I how ever don't look down on those who do, but instead offer any support I can.

mithrandir
08-01-2002, 10:54 PM
>> If your the reason someone kills them selve how are you 'moral'?<<

No one is responsible for the actions of another. However, people do have a responsibility for their own actions, which do affect others. If I were to hypothetically tease you until you cracked, I could not say that I did not contribute to your actions, however, ultimately you decided to strike back by your own will.

It's all 50/50. Blame cannot rest on the shoulders of one person.

black
08-02-2002, 06:15 AM
we all fell sorry but it is..............Life.

Each person have his or her own life style. good or bad.

novacain
08-02-2002, 07:43 AM
Congratulations Sentaku senshi.

You are growing up questioning what you are told, trusting in only what you experience. Better than those who just accept the status quo.

It is difficult when the things you achored your 'morals' with / to prove to be incorrect, you must adapt as needed. Expect some more to follow.

Like when you found out Father Christmas was fake as a kid.

"without knowledge of pleasure, how can one experience pain?"

All I can say is I prefer the roller coaster to the merry go round and good luck.

Clyde
08-02-2002, 07:44 AM
" few years ago I belived in what sociaty told me was moral and immoral"

The society i live in doesn't think sex is immoral.

"I belived that someone who is in school sports was moral"

I don't think moral is the right word here, perhaps admirable, or desireable, but no not moral.

Moral is in like right and wrong (in fact its mostly just whats wrong), wrong to kill, wrong to steal, right to help people etc.

"These people are among the nicest people I know"

What you are discovering is that conventional wisdom is BS, it is conventional wisdom that says that the sports guys are all great chaps, and that the people behind the bunker smoking are to be avoided, not morality.

"Time and time again you hear of how teasing has driven teens to commmite suicide or worse kill others. Time and time again the people who push people over the edge are the Jocks, and other groups sociaty belives to be 'moral'"

Well conventional wisdom has it that jocks are more likely to be better people, as in they are more likely to behave in a moral way (that is they are more likely to help little old ladies over the road, etc.) qualities, and your smoking, sexually actives (and btw arent jocks the ones who go around sleeping with everyone, thats the way it is overhere anyway) are more likely to behave in an immoral way (ie. steal from the local off license).

Now that doesn't mean that sport is labelled a moral activity, merely that it is accosciated with moral behaviour.

This association is "conventional wisdom", they kind thing that when people say roound a dinner table every nods in approval and looks at you like you've sprouted another head if you dare disagree.

As you are finding out, such "conventional wisdom" is often a load of cobblers.

Basically don't believe anything your told without first thinking about whether its actually true, never take anything on faith, you can't be sure that the person telling you didn't also take it on faith, and the person before that, etc. question everything to be on the safe side.

moonwalker
08-02-2002, 07:48 AM
>I myself don't do drugs and I'm a virgin. I how ever don't look down on those who do, but instead offer any support I can.

you're right.

but the statistics show that people who use drugs are more
prone to commit crimes.
you need not look down upon them but you can be careful with
them, of course.

i may be exaggerating this a bit... but it is a little similar to saying..

"i know many terrorrists, but personally they're very nice to me. so i think we're all wrongly looking down on terrorrists"

the question is not whether or not they're nice... the question
is whether or not they're harmful to the society... (and drug users
are harmful to the society in the sense that they have no
control over themselves & they provide bad examples for children)

i am worried a lot because if people become more and more
tolerant towards drug users (which seems nice, of course...
because people are together then) ... there will come a day
when using drugs is "absolutely normal" ... and you know
the rest of the story.

Govtcheez
08-02-2002, 07:58 AM
> but it is a little similar to saying..

WTF? No it's not... Terrorists terrorize (hurt kill destroy) people, it's what makes them terrorists. People that do drugs, well, do drugs. There's no overlap there for any sort of analogy.

> I don't think moral is the right word here, perhaps admirable, or desireable, but no not moral.

I think he was saying he believed (past tense) the conventional wisdom that jocks were, by default, moral... As you mentioned later, conventional wisdom is, in this sense, BS... People can't be moral or immoral when taken as a broad group (unless that group is "immoral" and "moral").

