Raves..

[glenferrie boy]

Originally posted by Grendel

Macca, the only reason the topic went of tangent was that the original thread was (hehe) laced (sorry had to do it) with ref's to the drug taking culture associated with it.

Grendel, here is the original thread:

"Raves..
I am curious as to who at Big Footy has been to a Rave, is thinking of doing so in the near future, and who is never intending to at all."

I had no intention to discuss drugs, the automatic assumption that raves=drugs is a common place statement from the uninformed public. However it's good to hear the arguments against drugs as well as for them even if Macca and myself have come up against some pretty stiff opposition.

 

[mantis]

glenferrie boy

If you notice the first person to bring up drug use at raves, was someone who enjoys going to them & he said that a particular club had drugs everywhere, hence, it wasn't one of the uninformed public who started it

 

[Grendel]

Originally posted by glenferrie boy


Grendel, here is the original thread:

"Raves..
I am curious as to who at Big Footy has been to a Rave, is thinking of doing so in the near future, and who is never intending to at all."

I had no intention to discuss drugs, the automatic assumption that raves=drugs is a common place statement from the uninformed public. However it's good to hear the arguments against drugs as well as for them even if Macca and myself have come up against some pretty stiff opposition.

Okay point taken. However by the tenth (not that many) reply a first mention by a certain GB(???) of a subject called 'K' came into the line of topic.

and away it went from there!

 

[gPhonque]

Are you a politician Dave? All you've done since page 15 of this thread is post smartarse replies, irrelevant arguments, and have repeatedly dodged the topic.

You've not shown anybody that you have ANY knowledge on the topics of:

a) drugs
b) drug abuse
c) drug effects
e) drugs users, and finally
f) the "vibe" (i believe you were the first person to mention that word in this thread - another fine example of your pathetic sarcasm) at dance parties. Which is a very relevant point seeing as probably 75% of people attending them are on these so called society destroying drugs.

All you've shown is:

a) you know how to be sarcastic (albeit very badly)
b) you don't believe drugs can be used responsibly (despite the FACT that from this thread at least, PeteLX, BsA, Santos and myself are "successfull" and "responsible" drugs users/ex drug users. Not bad for one thread on a footy website....)
c) you know how to completely dodge the topic being discussed, and thus
d) you have no intention on ever learning anything about drugs.

Myself, PeteLX, Santos, and others have made many strong posts about responsible drug use, only to have you reply with some bullshhit "fault" you've picked out of our post, rather than giving an honest and thoughtful reply to the points we've made.

I dare to say that the reason you constantly dodge the topic, change the subject, and ask pathetic pointless questions (to which you already know the answer) is because this topic is something you feel strongly about, yet don't have any real knowledge of it at all.

To say that we claim that it's only "those that agree with us are educated" is absolute horseshhit.

The only person on the "other side of the fence" to me who has shown any knowledge on this topic whatsoever is Mooster7. And if you go back and read the discussions between him and i, you'll find that i'm quite capable of accepting another persons point of view.

I don't accept yours because from what i've seen, you don't actually know anything about drugs in the slightest.

originally posted by Dave
I replied with what I, and most others, would recognise as a sarcastic definition of "educated discussion" as in my experience people who call for "educated discussion" aren't interested in discussion at all but are only interested in hearing from those who agree with them. In other words, frauds.

No Dave. The people who aren't interested in discussion are the ones who change the subject to something petty and ignore the the main points made in other peoples posts.

Basically, frauds such as yourself. People who don't really know what they're discussing.

If you wish to claim that because the indians used drugs they are safe it's relevant to point out that they practised many things that we also do not find acceptable today.

No Dave. It would only be relevant if the drug users of today were "rapin' and a scalpin'" whilst under the influence of drugs. Then, you could mount a fair case for them to be illegal.

But that's not happening, so basically it's just another ridiculous comment that is in no way relevant to this topic.



I absolutely respect your opinion on football/cricket. In fact, i'd even concede and say that you have a far greater knowledge of football than i do. (i'd be a bit closer to you with cricket, but i'd still put you ahead.) And that's why you won't often find me telling you you're wrong when it comes to football and cricket.

