Raves..

[Dave]

Interesting that he thanks a doc from Nida in one of the posts! I'd take what he says more seriously if it wasn't posted anonymously to a bb (I'm not saying I'm dismissing everything either Macca ok).

I still remian convinced that long term it's no good.

 

[Santos L Helper]

Originally posted by Dave
Interesting that he thanks a doc from Nida in one of the posts! I'd take what he says more seriously if it wasn't posted anonymously to a bb (I'm not saying I'm dismissing everything either Macca ok).

I still remian convinced that long term it's no good.

Irresponsible long term use of any psychoactive drug is not good.

 

[FIGJAM]

Originally posted by Dave
That's if you believe what a government says

I agree with practically everything they had to say, but Macca's sites gave you both sides of the argument and wasn't geared to producing the "it is all definitely evil" response that a governmental organisation is required to give!

I don't know how they know that ecstacy "destroys serotonin-producing neurons in the brain". Last I heard alcohol kills brain cells also and I also think that alcohol is a stimulant that causes the brain to release seratonin (if it makes you feel good, seratonin and dopamine are being released), so is that also destroying those same neurons?".

When all is said and done, if you feel a bit flat after ecstacy use, it will like a hangover, be gone in a day with a decent night's sleep (in my experience).

 

[FIGJAM]

Originally posted by Santos L Helper
Irresponsible long term use of any psychoactive drug is not good.

Agreed. Irresponsible short term use of such drugs is also not good.

Long term use is also evil, but I don't see myself aged 30 (I'm 25 now) drinking at the levels that I do now or even taking ecstacy at all! People grow up and move on.

 

[Santos L Helper]

Originally posted by FIGJAM

Agreed. Irresponsible short term use of such drugs is also not good.

Long term use is also evil, but I don't see myself aged 30 (I'm 25 now) drinking at the levels that I do now or even taking ecstacy at all! People grow up and move on.

Figjam, I'm over 30 and I still partake occaisionally. I call it 'responsible use', but that's taking us back about 10 pages.

 

[gPhonque]

Originally posted by Dave
Since page fifteen all I've seen is some twit claiming that only people who have done drugs can hold an educated opinion on them. Go back and have a look at what I posted prior to that when the discussion was actaully rational.

Some "twit"?? Getting personal hey Dave? Taking lessons from me?

PeteLX never said that only people "who have done drugs can hold an educated opinion on them." He said he was open to listening to educated opinions. You ignored the rest of his post (which inculded many very good points) and simply took one quote out of it and twisted it into an excuse to dismiss him as a 'twit".

Does that sound like somebody interested in discussion?

Yes, the following shows no understanding of drugs or the drug problem at all does it?

============================================================================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by gPhonque
Then why aren't alcohol and tobacco illegal Dave?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Politics. Governments make far too much money from tobacco and alcohol to prohibit them. In my opinion though smoking should be illegal and the penalties for drink driving should be a hell of a lot tougher.

I was actually after a different answer Dave. WE ALL KNOW IT'S POLITICS. You missed the point of my question, which was to demonstrate that there really aren't any differences in alcohol/tobacco vs 'other' drugs.

Also, you're answer is so completely biased it's not funny - "smoking should be illegal and the penalties for drink driving should be a hell of a lot tougher."

Wait, let me guess - you drink, but you don't smoke? (bingo!)

Im sbet that if you smoked, you wouldn't call for it to be illegal. And i also bet that if you didn't drink, you'd want that illegal as well.

As long as YOU'RE happy, right?

If that's not the case, why don't you believe alcohol should be illegal? What sets it apart from the others?


Originally posted by gPhonque
After all, they cause much more harm to society than Joe Bloggs taking his E , or Mr Citizen smoking a joint when he gets home from work, correct?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yep.

And THAT is supposed to show me that you have a true understanding of both the good, and the bad side of drugs?

Originally posted by gPhonque
When was the last time you saw a bunch of ravers on ecstacy punch on because someone looked at their girlfriend the wrong way?