> and you know the rest of the story.

No, curiously, I don't... Care to expound on it?

moonwalker
08-02-2002, 08:04 AM
Originally posted by Govtcheez
> but it is a little similar to saying..
WTF? No it's not... Terrorists terrorize (hurt kill destroy) people, it's what makes them terrorists. People that do drugs, well, do drugs. There's no overlap there for any sort of analogy.


That's why i said... i may be exaggerating a little bit..

wait a minute... so drug users only use drugs ???? and nothing
else ?? .... they commit crimes!!!! and well... think about
some little kid who goes to school... and one day her mom/dad
told him that "drug users should not be looked down upon..
conventional wisdom is BS.. they're nice people" ...
well... the kid is more likely to get addicted to drugs soon as now
he is very tolerant towards that idea.. as years pass by,
more harmful drugs will be sold like cigarettes... and forget
the human society that used to exist before!

(oh.. and by the way, the guy who kidnapped the two california
girls uses drugs too... and this is only one example)
> and you know the rest of the story
>>No, curiously, I don't... Care to expound on it?

well, the story is already told above..

if you're still not convinced, i can't help it.

Govtcheez
08-02-2002, 08:09 AM
That's right. Using drugs turns you, immediately, into a serial killer. Not only that, a kickass lobbyist from the sound of things. Thanks, moonwalker, you've opened up my eyes.

Do you actually have any idea how many people use drugs? I mean, come on, there might not be a lot of people in your middle school on them, but outside of Whereversville, there's quite a few people using them.

> the guy who kidnapped the two california girls uses drugs too... and this is only one example

Gimme a fscking break. Alright - the guy who goes by the name Hillbillie on this board uses drugs, too. This is only one example.

Troll_King
08-02-2002, 08:17 AM
Using drugs is a crime unless they are prescription medicine.

Terrorists respond to injustice in the world, however unfortunately they claim a lot of innocent victoms. It would be great if the terrorists would only target politicians.

Clyde
08-02-2002, 08:28 AM
"wait a minute... so drug users only use drugs ???? and nothing
else ?? .... they commit crimes!!!! "

I would like to point out the horibble horibble flaw in this reasoning:

Is a large portion of crime commited by the poor? Yes. Does that mean we should automatically be wary of poor people? No!

Is a large portion of crime commited by people in their 20s-30s? Yes. Does that mean we should automatically be wary of people who are 20-30? No!

Is a large portion of crime commited by ethnic minorities? Yes. Does that mean we should automatically be wary of people in ethinic minorites? No!

Is a large portion of crime drug related? Yes. Does that mean we should automatically be wary of people who do drugs? No!

Troll_King
08-02-2002, 08:30 AM
Why not?

Clyde
08-02-2002, 08:34 AM
Because you generalise an entire group that way, thats where prejudice come from.

You cannot judge someone based on the social group they are in, only on their actions. (ok i can't actually say "cannot", more that most people find it morally repulsive to do so, thats why racism is viewed as bad)

If all poor people were thieves, and all drug users were murderers maybe you could, but they aren't.

I've taken cocaine (i want to experience everything, and yes that includes drugs, no im not stupid, and no i haven't nor intend to take it again), yet i don't think i'm any more likely to turn to crime for it.

Troll_King
08-02-2002, 08:51 AM
What happens if God sends you to hell for taking cocaine?

Troll_King
08-02-2002, 09:07 AM
I think that the media and most people in general focus on violent crime as opposed to white collar crime.

Troll_King
08-02-2002, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by Sentaku senshi
Please read my entire post before you put words In my mouth, say I am something, and flame me.

A few years ago I belived in what sociaty told me was moral and immoral. I belived that people had sex before mariage were immoral. That smoking and drinking were immoral activies for people that are underage. I belived that someone who is in school sports was moral, and should be respected and those kids against the wall with cigirates are to be avoid because all they want to do to get you hooked.

Life however seems to be diffent.