But it's painfully obvious that you have no knowledge at all of drugs.

You never got back to me after i offered to send you that article from the Bulletin.

Did you not read all of my post?

Or are you not interested?

I would have thought that you would at least be willing to read it and, perhaps, learn a few things from it?

Or perhaps it's you who is the fraud after all.

cheers

 

[Grendel]

Only the Mooster eh??

So my dead mate (smack) schizo mate (Grass) Alco mate and the two blokes doing time meant that Ive got no knowledge on the subject according to you?


As I said to BsA, we (the against crowd) only have your word for it that your 'successful' users. Can I ask how old you are? Btw it is relevant. At 17 my dead mate was invincible. At 25 the schizo was fine...at thirty he was a headcase. The alco developed after his missus left him. The two suppliers were/are in their late 30's early 40's (should clarify they were never close mates, more friends of friends type).

Now what id like to hear from you (and other pro) is why you should be allowed to indulge when others not as strong as you cannot control themselves from over-indulging.

Thats all, give me a strong case where the pro's outweigh the cons.

In all discussion ive ever seen on drugs and abuse of drugs (probably a seperate issue in someways but always going to be interlinked) nobody has yet to come up with an answer with an effective (imo) case for the pro side yet.

The law is there to protect those that cant protect themselves. Or at least thats how it should try and work (again imo). Drugs of the type you take are at the forefront of those laws.

Going around in circles now... and I didnt need to take anything at all to get in this state!

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

Grendel, these are some very interesting points you are tossing into the discussion.

I really think its where you stand regarding your personal philosophy towards society.

Do you think we live in a world where the individual should be allowed to do what they want - and at the same time accept personal responsibility for the consequences of pursuing these 'wants' ?

Or are you of the mind that society as a whole has a responsibility to regulate personal behaviour to stop individuals destroying themselves ?

One philiosophy gives pride of place to the individual, the other emphasises community or collective 'good' over individual development.

which one is right ? - Do parents, authorities, religious and political leadership really have the right to tell an individual what they should and should not do ?

Up to a point I think - but only up to a point.

I honestly feel with illegal narcotics, sure they are dangerous and its silly to pretend these are harmless or benign substances.

However - the main point about this is, drugs might be bad, but its the legal characteristics of these substances that will do much more harm than their chemical properties - every time.

If people choose to indulge in substance abuse - thats their problem, I honestly don't think it is the right of any authority to wag the finger and say tsk tsk "you shall not smoke pot - but hey, would you like a beer ?"

Why is alcohol considered to be almost a compulsory part of human life, yet cannabis (which is still a dangerous drug btw) is strictly illegal ?

I would challenge anyone to mount a convincing case to say that cannabis is more harmful than alcohol - it isn't.

Yet one is legal, and indeed consumptrion is even encouraged - but the other one is demonised as a truly evil substance (get real, its a plant - nothing more, nothing less)

Who makes these seemingly arbitrary decisions about what we are allowed to consume ?

Surely its our business ?

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

Grendel, I have met lots of people with your attitude, they wring their hands and lose sleep at night worrying about 'the effects to society' of totally legal and unrestructed drug abuse. They swear we will all be ruined if we condone this behaviour, they are totally freaked out at the idea that heroin, cocaine and pot could be sold openly in shops and consumed openly on the streets.

Yet when they go to work in the morning, they step over the bodies of all the drunks lying on the footpath, they que up at the Cafe for their hit of Expresso, they'll go downstairs and smoke a cigarette or two, later in the day they'll swallow Panadols by the fistful to kill that headache, they participate in the consumption of altering substances - just like everybody else.

Oh but you shouldn't touch the other stuff - its 'illegal'

my question is - why is some stuff illegal when other stuff is legal, and wwho the hell has the right to tell me or any other individual what I should put inside my body ?

cheers

 

[PeteLX]

Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
Grendel, these are some very interesting points you are tossing into the discussion.