Yet we all see that happen every weekend at pubs where people drink too much alcohol. So which drug is actually causing more harm to society?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No argument here. I've never argued that alcohol is not as harmful. I've no more time for pissheads than I do for junkies.

"Junkies"????? There you go again. You've just labelled ecstacy users "junkies". Again, showing no understanding of ecstacy use or users. Perhaps you should go to a rave - purely to wander around and witness first hand how a big group of people actually ON ecstacy actually behave? You'd definately learn something. You may even decide afterwards not to label us/them (i'm hardly a regular anymore remember - it's been over 2 years since i've been) "junkies".

And if you weren't labelling us "junkies", then why did you mention the word? We're not discussing "junkies". We're discussing responsible drug use. I have no time for junkies either, but that's not the point in question.

Originally posted by gPhonque
The fact is - some people shouldn't take drugs. Just as some people shouldn't drink alcohol. And just as some people shouldn't gamble.

If you are a responsible user of alcohol, why is it so hard to believe that people can be responsible users of Ecstacy? Or Marijuana? Or even heroin?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What's so hard to understand that having seen the harm alcohol abuse can do there are some people who aren't thrilled at the idea of what might occur under the influence of these drugs?

What's hard to understand is that you seem to hold a completely different opinion on whether alcohol should be legal or not, even though the bad side of it is as bad, and in most cases WORSE than the bad side of ecstacy use.

Yet you condemn ecstacy use. And even marijuana use. Does't make any sense Dave.

And again - that comment above doesn't show me you know anything about drugs at all. (and here you are using it as an example to try and prove that you do.) All it tells me is you've seen the bad side of alcohol, and you're not thrilled at the idea of what MIGHT occur under the influence of other drugs, despite having close to no knowledge of the majority of users of these drugs that you fear.

"the vibe" as mentioned above was a reference to the film "The Castle" and a scene where a lawyer rather than present a legal argument claimed "it's the vibe". Perhaps that's too subtle for most around here.

Too subtle? No - picked up where it was from. I guess i also read it as being a sarcastic remark made in reference to the apparent (in your mind) attitudes of the people who use ecstacy. And i believe that's the way it was intended. Again, treating us as a bunch of space heads. Not nice, and not the way to go about engaging in a serious and interesting debate.

This debate may not be serious to you - but if i ever get thrown into jail for enjoying an e or a smoke, then it will be bloody serious for me. Even though i don't fight, i'm not violent, i'm honest, i work hard, i pay my taxes, i help those not as fortunate as me when able to, i don't rip people off, i don't take drugs/alcohol and then drive my car, i own my house, i love my family (except for Chrstmas Day when they all drive me nuts) etc etc. Do i deserve to go to jail? I thought jail was for people who were a danger to society?

Please explain to me how I am a danger to society.

"FACT" my arse. I don't know any of you and as such have no way of knowing how valid your CLAIMS of being repsonsible drug users are. It's no slur on you, I simply will not accept as FACT what some one I do not know and have never met and cannot verify says on the net when it comes to an issue like this.
And, even if it is true, which I will concede is possible as you BSA and Santos have not in the past seemed like bull**** artists, you have completely ignored the arguments that Grendel and others have put forward, ie, that even if you can control your drug use there are others that cannot and that is why we have the laws we do. I've read a couple of replies on this (Deej and BSA's I think) and I don't agree with them. BSA said:

"And if individuals are so weak and stupid that they ruin themselves with their habits - well, thats their problem, not society's. "

Why should I go to jail because OTHERS are not responsible?

How would you feel about this topic if alcohol were illegal Dave?

Ah, but it's not, so that makes it ok.....

You say that WE have decided that these drugs are illegal. Then surely, when you consider the problems caused by ALCOHOL, then WE have made the wrong choice?

Is it so hard for you to believe that society could be WRONG?

That these laws are causing more HARM than GOOD?