I work with those people who stand against the wall with the cigirate in there mouth. Never once have the even tried to get me to smoke, and have only done the opposite and threatend me not to smoke. I know people who have lost there virginity by the age of 14. I know people who have sold there body on the street. These people are among the nicest people I know, I owe some of them for the countless time they have stood up for me.

Time and time again you hear of how teasing has driven teens to commmite suicide or worse kill others. Time and time again the people who push people over the edge are the Jocks, and other groups sociaty belives to be 'moral'. If your the reason someone kills them selve how are you 'moral'?

I myself don't do drugs and I'm a virgin. I how ever don't look down on those who do, but instead offer any support I can.

Look at it this way. Their only chance of not turning out to be big time loosers in life is about as great as your chances at winning a spelling bee contest.

Clyde
08-02-2002, 10:12 AM
"What happens if God sends you to hell for taking cocaine?"

Heh, you live up to your name rather well.

Govtcheez
08-02-2002, 10:16 AM
> Heh, you live up to your name rather well.

I love when people seem to think that's an insult... Like when people write into somethingawful and say "Boy, your site really is SOMETHING AWFUL ROTFLELFLEOLFOLFELL k thx bye"

Clyde
08-02-2002, 10:23 AM
Pardon me?

Govtcheez
08-02-2002, 10:27 AM
I didn't mean you specifically... It's just that I've seen a few people say that same sort of thing in a non-joking manner whenever Dean trolls...

"TrollKing, huh? Looks like you picked the right name, as you are a troll!"

It's amusing.

Clyde
08-02-2002, 10:37 AM
I wasn't attempting to insult, of course he chose the name deliberately, fully intending to Troll.

I merely said it, to demonstrate I realised that the post was meant as a troll (he seems to actually believe in what he says in some of his posts).

The line was "said", with a grin.

Govtcheez
08-02-2002, 10:40 AM
That's what I meant when I said it wasn't directed at you....

Aww, fsck it, I don't care - take it however you want. It's Friday, my poison ivy's fading, and I'm going to get toasted and play NES games all night.

:D:D:D

Dalren
08-02-2002, 01:24 PM
Drug use only leads to crime because drugs are illegal, look at the countries that have legalized drugs, much lower crime rates. Second, people don't die from most of the popular drugs, they die from over dosing on stuff that isnt pure, or from taking stuff that isnt what they thought it was. If drugs were legal and regulated these problems would go away. Third which is it easier to get, alcohol, which is legal but regulated, or something like pot. Its a hell of a lot easier to get pot, why because its illegal.

On a side note, a majority of the people in the US prison system are in jail for non-violent drug related offenses, if you legalize drugs, many of the problems with our justice system would be fixed as well. If people want to use drugs, then let them, they are only screwing up themselves.

and just as a quick reply to to the orignal topic, another author you might want to read is Nietzche, specificly the stuff that he writes about determining morality after the rejection of basic judeo-christian morality

-------------------------------------------------------
Proud to be a gun carrying, freedom loving, libertarian
Don't listen to Right-Wing propaganda, legalize it NOW!

Govtcheez
08-02-2002, 01:28 PM
> Third which is it easier to get, alcohol, which is legal but regulated, or something like pot. Its a hell of a lot easier to get pot, why because its illegal.

I don't know about you, but after I get out of work in a few minutes, I'm driving to my local grocery store to buy beer... I can't exactly do that with weed.

Clyde
08-02-2002, 01:39 PM
Maybe he's reffering to minors, its concieveable that it could be harder to get hold of alcohol, in places that are quite strict, than weed.

ygfperson
08-02-2002, 01:44 PM
i disagree somewhat with your views, darlen. drugs aren't immoral, but they can make people do immoral things. marajuana has a case for legality, mostly based on the fact that it's a low-impact drug. drugs like cocaine, pcp, and lsd are high-impact drugs and can cause people to become very violent, crazy, or both. no legalization of high-impact drugs will help out matters.


Drug use only leads to crime because drugs are illegal,
that's partly true. drugs can also make people violent.


they die from over dosing on stuff that isnt pure
what about alcohol? plenty overdose on that, and it's legal.