I really think its where you stand regarding your personal philosophy towards society.

Do you think we live in a world where the individual should be allowed to do what they want - and at the same time accept personal responsibility for the consequences of pursuing these 'wants' ?

Or are you of the mind that society as a whole has a responsibility to regulate personal behaviour to stop individuals destroying themselves ?

One philiosophy gives pride of place to the individual, the other emphasises community or collective 'good' over individual development.

which one is right ? - Do parents, authorities, religious and political leadership really have the right to tell an individual what they should and should not do ?

Up to a point I think - but only up to a point.

I honestly feel with illegal narcotics, sure they are dangerous and its silly to pretend these are harmless or benign substances.

However - the main point about this is, drugs might be bad, but its the legal characteristics of these substances that will do much more harm than their chemical properties - every time.

If people choose to indulge in substance abuse - thats their problem, I honestly don't think it is the right of any authority to wag the finger and say tsk tsk "you shall not smoke pot - but hey, would you like a beer ?"

Why is alcohol considered to be almost a compulsory part of human life, yet cannabis (which is still a dangerous drug btw) is strictly illegal ?

I would challenge anyone to mount a convincing case to say that cannabis is more harmful than alcohol - it isn't.

Yet one is legal, and indeed consumptrion is even encouraged - but the other one is demonised as a truly evil substance (get real, its a plant - nothing more, nothing less)

Who makes these seemingly arbitrary decisions about what we are allowed to consume ?

Surely its our business ?

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

Grendel, I have met lots of people with your attitude, they wring their hands and lose sleep at night worrying about 'the effects to society' of totally legal and unrestructed drug abuse. They swear we will all be ruined if we condone this behaviour, they are totally freaked out at the idea that heroin, cocaine and pot could be sold openly in shops and consumed openly on the streets.

Yet when they go to work in the morning, they step over the bodies of all the drunks lying on the footpath, they que up at the Cafe for their hit of Expresso, they'll go downstairs and smoke a cigarette or two, later in the day they'll swallow Panadols by the fistful to kill that headache, they participate in the consumption of altering substances - just like everybody else.

Oh but you shouldn't touch the other stuff - its 'illegal'

my question is - why is some stuff illegal when other stuff is legal, and wwho the hell has the right to tell me or any other individual what I should put inside my body ?

cheers

Right on.

Personal liberty should be as important to people as their social conscience, no matter how well meaning.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by gPhonque
Are you a politician Dave?

Nope.

All you've done since page 15 of this thread is post smartarse replies, irrelevant arguments, and have repeatedly dodged the topic.

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.

You've not shown anybody that you have ANY knowledge on the topics of:

a) drugs
b) drug abuse
c) drug effects
e) drugs users, and finally

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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?


And then we have

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Michele
If a government or society had forseen the damage cigarettes/nicotine would do to indivduals, do you honestly believe that cigarettes would have been made legal?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, as the big tobacco growers in the States who wielded enormous political influence at thetime wouldn't have given two hoots about it.

Do you know why hemp was outlawed? Because the cotton growers were concerned that it would put them out of business. It had nothing to do with ethics but PROFIT!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Michele
- "3/4 of the population on drugs". Er, no not unless caffeine alcohol and cigarettes a re included.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, just to play devils advocate, they are

Or

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by glenferrie boy
The amount from E and speed is negligible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And would it remain that negligible if legalised? Perhaps it's just the paternal instict coming out in me, but this is sort of where I'm coming from. Drugs like E's etc are youngs people's play things and it's the young that they usually kill. People who die from alcoholism and cigarettes, drink drivers and their victims aside, are usually older. If my kids die from cancer or liver failure after I'm dead I wont know about it, but if they died at a rave from a sus eccie it'd kill me, so I'm not all that keen on them. I'll also be bloody hammering my son when he gets to driving age about the dangers of drink driving.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by glenferrie boy
(i am actually looking for some facts on the internet that prove this..)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let us know what you find, I'd be interested

============================================================================================

Naah, didn't think so.

f) the "vibe" (i believe you were the first person to mention that word in this thread - another fine example of your pathetic sarcasm) at dance parties. Which is a very relevant point seeing as probably 75% of people attending them are on these so called society destroying drugs.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Bee
Nah, Dave. I thought it was people who didn't want to fry their brains with illegal substances.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey, don't go using words like that Bee, we all know it doesn't matter if something is legal or not, it's all to do with the vibe man.