Except that it is societies problem. They don't just harm themselves, they harm others, either by their crimes to support their habit, or by the harm they do to themselves - ie if my son overdoses he doesn't just harm himself, it'd kill me. You may not see that as your problem, but I do.

THEY Dave, are the minority. A point you have refused to accept, despite the fact that if the majority of drugs users acted the way you say they do, then this world would be completely fuccked.

You really have no idea how many people use drugs, do you?

You have a vision of what you believe is a "drug user" - a point proven by your inability to completely accept that Santos, BsA, myself, etc ARE (or were) responsible and successful drug users.

If we're not, then we're lying to you.

Yep, that'd be why I've stated my opinion on this on more than one occasion.

An OPINION doesn't automatically mean you have a good knowledge on ALL aspects of a certain topic.

Until you have seen the responsible side of drug use, you're never going to change your point of view on this topic Dave. That's why i urge you to go out and do some research - go to a rave etc. At the moment, you're just continuing to push the BAD side of drugs with no regard at all to those (the majority) who use them responsibly.

It's funny - the "For drugs" crowd have seen BOTH sides of drugs.

The "Against drugs" crowd have only seen the bad side.

Who is more qualified to give an educated opinion on the OVERALL topic of drugs?

That is what PeteLX was saying.

And that is NOT saying that you are uneducated - it's saying that you are educated on what you've seen. I'm saying you haven't seen enough (if any) of the other side of drugs - the contructive, useful, and responsible side.

Which would be why I assisted my wife on a research project she did at school on safe injecting rooms last year, which inlcuded the creation , distribution and collationof questionaires to over 300 people, including drug users and drug councillors. She came to the conclusion that safe injecting rooms were something that we as a society should consider as our current approaches were failing, a conclusion I wholeheartedly agree with. Not that I learned anything from that.

I'm sure you learned a lot from that. But did you learn anything about ecsatacy? Or marijuana?

Heroin is a different discussion altogether. Different group of people. It's not fair to take your knowledge of heroin use/users and assume that you can relate that to other drug use/users.

Next time you want to tell me what my intentions are perhaps you might like to take both of your feet out of your mouth first.

Perhaps you should take your own advice next time you want to put words into one of my friends mouths.

Snipped some more personal sniping. Way to go G, that's sticking to the topic isn't it? I dare say you engage in it as you have no real knowledge of the topic at hand. That's how it goes isn't it?

Well, considering i've probably doubled my post count in the past week with a constant stream of posts regarding the positives and negatives of DRUG USE, then i dare say that you're completely incorrect in your assesment. Just as i may have been with you. But when you laugh off decent posts (such as that of PeteLX) because of one little thing you could twist around, then that is topic dodging and nothing more.

So Grendel's shown no knowledge at all eh?

As a matter of fact, i spoke to Grendel in chat last night and we got a hell of a lot further than we have in this thread.

Has Grendel shown no knowledge on the topic of drugs?

Wel, Grendel has shown he has knowledge on the BAD side of drugs, and nothing more. And since it's the GOOD side that we're trying to stand up for, then i stand by my comment that mooster is the only person to have shown any real knowledge on BOTH sides. (apart from Santos, PeteLX, BsA, and myself.)

No G, people who are interested in discussion don't dismiss the opinion of those who disagree with them as "uneducated".

For a start, they're your words. PeteLX never said that. You did. He said he was interested in hearing from those with educated opinions.

Which surely, is fair enough considering there's been more than one person post for the "against" side who have shown no knowledge at all on anything to do with drugs.

And considering that, then his comment was completely fair. Why would he want to hear uneducated opinions? Is it smart for a person to enter into a debate with an uneducated opinion? No!

People interested in discussion don't assume they know all about someone else and their intentions when in fact they know jack ****. People interested in discussion don't ignore some of what others have said and concentate only on some other things they've said.

You could include yourself in that second sentence.

Anyway - i apologise if i got personal.

But you have been no better or worse than me when it comes to that.