If drugs were legal and regulated these problems would go away
drug regulation was created to try to solve some of these problems. were these problems less severe back in the 19th century? look at the opium war. look at prohibition in the 20th century. (granted, prohibition didn't work, but there was enough of a problem to give it enough support to make it law).

If people want to use drugs, then let them, they are only screwing up themselves. what about the people in that neighborhood? who wants to live with people who are unpredictable and violent? drugs have addictive properties, which also reduce that person's sense of duty to his/her community. addiction means, in a way, that you put your drug above more important matters.


On a side note, a majority of the people in the US prison system are in jail for non-violent drug related offenses, if you legalize drugs, many of the problems with our justice system would be fixed as well.
i have to agree here. drug use isn't a crime, it's a problem that needs to be dealt with. sentencing should deal less with terms in jail and more in rehab centers.

Dalren
08-02-2002, 02:34 PM
drugs like cocaine, pcp, and lsd are high-impact drugs and can cause people to become very violent, crazy, or both

I agree with you on pcp, it does tend to make people violent, but i havent heard about cocaine or lsd making you violent, they might make you do some strange things but not violent. And you can treat people acting like that the same way we treat it with alcohol, penalties / fines / jail time for being drunk in public


what about alcohol? plenty overdose on that, and it's legal.

actually it requires quite alot of alcohol to OD, and the number of people who do each year is quite low. Mostly its college kids who are getting there first taste of alcohol and freedom from parents. And like i said, drugs when they are pure, and you know what you are taking are not as easy to OD on as they are now.


Clyde, and Govt, yes I was reffering to minors. I know that if i wanted to get some pot it would be really easy, just go up to the right people durring the day. Its alot harder to get alcohol if your a minor.

------------------------------------
Proud to be a gun carrying, freedom loving, libertarian
Don't listen to Right-Wing propaganda, legalize it NOW!

icarus
08-02-2002, 02:40 PM
i have to agree here. drug use isn't a crime, it's a problem that needs to be dealt with. sentencing should deal less with terms in jail and more in rehab centers.

Well, yes it is a crime. At least where I live. Why should I pay money to help people who have screwed up their lives of their own free will recover in expensive rehab centers (and trust me, all rehab efforts are expensive as hell).
Actually, let me rephrase that. I would, and do, gladly pay money to help people rehabilitate. But I do not think that I should be forced to pay money to help screwups.

Clyde
08-02-2002, 02:43 PM
" Why should I pay money to help people who have screwed up their lives of their own free will recover in expensive rehab centers "

If drugs were legalised the amount of money the government would make in tax would easily pay for rehab centres/health care.

Hillbillie
08-02-2002, 03:26 PM
>Why should I pay money to help people who have screwed up their lives of their own free will recover in expensive rehab centers (and trust me, all rehab efforts are expensive as hell).
Actually, let me rephrase that. I would, and do, gladly pay money to help people rehabilitate. But I do not think that I should be forced to pay money to help screwups.<

I'd have to agree, although I'm glad not everyone feels the same as we two do (and that they should choose take action). Think what would happen if the people who didn't have children stop paying taxes that fund public education. Rehab for drug addicts is in good sight for the well-being of everyone. The more people not using hard drugs that take over their lives, the more people who will be productive...well, in theory.

Hillbillie
08-02-2002, 03:27 PM
>If drugs were legalised the amount of money the government would make in tax would easily pay for rehab centres/health care.<

Another fact I see coming from sane people in this thread. :)

icarus
08-02-2002, 03:39 PM
If drugs were legalised the amount of money the government would make in tax would easily pay for rehab centres/health care.

I'm not yet decided upon that issue. The consequences of legalizing drugs are rather unpredictable. Does anybody have any idea what the equilibrium price of say, an eighth of pot, would be if it was legalized? I think that the reason most drugs are so expensive is the risk involved in all stages of the game. The producers in Columbia have to charge the movers extra to compensate for the risk of being found out and killed, the movers have to charge the dealers extra to compensate for the risk of being caught by the border guard, and for bribes, the dealers have to compensate for the risk of being ratted and the risk of being killed by rivals, so by the time it gets to the consumers, we are paying far over its "value."