"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.

All you've shown is:

a) you know how to be sarcastic (albeit very badly)

I'm crushed.

b) you don't believe drugs can be used responsibly (despite the FACT that from this thread at least, PeteLX, BsA, Santos and myself are "successfull" and "responsible" drugs users/ex drug users. Not bad for one thread on a footy website....)

"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. "

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.

c) you know how to completely dodge the topic being discussed, and thus

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

d) you have no intention on ever learning anything about drugs.

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.

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.


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?

To say that we claim that it's only "those that agree with us are educated" is absolute horseshhit.

I didn't say you, BSA and Santos did that, but that was exactly the tone of Pete's post. "C'mon wowsers pick me apart" "c'mon ravers back me up" "hopefully reactionaries wont pick me apart".
You had quite a dip at TT for generalising but seem content to engage in it yourself. To coin a phrase, "Who's the fraud now"????

The only person on the "other side of the fence" to me who has shown any knowledge on this topic whatsoever is Mooster7. And if you go back and read the discussions between him and i, you'll find that i'm quite capable of accepting another persons point of view.

So Grendel's shown no knowledge at all eh?

I don't accept yours because from what i've seen, you don't actually know anything about drugs in the slightest.

I'm crushed even more.

No Dave. The people who aren't interested in discussion are the ones who change the subject to something petty and ignore the the main points made in other peoples posts.

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

Basically, frauds such as yourself. People who don't really know what they're discussing.

Ah, we're getting personal again.

No Dave. It would only be relevant if the drug users of today were "rapin' and a scalpin'" whilst under the influence of drugs. Then, you could mount a fair case for them to be illegal.

Rubbish, the two weren't related. Indians didn't only scalp etc when on drugs. You've missed the point entirely. Just because the Indians did drugs doesn't make it ok for us to, that was the point I was illustrating with the example.

I absolutely respect your opinion on football/cricket. In fact, i'd even concede and say that you have a far greater knowledge of football than i do. (i'd be a bit closer to you with cricket, but i'd still put you ahead.) And that's why you won't often find me telling you you're wrong when it comes to football and cricket.

Aw shucks. (no sarcasm either). Lucky I get told I'm full of it at work else I'd get a big head.

But it's painfully obvious that you have no knowledge at all of drugs.

I'm sure in your world it is.

You never got back to me after i offered to send you that article from the Bulletin.

Did you not read all of my post?

I stopped reading after "That is just another typical ignorant comment".

Or are you not interested?

Not in "open minded" posts like that.

I would have thought that you would at least be willing to read it and, perhaps, learn a few things from it?

Certainly.

Or perhaps it's you who is the fraud after all.

You never learn do you?

 

[Santos L Helper]

Dave, because I'm lazy, I'm not going to read over all my posts, but I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't say that anyone who disagrees with me is not educated. I'm positive that my main points were that there were too many uneducated opinions on stats and effects of legal drugs against illicit drugs. The last time I ranted was in direct reply to the implication that 'painkillers' were harmless.
If I said that anyone who disagrees with me is uneducated.......I apologise, but I definitely still stand by my belief that too many people bandy around theories and beliefs without any educated understanding of the problem.

 

[PeteLX]

Dave:

Have you ever been to a rave?

What do you think of ecstasy?

Just curious. Can't remember (drug haze obviously)

Getting very tired of this thread because of long winded tripe like you. Why didn't you mention the fact that you and your wife did a study on heroin shooting galleries earlier? Too relevant?

If you have no opinion on raves, go to one. That's my only point for you. Don't wish to stir up any more issues for you.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
Do you think we live in a world where the individual should be allowed to do what they want - and at the same time accept personal responsibility for the consequences of pursuing these 'wants' ?