Calling my friend a "twit" just because you misinterpreted something he said for a start.

cheers.

PS. i hope you're enjoying this debate as much as i am. If i wasn't interested in hearing from people with different opinions to those i have, then a sports based message board would be the last place i'd be discussing it.

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

I called myself a 'successful' drug user - not a 'responsible' one.

I honestly don't think there is such a thing as a 'responsible' drug user, not recreational drugs anyway.

The phrase, to me, is an oxymoron anyway.

Successful ? - yes I am, but only because I have so far managed to indulge my wants and curiosities whilst largely being able to avoid some of the more unfortunate consequences.

I would readily acknowledge this has as much to do with sheer luck and happen-stance than any 'good work' on my part.

cheers

 

[glenferrie boy]

Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
I called myself a 'successful' drug user - not a 'responsible' one.

I honestly don't think there is such a thing as a 'responsible' drug user, not recreational drugs anyway.

BSA, I personally believe that taking drugs is 'irresponsible', but it is something i am willing to do as the pros far outway the cons. But if you have decided to indulge in mind altering chemicals, then you can be a 'responsible' user, by limiting use, and by getting them from as reliable source as possible.

I would consider myself a successful recreational drug user (even though i am only 20), because once the weekend is over i am back into 9-5 mode and they don't affect my work life whatsoever. I do however know a few people that this has affected their work life, and it actually makes me want to work harder to ensure that mine is successful.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by gPhonque
Some "twit"?? Getting personal hey Dave? Taking lessons from me?

Yes, it's just as insulting as "fraud" isn't it? God save us from pregnant fish.

PeteLX never said that only people "who have done drugs can hold an educated opinion on them." He said he was open to listening to educated opinions.

As well as defining "educated opinion". I've said all I'm going to say on this. You don't agree with me fine, at least one other person did however.

You ignored the rest of his post (which inculded many very good points) and simply took one quote out of it and twisted it into an excuse to dismiss him as a 'twit".

I ignored the rest of his post for the same reason I ignored that one of yours. HE didn't sound interested in discussion to ME. If you disagree with that fine, that's your opinion.

I was actually after a different answer Dave.

Bully for you. So because I didn't give the answer you wanted I know nothing about drugs.

WE ALL KNOW IT'S POLITICS. You missed the point of my question, which was to demonstrate that there really aren't any differences in alcohol/tobacco vs 'other' drugs.

I didn't miss it at all, I simply do not agree with it.

Also, you're answer is so completely biased it's not funny - "smoking should be illegal and the penalties for drink driving should be a hell of a lot tougher."

Wait, let me guess - you drink, but you don't smoke? (bingo!)

Yes, though again, you're assumption of my rationale is incorrect. Smoking, even in moderation, leads to serious long term health issues. Two of my grandparents died from lung cancer (guess which ones) and I also watched two of my dads best mates die from emphasyma.

Moderate intake of alcohol does not cause the same sort of health problems.

Im sbet that if you smoked, you wouldn't call for it to be illegal. And i also bet that if you didn't drink, you'd want that illegal as well.

Nope. Used to sink piss like there was no tomorrow. Now I hardly drink at all and if it were banned it wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

As long as YOU'RE happy, right?

Whatever.

If that's not the case, why don't you believe alcohol should be illegal? What sets it apart from the others?

See above. Alcohol in moderation does not have the same long term helath issues associated with tobacco and the other drugs you've mentioned.

Originally posted by gPhonque
When was the last time you saw a bunch of ravers on ecstacy punch on because someone looked at their girlfriend the wrong way?

Yet we all see that happen every weekend at pubs where people drink too much alcohol. So which drug is actually causing more harm to society?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No argument here. I've never argued that alcohol is not as harmful. I've no more time for pissheads than I do for junkies.

"Junkies"????? There you go again. You've just labelled ecstacy users "junkies".

Show me where I labelled them junkies. I didn't, YOU did.

And if you weren't labelling us "junkies", then why did you mention the word?