Clyde
08-02-2002, 03:59 PM
"Does anybody have any idea what the equilibrium price of say, an eighth of pot, would be if it was legalized?"

I have no idea, but considering in some countries the tax from smoking generates 10x the amount spent on smoking related diseases, i don't think that the monetary argument really works out.

"I think that the reason most drugs are so expensive is the risk involved in all stages of the game"

Well perhaps to an extent, but remember drug dealers don't need to be competitive once they have an addicted customer.

It seems reasonable to assume that should drugs be legalised their street price would fall, tabbaco is a lot less expensive than pot even in countries like the UK, and i see no reason for the growth of the crop to be more expensive.

My personal opinion, is that legalising drugs would probably do more good than harm, the majority of crime is drug related, simply because thats how crime gets its money. Our chief of police said he thought the greatest step towards reducing crime would be legalisation fo drugs for this very reason.

If we legalised drugs we could do research on them, make them less addictive, and less harmfull. I'm a firm believer in education, i think if people were well educated then a lot of the worlds would problems evaporate. At university a lot of people do drugs at some point, and the vast majority go on to become perfectly normal productive members of society.

Advancements in the field are coming along quite nicely, there was a very interesting article, that provoked a lot of debate on the possiblity of vaccinating again drugs.

What you do, is effectively cause the body to produce antigens that bind to drug molecules hence preventing them from entering the cells. If you vaccinated your child in such a way, it wouldnt matter how much he smoked, he injected or snorted he would get no effect.

Of course the question is, do we have the right to do that, to effectively decide for someone what they can, and cannot experience? Hmmm... What it definately does though is offer a great tool for solving the problem of addiction; want to quit? Take a vaccine and you won't have to worry about caving in, even if you do it won't matter.

Another interesting development is the possiblity for a test for addictive nature to given drugs, that is, a simple blood test that could tell someone how easily they would become addicted, if someone knew catagorically that there was a 95% chance they would become addicted to drug X, would they take it?

I do think that soft drug legalisation is probably for the best, though hard-core...... well i errr towards legalisation but im hardly certain.

Sentaku senshi
08-02-2002, 07:15 PM
>No one is responsible for the actions of another. However, people do have a responsibility for their own actions, which do affect others. If I were to hypothetically tease you until you cracked, I could not say that I did not contribute to your actions, however, ultimately you decided to strike back by your own will.

It's all 50/50. Blame cannot rest on the shoulders of one person.<

I agree the blame is 50/50.

>The society i live in doesn't think sex is immoral.
Absitance and Chestity (sp) were what I was told were correct.

>Basically don't believe anything your told without first thinking about whether its actually true, never take anything on faith, you can't be sure that the person telling you didn't also take it on faith, and the person before that, etc. question everything to be on the safe side.<
100% agree.

>you're right.

but the statistics show that people who use drugs are more
prone to commit crimes.
you need not look down upon them but you can be careful with
them, of course.<
There not more prone to commit white-colar crimes. Second drugs put them at the edge of sociaty. Third ever work at a Mcdonalds, Burger king, Arby's or any of the places they do work? No one would work there if they did not need monney, customers are down right mean, everyone will tell you a differant way to do something so no matter what your doing it wrong, you will be yelled at because you get in someones way because you have no other choice, I could list a lot more. It's a wonder why so many people hate there job.


>I'm not yet decided upon that issue. The consequences of legalizing drugs are rather unpredictable. Does anybody have any idea what the equilibrium price of say, an eighth of pot, would be if it was legalized? I think that the reason most drugs are so expensive is the risk involved in all stages of the game. The producers in Columbia have to charge the movers extra to compensate for the risk of being found out and killed, the movers have to charge the dealers extra to compensate for the risk of being caught by the border guard, and for bribes, the dealers have to compensate for the risk of being ratted and the risk of being killed by rivals, so by the time it gets to the consumers, we are paying far over its "value."<
Ah but you see, drugs are cheaper now then when the drug war started.