I don't know about Grendel but that sounds pretty damn close to anarchy to me. Is that what you're talking about.

Or are you of the mind that society as a whole has a responsibility to regulate personal behaviour to stop individuals destroying themselves ?

In some areas yes. As a society we regulate a great deal of what it is we can and cannot do.

One philiosophy gives pride of place to the individual, the other emphasises community or collective 'good' over individual development.

And is there no middle ground?

which one is right ? - Do parents, authorities, religious and political leadership really have the right to tell an individual what they should and should not do ?

Up to a point I think - but only up to a point.

Agreed. I think it's where the line is drawn that we disagree.

I honestly feel with illegal narcotics, sure they are dangerous and its silly to pretend these are harmless or benign substances.

However - the main point about this is, drugs might be bad, but its the legal characteristics of these substances that will do much more harm than their chemical properties - every time.

If people choose to indulge in substance abuse - thats their problem, I honestly don't think it is the right of any authority to wag the finger and say tsk tsk "you shall not smoke pot - but hey, would you like a beer ?"

It does seem a little inconsistant. What's the answer? Dunno. I've always equated pot with nicotine though. It seems incongruos (sp?) that one is legal and the other isn't.

Why is alcohol considered to be almost a compulsory part of human life, yet cannabis (which is still a dangerous drug btw) is strictly illegal ?

The origins of the illegality of hemp are economical rather than ethical IIRC.

I would challenge anyone to mount a convincing case to say that cannabis is more harmful than alcohol - it isn't.

The abuse of it yes, though if taken in moderation the long term health effect are still worse, particularly if you mix it with tobacco to smoke.

Yet one is legal, and indeed consumptrion is even encouraged - but the other one is demonised as a truly evil substance (get real, its a plant - nothing more, nothing less)

Who makes these seemingly arbitrary decisions about what we are allowed to consume ?

We do, all of us in the way we vote. If enough people wanted pot legallised it would be.

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

I don't agree with that. People don't just hurt themselves.

my question is - why is some stuff illegal when other stuff is legal,

Because the majority of us decided that some stuff is ok and other stuff isn't. In some cases those decisions have been helped along by a great deal of lobbying and no doubt outright falsehoods, but there you go.

and wwho the hell has the right to tell me or any other individual what I should put inside my body ?

"We" all do. The same way "we" have the right to decide that after putting certain things in our bodies we can't drive our cars etc etc. It's the way democracy works. Don't like it? You've got three choices, live somewhere else where you're allowed to do it or do it anyway and risk the consequences or try and get the law changed.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Santos L Helper
Dave, because I'm lazy, I'm not going to read over all my posts, but I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't say that anyone who disagrees with me is not educated.I'm positive that my main points were that there were too many uneducated opinions on stats and effects of legal drugs against illicit drugs. The last time I ranted was in direct reply to the implication that 'painkillers' were harmless.If I said that anyone who disagrees with me is uneducated.......I apologise, but I definitely still stand by my belief that too many people bandy around theories and beliefs without any educated understanding of the problem.

Santos, I never said or thought you did, G's putting words in my mouth. The only person who did that, IMO, was Pete. I have no problem with your stance on drugs, or G's or BSA's or even Pete's (on drugs that is) even though I may not agree with you.

cheers

 

[FIGJAM]

Originally posted by FIGJAM
Ironically, I haven't ever been to a "rave" as such, but frequently go to clubs with the E-culture.

I usually go out with mates doing "regular" activities until about 3am and then go out to a club. I often end up at Bubble (rear of Tattou) which has the hard trance I like.

Aparantly there is a big place that has opened up near the Docklands, but I haven't been there yet.

I went to Room on Glenferrie Road for New Years and it f*cken rocked! I haven't seen so many drugs going around a club in my life!! Don't know if it is like that all the time though, as I haven't been there much.