Why not? I was voicing an opinion. Last time I looked I could still do that.

We're not discussing "junkies". We're discussing responsible drug use. I have no time for junkies either, but that's not the point in question.

I've already posted my opinion on "responsible drug use".

Originally posted by gPhonque
The fact is - some people shouldn't take drugs. Just as some people shouldn't drink alcohol. And just as some people shouldn't gamble.

If you are a responsible user of alcohol, why is it so hard to believe that people can be responsible users of Ecstacy? Or Marijuana? Or even heroin?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What's so hard to understand that having seen the harm alcohol abuse can do there are some people who aren't thrilled at the idea of what might occur under the influence of these drugs?

What's hard to understand is that you seem to hold a completely different opinion on whether alcohol should be legal or not, even though the bad side of it is as bad, and in most cases WORSE than the bad side of ecstacy use.

When it's abused yes. In moderation it does no harm. Even in moderation E has lasting affects on the chemistry of the brain and that's something I'm not comfortable with.

Yet you condemn ecstacy use. And even marijuana use. Does't make any sense Dave.

Answered above.

Too subtle? No - picked up where it was from. I guess i also read it as being a sarcastic remark made in reference to the apparent (in your mind) attitudes of the people who use ecstacy. And i believe that's the way it was intended.

No it wasn't. How many time do you want me to say it?

This debate may not be serious to you

You got kids G man? I do. It's BLO ODY serious to me.

- but if i ever get thrown into jail for enjoying an e or a smoke, then it will be bloody serious for me. Even though i don't fight, i'm not violent, i'm honest, i work hard, i pay my taxes, i help those not as fortunate as me when able to, i don't rip people off, i don't take drugs/alcohol and then drive my car, i own my house, i love my family (except for Chrstmas Day when they all drive me nuts) etc etc. Do i deserve to go to jail? I thought jail was for people who were a danger to society?

If you break the law you take the consequences. I'm not saying you should go to jail, but that I'm not comfortable with certain drugs being legal. The dealers are the one who deserve jail time.

Please explain to me how I am a danger to society.

Don't patronise me G. You know as well as I do that jail is about more than people who are a danger to society.

Why should I go to jail because OTHERS are not responsible?

How do WE know YOU are going to be responsible? Our society is one based on the rule of law, it's what keeps it functioning. If we have a system based on people being able to do what they want when they want because they know they can handle things then we've got anarchy and that doesn't work because sooner or later someone comes along who can't handle it, or who's definition of handling ti is different to yours. If we decide that it's ok for you to use E's because you are responsible then why not allow Fred Nerk to drive when he's .10 if he can demonstrate he's responsible? What's the difference? We have laws to protect us from ourselves as much from each other.

How would you feel about this topic if alcohol were illegal Dave?

Wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

Ah, but it's not, so that makes it ok.....

No, once more, it's ok because if taken in moderation it doesn't lead to long term health problems.

You say that WE have decided that these drugs are illegal. Then surely, when you consider the problems caused by ALCOHOL, then WE have made the wrong choice?

Perhaps we have. It wouldn't be the first time.

Is it so hard for you to believe that society could be WRONG?

No, is it so hard for you to believe that society could be RIGHT?

That these laws are causing more HARM than GOOD?

That's drawing a long bow.

THEY Dave, are the minority. A point you have refused to accept,

As you've shown me no proof.

despite the fact that if the majority of drugs users acted the way you say they do, then this world would be completely fuccked.

There are those who'd argue it's well on the way already. Drug use and the problem caused by it are not minor.

You really have no idea how many people use drugs, do you?

Never claimed to.

You have a vision of what you believe is a "drug user" - a point proven by your inability to completely accept that Santos, BsA, myself, etc ARE (or were) responsible and successful drug users.

I have an opinion on drugs based on what I've seen. That two or three people can use them ok is not enough to counterbalance what I've seen of those that cannot.

If we're not, then we're lying to you.