>Well, yes it is a crime. At least where I live. Why should I pay money to help people who have screwed up their lives of their own free will recover in expensive rehab centers (and trust me, all rehab efforts are expensive as hell).
Actually, let me rephrase that. I would, and do, gladly pay money to help people rehabilitate. But I do not think that I should be forced to pay money to help screwups.<
The united states goverment spend 3 trillion dollers on the drug war. 2 trillion of this went to prevention and only 1 trillion went to rehiblitaon. Since the war on drugs began.
1. The amount we spend on prevention has sky rocketed.
2. Drugs are at all time price lows
3. We get 10% of all drugs that pass through the borders. We have done this for the entire time.
4. Most people get rehab in jail, because they can't get into a rehab center.

Nick
08-02-2002, 08:33 PM
Problem with rehabs is that for most people they don't
work and I don't think it's fair that *real* sick people have to pay their medical bills while druggies get free rehab.

Sentaku senshi you need to get a new job. There are better
low paying jobs out there.

Hillbillie
08-02-2002, 10:48 PM
>I'm not yet decided upon that issue. The consequences of legalizing drugs are rather unpredictable. Does anybody have any idea what the equilibrium price of say, an eighth of pot, would be if it was legalized? I think that the reason most drugs are so expensive is the risk involved in all stages of the game.<

*sighs*

Here in America, there is the Drug Enforcement Administration, an entire governmental administration. It's sole purpose is to keep drugs out of America. Then there's plain and simple enforcement of the laws the government provides (regarding drugs).

Keeping JUST cannabis illegal in the US costs taxpayers about 10 BILLION dollars.* Just imagine if tomorrow, this drug was legalized. Forgot the taxes that would be generated from companies producing cannabis products - the well of freed-up tax money would be overkill to fund rehab. clinics across America. In other words, you'd be paying a fraction of your money to fund the war on pot. The rest of that money can go education, defense, etc.

That's just one of the hundreds of controlled substances we have in America.

*Source: NORML; URL: http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3375

novacain
08-04-2002, 10:34 PM
>>Problem with rehabs is that for most people they don't work and I don't think it's fair that *real* sick people have to pay their medical bills while druggies get free rehab.<<

Drug addiction is a lifestyle disease in the same way as certain forms of diabeties, heart disease and skin cancers. It costs less to cure them than lock them up.

Because drugs are hidden, people who are developing a problem do not feel they can get help. They are usually too far gone by the time their problem is noticeable.

Are you saying that all people who get sick because they did not look after themselves (diet, exercise ect) don't deserve medical attention?

>>If you vaccinated your child in such a way, it wouldnt matter how much he smoked, he injected or snorted he would get no effect.<<

A drug called Naltrexone will stop the absorbsion of drugs for over 24hrs (mainly Opiates but also Alcohol). Comes in a month+ implant.

If you OD on Opiates they can give you a drug, Narcan, that removes them almost imediately. They give you two, the first into a muscle, the sevond intraveniously. This is because many heroin OD's will recover almost instantaniously and some run off. Only to OD again later as their body absorbs more of the H.

Unless you have suffered addiction and tried to give up (say smoking) or have a family member who has addiction problems, don't be so hasty to condem addicts. In my experience everybody is addicted to something (to help them get through reality). For some it is excitement (adrenalin) others it is harmful (drugs) and others have a problem with religion (faith).

minesweeper
08-05-2002, 04:17 AM
I certainly do not agree that drugs should be legalised.

In the UK we have a serious problem with our drinking "culture".

I mean I enjoy going out and having a few drinks with my friends but I always maintain control and I know when I have had enough. I never (anymore) wake up not knowing how I got home.

In the UK it is normal on a friday or saturday night to see young girls (late teens, early 20's) on their own barely able to walk due to the effects of alcohol. I regularly see young girls so wasted they require help getting into a taxi and need someone else to tell the driver where to go.

It is normal for police to be called out to break up fights in pubs that were simply started and fuelled by alcohol, even in my university bar, which being a university bar should surely contain people with more than average intelligence.