If thinking of taking pills for the first time, I reccommend this website which will help you out http://www.dancesafe.org/ . A lot of pills nowadays contain Ketamine or "Special K" as it is fashoinable to have strong visuals while dancing. It is a bit freaky though, so it is important to know what is going on beforehand.

Doh, this was all my fault!!!

Notice that I wasn't suggesting anyone use drugs and said should they chose to do so, I offered them a place to acquire knowledge to use them responsibly and with all relevant information.

Dave, I think that PeteLX was insinuating that you were "uneducated" if you disagree with his opinion and if he was he souldn't have. I do however think that there are two sides to every argument. Government sponsored pamphlets and newspaper articles offer 50% of the argument (you guess which side).

Imagine a government pamphlet for alcohol for example:

- Causes Nausea and often leads to Vomiting
- Kills Brain Cells
- Causes Violent Tendancies
- Factor in many Rapes and Murders
- Can harm virtually every organ in the body
- Is the single most important cause of illness and death from liver disease
- Depresses the immune system
- Is associated with cardiovascular diseases such as stroke and hypertension
- Highly addictive
etc. etc. etc.

Yet despite the underlying truths, we all know that this simply does not mean that you can't go out tonight and have an enjoyable drink without causing irrepairable damage to your body, vomit or kill someone!

I think this is what PeteLX is getting at.

As for "frying your brain", Bee, it is possible with excessive use of ecstacy to alter the chemical balance of your brain. This term "frying" is ridiculous. To say that responsible ecstasy users are causing irrepairable damage to their brain, is akin to saying all responsible alcohol users are causing irrepairable damage to their liver and kidneys. It is ludicrous and borderline laughable!

Drugs is drugs is drugs. True. But can people exercize responsibility with them? Most people here enjoy the odd drink without any of the aforementioned problems, so the answer is yes. Some people here responsibly enjoy the odd E, please respect their responsibility.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by PeteLX
Dave:

Have you ever been to a rave?

No, and I doubt I ever will. I haven't been commenting specifically on raves but rather the issue of drug use that was raised during this discussion. Is that a problem?

What do you think of ecstasy?

From what I've read about it the long term health implications are not good and I'm quite happy that it is illegal.

Just curious. Can't remember (drug haze obviously)

Getting very tired of this thread because of long winded tripe like you.

Ah, taking lessons from the G man.

Why didn't you mention the fact that you and your wife did a study on heroin shooting galleries earlier? Too relevant?

It wasn't relevant to the discussion as we weren't talking about injecting rooms but drug use itself.

If you have no opinion on raves, go to one. That's my only point for you. Don't wish to stir up any more issues for you.

No thanks, as an old married fart with 1.4 kids it's not my cup of tea. Does that make me a wowser ?

 

[Jars458]

Just like to say that this is another quality BigFooty thread

Lots of information and personally I have learned a few things from it.

Good to see the peanut gallery and the trouble makers stayed out of it

Too much trouble for them to discuss an important and interesting topic.


Now, whose for a drink?

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by FIGJAM
Doh, this was all my fault!!!

Typical. Bloody collingwood supporters, always stirring up trouble!

(joke joyces)

Dave, I think that PeteLX was insinuating that you were "uneducated" if you disagree with his opinion and if he was he souldn't have. I do however think that there are two sides to every argument.

Never suggested there weren't. In a society such as ours there will always be disent on issues such as this one.

Government sponsored pamphlets and newspaper articles offer 50% of the argument (you guess which side).

Imagine a government pamphlet for alcohol for example:

- Causes Nausea and often leads to Vomiting
- Kills Brain Cells
- Causes Violent Tendancies
- Factor in many Rapes and Murders
- Can harm virtually every organ in the body
- Is the single most important cause of illness and death from liver disease
- Depresses the immune system
- Is associated with cardiovascular diseases such as stroke and hypertension
- Highly addictive
etc. etc. etc.

Not to mention impotence, blurred vision and impairs judgement

Yet despite the underlying truths, we all know that this simply does not mean that you can't go out tonight and have an enjoyable drink without causing irrepairable damage to your body, vomit or kill someone!