Wouldn't be the first time someones bull****ted on the net. I'm NOT saying you are, just why I remain sceptical. Is that clear enough?

I also said, I think, that even if you were responsible drug users (and I believe BSA claimed to be successful rather than responsible) that our laws are justified enough by the fact that we have people who can't control themselves.

An OPINION doesn't automatically mean you have a good knowledge on ALL aspects of a certain topic.

Never claimed to. All I've said was that I do not have NO knowledge as you claimed.

Until you have seen the responsible side of drug use, you're never going to change your point of view on this topic Dave. That's why i urge you to go out and do some research - go to a rave etc. At the moment, you're just continuing to push the BAD side of drugs with no regard at all to those (the majority) who use them responsibly.

No thanks, I've got little enough time as it is with a 3yo son to keep up with.

It's funny - the "For drugs" crowd have seen BOTH sides of drugs.

The "Against drugs" crowd have only seen the bad side.

How do you know the side you've seen is good? Perception is relative. What is "GOOD" to you may not be "GOOD" to others just as what is "BAD" to me may not be "BAD" to others.

Who is more qualified to give an educated opinion on the OVERALL topic of drugs?

That is what PeteLX was saying.

It's still a matter of opinion. You are no more educated than I simply because you've used drugs. His post was inflammatory and you know it. "c'mon wowsers"

And that is NOT saying that you are uneducated - it's saying that you are educated on what you've seen.

How does he know what I've seen? Or you for that matter?

I'm saying you haven't seen enough (if any) of the other side of drugs - the contructive, useful, and responsible side.

How do you know that I haven't seen the side you're talking about and decided that it isn't quite as contructive, useful, and responsible as you do?

I'm sure you learned a lot from that. But did you learn anything about ecsatacy? Or marijuana?

From that no, but it's not the only time either of us has researched the "drug issue".

Heroin is a different discussion altogether. Different group of people. It's not fair to take your knowledge of heroin use/users and assume that you can relate that to other drug use/users.

Of course, no one ever mixes or moves from one drug to another do they?

Perhaps you should take your own advice next time you want to put words into one of my friends mouths.

Perhaps, but I'm not the only one who interpreted it that way. If I was wrong I apolagise.

Well, considering i've probably doubled my post count in the past week with a constant stream of posts regarding the positives and negatives of DRUG USE, then i dare say that you're completely incorrect in your assesment. Just as i may have been with you. But when you laugh off decent posts (such as that of PeteLX) because of one little thing you could twist around, then that is topic dodging and nothing more.

No, I didn't laugh it off G. What I did was not take it seriously as I believed the author was not interested in constructive discussion but merely stiring up agro. "c'mon wowsers"

For a start, they're your words. PeteLX never said that. You did. He said he was interested in hearing from those with educated opinions.

And dismissed as uneducated those who.....here we go again.

Which surely, is fair enough considering there's been more than one person post for the "against" side who have shown no knowledge at all on anything to do with drugs.

I have no problem with that, what I did have a problem with was his dismissal of those holding a certain OPINION as uneducated:

"and people who haven't danced at a rave will say "responsible drug users don't exist". This is an uneducated opinion, and should be treated as such."

and in the next breath calling for educated discussion. Essentially he was saying "I'm not interested in your opinion if you believe thus" and that's not on. That's what I didn't like, ok?

And considering that, then his comment was completely fair. Why would he want to hear uneducated opinions? Is it smart for a person to enter into a debate with an uneducated opinion? No!

Who is he to decide what is educated and what isn't?

You could include yourself in that second sentence.

I could at that.

Anyway - i apologise if i got personal.

But you have been no better or worse than me when it comes to that.

Perhaps, though I feel there's a difference between calling someone a twit and calling them a fraud who know's nothing about the topic at hand

Calling my friend a "twit" just because you misinterpreted something he said for a start.

I don't think I did. Misinterpret it that is. Guilty on the twitting though. Apolagies.

cheers.

yup.