Just last week a guy from Cyprus whom I am living with in student halls went out to a bar. It was his last week in England, he has just finished a degree in accountancy and hadn't seen his family for a year. He was talking to a girl at the bar and the first he knew that she had a BF was when the drunken lout walked over to him and without saying a word battered the guy to the floor. He remains in England waiting for an operation on his eye as he was so mercilessly beaten.

It is normal here for groups of lads to be drunk and foul-mouthed at 3 or 4 in the afternoon. On numerous occasions I have seen kids scared out of their mainds because uncontrollable drunken yobs barge through shops shouting obscenities. What are the kid's parents going to do? Tell the yobs to be quiet? And risk the repercussions?

English people are despised in many holiday resorts such as Greece because of their diabolical behaviour and it is all down to alcohol.

I dread to think what level of social standards our society would fall to if substances like speed and LSD were to be legalised. The fact is that mind altering substances often mkae people aggressive and always cause people's inhibitions and levels of social responsibility to fall. Legalisation of more drugs would simply amplify this problem by making more and more mind altering subatances available for the masses. I don't agree that drugs (other than alcohol) are as widespread as people make out, I certainly couldn't get hold of any, even pot. I wouldn't know where to start asking. Whilst they remain illegal they remain that bit more difficult to get hold of and I am happy about that.

My advice to other countries would be to not go down the path that we have with alcohol or any other drugs, it's not pretty!!

rahaydenuk
08-05-2002, 04:32 AM
Originally posted by Sentaku senshi
...who push people over the edge are the Jocks, and other groups sociaty belives to be 'moral'....

WTF is a 'jock'?

rahaydenuk
08-05-2002, 04:33 AM
Echo minesweeper.

minesweeper
08-05-2002, 04:35 AM
I think in this context we (in the UK) might call a "jock" a "jack the lad". It's not a Scotsman as might be implied elsewhere.

RobR
08-05-2002, 07:09 AM
Er, isn't a "Jock" a sporting type chappie? Over here it would be somebody going through uni on a sporting scholarship.

minesweeper
08-05-2002, 07:12 AM
Could be.

Sentaku senshi
08-05-2002, 09:10 AM
Jock is someone on a schools sporting team. There the athletes of the school. Thus in any school that sports are the most important thing the best ones are royaltiy.

Nick
08-05-2002, 03:48 PM
Drug addiction is a lifestyle disease in the same way as certain forms of diabeties, heart disease and skin cancers. It costs less to cure them than lock them up.

One of the responsibilities of a goverment is to do what's fair and just. Do you think that's it's fair that a diabetic has to pay for his needles but a drug addict might get them for free? So I don't think cost should be the only issue -- the goverment is not a company. Cost should be well behind humanitarian issues, but somewhere the goverment will have to concede.

I also didn't mean complete absence of treatment. I have no problem not locking up the run of the mill druggy, it's the people selling the stuft who should be locked up.

Fountain
08-05-2002, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by Hillbillie
>If drugs were legalised the amount of money the government would make in tax would easily pay for rehab centres/health care.<

Another fact I see coming from sane people in this thread. :)



YEH YEH YEH...and like the billions made from tobacco tax all(ALL) goes to the NHS in UK to pay for healthcare..........right....

Fooooools, dont make me laugh. If drugs were taxable it would all vanish into oblivion....

Beer tax does NOT pay for alcoholics.

Tobacco tax does NOT pay for cancer treatments etc.

Drug tax- oh yeh..that will pay for the antidotes/rehab centres....LMFFFFFFFFFFFFAO.

DAMN...oh yeh, road tax does NOT pay for new roads etc....





If we legalised drugs we could do research on them, make them less addictive, and less harmfull. I'm a firm believer in education, i think if people were well educated then a lot of the worlds would problems evaporate. At university a lot of people do drugs at some point, and the vast majority go on to become perfectly normal productive members of society.



Hmmm clyde...so , the above post says what?

So ppl like me at UNI do drugs and lead normal lives etc.....So why do you think they need to be less harmful/addictive....

talk about hipocrisy.