PS. i hope you're enjoying this debate as much as i am. If i wasn't interested in hearing from people with different opinions to those i have, then a sports based message board would be the last place i'd be discussing it.

Mmm, it's a way to pass the time on a slow day . Nahh, if I wasn't I wouldn't bother replying.

 

[FIGJAM]

Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
I called myself a 'successful' drug user - not a 'responsible' one.

I honestly don't think there is such a thing as a 'responsible' drug user, not recreational drugs anyway.

The phrase, to me, is an oxymoron anyway.

I would readily acknowledge this has as much to do with sheer luck and happen-stance than any 'good work' on my part.

cheers

Firstly, I'll let the gPhonque/Dave battle continue, because the neurons in my brain have been damaged as a result of my overindulgent ecstacy use and I can't read more than 27 words at any given time!

I agree with you BSA. "Responsible" and "Lucky" are two different things. Awareness to drugs is advisable, which is what I said from the first post about ecstacy in the first place. You can't ever help bad luck, but you can minimise it.

"Responsible Drug User" an oxymoron? Not really. I am not an addict to any of the drugs that have been mentioned (sorry, cigarettes excepted) and I feel I drink too much (mid-20's - it's tradition ) but I make the choice knowing the risks. With the risks in place, to come out the other side is lucky. Doesn't mean I do not know, or do not have control of, what I am doing, which is what I consider irresponsible.

I still reckon habitual McDonalds intake is more threatening to todays society than ecstacy use. Wierd, but in my opinion, true!!!

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by FIGJAM
Firstly, I'll let the gPhonque/Dave battle continue, because the neurons in my brain have been damaged as a result of my overindulgent ecstacy use and I can't read more than 27 words at any given time!

LOL! You bastard, I just snorted half a can of coke (the cola variety) out of my nose. Christ that hurts!

 

[glenferrie boy]

Originally posted by FIGJAM

I still reckon habitual McDonalds intake is more threatening to todays society than ecstacy use. Wierd, but in my opinion, true!!!

Its those pickles, isnt it?

 

[FIGJAM]

Originally posted by Dave
LOL! You bastard, I just snorted half a can of coke (the cola variety) out of my nose. Christ that hurts!

Upwards, not outwards! That's the "druggie's" code!!

glenferrie boy, it is the pickles. One third of the population get addicted to the pickles. The other two-thirds get addicted to flicking them onto ceilings!

 

[glenferrie boy]

Originally posted by FIGJAM

glenferrie boy, it is the pickles. One third of the population get addicted to the pickles. The other two-thirds get addicted to flicking them onto ceilings!

You can call me GB. I used to prefer flicking them onto mirrors (my immaturity coming through here) and watch them slide. If you did it well enough you could finish your burger while it was still in place!

 

[evade28]

i was thinking about this b4 (the whole concept of having some drugs legal and not others). its probably bcos theres a lot of stupid people in the world and they think bcos somethings legal its OK.
the government even considering making herion legal is ludicrous. like are they serious??
see what the junkies arms and legs turn into if they miss a vein with that ***** they inject into themselves. its vile.
i dont know what they can do to fix the problem as people always want what they cant (or arent allowed to) have.
though i dont reckon they should waste however many million on 'safe injecting rooms' spend it on rehab rooms. which fixes the problem rather than waiting for the problem to arise. yes i know some ppl just cant stay off it but theyre probably beyond help anyway.
yes im generalising here, but everyone does. you cant go out and ask every single person their opinion on something just so u dont generalise.

 

[FIGJAM]

Originally posted by glenferrie boy
You can call me GB. I used to prefer flicking them onto mirrors (my immaturity coming through here) and watch them slide. If you did it well enough you could finish your burger while it was still in place!

GB...The Great Britan on Church Street, Richmond???

I haven't and refuse to eat any burger at Mickey-D's, until they bring back the McFeast!!! Dammit, the Oz Burger? Who the f*ck wants beetroot on a burger?