Fountain
08-05-2002, 05:24 PM
and...minesweeper--you are freaking MAD!

PPL in this country DO go out and get lashed on a Fri/Sat night.................................and EVERYWHERE else in the world FOO!

The yopung girls do get lashed and need help to get in a taxi....in an ideal world that is safe from weirdo's/rapists etc...there is no problem.

The same people will wake up and not bother boozing again till next weekend-they are not fuelled by alcohol..

It is the aged drinking laws that are to blame...we have a culture of drinking fast because we KNOW the place shuts at 11pm....SO we rush the beers.

Try the continent and you will se the relaxed laws on boozing

Sayeh
08-05-2002, 07:13 PM
You have an unalienable right to injest whatever you care to lick, eat, sniff, inhale, inject, or whatever. Too many 'moral' busy-bodies have tried to prohibit too much.

In the US, the prohibition was original against Tobacco, Drugs, Alcohol, Firearms, and Sex. The unabridged truth about the prohibition was that it was dreamed up by a ruling class of people (elitist) that wanted to stomp the black man.

This is not a joke. If you go back and look at the unabridged histories you will find that the term CCN (Coke Crazed N*****) was coined ahead of the prohibition and used as a lobbying propagandist statement to gain 'moral' establishment over the blackman.

All they had to do was get the 'majority' of folks to go along for the ride, and the rest is a dirty history.

---

In a correct system, the fact of the matter would be that you have a right to injest whatever you want. You also have the right to pay the consequences for your actions while under the influence of said drug(s).

and that's where the 'system' falls down. How is it you can get life for raping a girl and 7 years for murdering someone? Seems a problem, doesn't it.

---

Other FACToids-- cocain is not addicting. Nope. that's a propagandized lie. Dealers lace cocaine with heroine to make it addicting (that's the truth). Otherwise, cocaine gives you a buzz a cool numbness...

--- you _all_ at one point in your lives have had the very best, pharmaceutical grade cocaine under various brands (lydocaine, novacaine, procaine, cocaine)... and yet you aren't hopelessly addicted, are you?

heroine addiction can be beat after 8 days of hell. The term 'cold-turkey' refers to a heroine addict's skin undergoing a cold, clammy, bumpy state during withdrawal.

----

As for bullies, hey, nobody ever said the world was safe. If you can't deal with a bully any better than offing yourself and those around you--- it's evolution in action.

fletch
08-05-2002, 07:47 PM
"If drugs were legalised the amount of money the government would make in tax would easily pay for rehab centres/health care."

Somewhere this was said to be comparable to taxes on tobacco. Unforntunately, the people in charge of the money will spend it on other things...like pay raises for themselves. Remember all the money from the tobacco settlements a couple of years ago? Where's that money now? Gone. What do we have to show for it? Nothing. Example: North Carolina (whose economy depends on tobacco...hell, it's the home of RJR) put all of the money the state was awarded into a trust fund for use only if absolutely required. After years of being semi-financially responsible, The Sate of North Carolina suddenly has a deficit - a deficit that, *coincidently* can be exactly offset by the amount in the trust fund. So they're going to tap the fund and it'll all be gone. Kinda like the Feds with social security. All that money, just gotta spend it.

Money gained from the legalization of drugs would never be used for such altruistic purposes as clinics, healthcare, etc. It'd just find it's way into somebody's pocket.

Sayeh, I'm not sure about the whole black thing, but I will agree that most of these prohibition type (social engineering) laws come from elitists who know what's good for you better than you do (not necessarily the ruling class, just people who *think* they're better than you).

Shadow
08-05-2002, 08:10 PM
> come from elitists who know what's good for you better than you do
That statement doesn't sit right with me.
What's good for ME, is a matter of personal preference, not outside preference.

Sort of like this:
Shadow: Fletch, stick your head in the toilet.
Fletch: No, I don't want to.
Shadow: I know what's good for you better than you do. Do it.

It doesn't make sense does it?

P.S.
Whoever started this thread definately got a politics discussion and history lesson.