Am I veering off topic again? Yes. But as George Costanza said, conversations should move on its own volition!!!

 

[glenferrie boy]

Originally posted by FIGJAM

GB...The Great Britan on Church Street, Richmond???

No but you may see me at the Glenferrie Pub... suprise surprise..

 

[Michele]

..............Also, you're answer is so completely biased it's not funny (g)- "smoking should be illegal and the penalties for drink driving should be a hell of a lot tougher."

.............."Wait, let me guess - you drink, but you don't smoke? (bingo!) " -(gPhonque)

And you believe only those who have tried or use drugs can offer an unbiased opinion.

Cigarettes have been proven to extremely harmful and with no known benefits to mankind - excluding profit-making - whereas alcohol, in small amounts, is actually beneficial to humans.

You have not put forward a convincing argument for the legalisation of other drugs - only a very biased opinion.

Our society has enough problems coping with the "legal" drugs and abuse, without adding to the list. As I said in an earlier post, years ago, smoking cigarettes was seen as 'glamorous' and 'sophisticated'. Now, ads show how much black tar is formed in lungs and how smoking is the major cause of cancer, emphysema, high blood pressure and strokes etc.
This places enormous strain on an already over-loaded health system.

If we, as a society, legalised soft and hard drugs now, future generations would have to face the problems caused by long-term drug use. And perhaps they would ask WHY?

 

[Eagle_Fan]

Originally posted by glenferrie boy
Isn't it just as bad that smokers actually know what they suck into their lungs, and they still do it?

No. They know that the next Winnie Blue they light up will be just like that last one.... and the one before that... and so on... They also know that for all the crap that IS in there, there are procedures in place during production that ensure theres no other nasty surprises. The same type of quality control mechanisms aren't exactly in place in illegal and backyard labs.

So no, not the same at all.

 

[mantis]

EF
Good response, allthough we are told that cigarettes are bad for us, as you said, we know what is in them, no special surprises, I haven't heard of one person dying from an overdose of winny blues after their first cigarette.

Same as alcohol, how many die from their first drink, but when it comes to coke, "E" speed or heroin a lot of them die after taking it once or a few times, there is the difference.

 

[Grendel]

This threads gone of into a total life of its own, for's againsts, rights of the state, rights of the individual. Harm factor, fear factor, protection, openness the ying/yang of life at work (now im bringing eastern mystic ref's in)!!

BsA, I cant answer any of your points that you might agree with because I guess im opposed to your views, though I dont hold it against you for thinking the way you do as I hope you dont hold it against me for thinking how I do. Btw Im like Dave and to an extent TT (who said he considers drinking a weakness). I used to drink a fair bit but now its a rarity (though I kid about it on the net at times). If all alcholol were to be banned tomorrow in this country in wouldnt affect me in the slightest.

My views on how id like to see things are from something I did a project at school of all places on a long time ago. I think it was Thomas Hobbs (Hobbes?) who first put up the argument of societies having a contract (something along those lines Im reaching here) between the central governments requirement to give the people freedoms enough to grow as individuals but the individuals accept that there is a need for that central government to have laws to rule for all peoples that live within that state. Otherwise there is anarchy (your the Liberian, you look it up!! ). Anyway I did a a high school project on it many years ago and the core of the argument to me holds true now as it did then.

Just touching on the why we accept alcohol and not a smoking drug/drugs about the only reason I can think of is history goes back to bachus and wine from the western society we have come from, 4,000 years of accepting a 'drink'. The bad drugs of the east 'opium eaters' I think being a more recent introduction into 'our' society and attached as it was to the bias and contempt towards what was considered a backwards society might (and this is just speculation on my part) contribute towards viewing that sort of drug taking morally wrong (and how easy has it been through the ages to convince the Christian world of moral wrongs).

ps, GPhonque sorry about chat the other night, the comp blew up on me and I couldnt get back on-line.

Cheers.

pps this I think is my last post on this... whens the footy back!!