Yes, in moderation like many substances it's ok. What I, and others, believe is that there are some substances, that even used in moderation, are bloody dangerous and as such should be restricted.



P.S even too much water can kill you. Ban H2O!!!!!!!!

 

[Santos L Helper]

Originally posted by Jars458
Just like to say that this is another quality BigFooty thread

Lots of information and personally I have learned a few things from it.

Good to see the peanut gallery and the trouble makers stayed out of it

Too much trouble for them to discuss an important and interesting topic.


Now, whose for a drink?

Jars, we should catch up for a drink or 1000 again soon. This time I'll try not to fall down going over the seats.
Also good to see the 'peanut gallery' is catching on.

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by Santos L Helper


Jars, we should catch up for a drink or 1000 again soon. This time I'll try not to fall down going over the seats.
Also good to see the 'peanut gallery' is catching on.

As I always agree with you 110% Santos, I have adopted the "peanut gallery" as an offical BigFooty term.

Drink sounds good

I am hopefully off the the Schutzenfest tommorow. Are you going or will you still be looking after the babushka at the Tour Down Under.

 

[Santos L Helper]

Originally posted by Jars458


As I always agree with you 110% Santos, I have adopted the "peanut gallery" as an offical BigFooty term.

Drink sounds good

I am hopefully off the the Schutzenfest tommorow. Are you going or will you still be looking after the babushka at the Tour Down Under.

Yes mate, I'm going to be on Montefiore Hill on Sunday, just under the big blow up arch and i'll be rendering plenty of assistance to the bevy of young beauties on hand during the day. I'm going to put in a 110% effort to bring home the bacon.

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by Santos L Helper


Yes mate, I'm going to be on Montefiore Hill on Sunday, just under the big blow up arch and i'll be rendering plenty of assistance to the bevy of young beauties on hand during the day. I'm going to put in a 110% effort to bring home the bacon.

Just noticed I am 8 posts up on you!

I bettter stop and do some work

Catch you soon.

 

[PeteLX]

Originally posted by Jars458
Just like to say that this is another quality BigFooty thread

Lots of information and personally I have learned a few things from it.

Good to see the peanut gallery and the trouble makers stayed out of it

Too much trouble for them to discuss an important and interesting topic.


Now, whose for a drink?

Good call. I agree that this is the most interesting post I've read here in quite a while (and at 20 pages its probly one of the most popular). Even though a few of us may differ on our opinions, I'm enjoying reading everyone's views on this topic.

To quote some famous Abe, "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it".

 

[FIGJAM]

Originally posted by Dave
Typical. Bloody collingwood supporters, always stirring up trouble!

Yes, in moderation like many substances it's ok. What I, and others, believe is that there are some substances, that even used in moderation, are bloody dangerous and as such should be restricted.

Yes, we Collingwood supporters are the Woody Woodpeckers of the footballing world. We're troublemakers! Ha-ha-ha ha-ha!!!

I have no problem with the current drug laws. There are too many irresponsible people and I agree, all drugs and water are dangerous.

I just don't want to be seen as foolish, stupid or "weak-minded" (thanks TT) for endulging in the odd tablet when going to a club, because I am not (at least IMHO). I make a very well informed choice, simple as that!

 

[Macca19]

Originally posted by Jars458
Just like to say that this is another quality BigFooty thread

Lots of information and personally I have learned a few things from it.

Good to see the peanut gallery and the trouble makers stayed out of it

Too much trouble for them to discuss an important and interesting topic.

well said Jars!! Definatly one of the better threads on bigfooty.

Now, whose for a drink?

only if you're paying

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by FIGJAM
I just don't want to be seen as foolish, stupid or "weak-minded" (thanks TT) for endulging in the odd tablet when going to a club, because I am not (at least IMHO). I make a very well informed choice, simple as that!

One mans fool is another mans scholar. Have a look at www.nida.nih.gov. Had some interesting stuff on E and what it does.

That's if you believe what a government says

 

[Macca19]

Originally posted by Dave


One mans fool is another mans scholar. Have a look at www.nida.nih.gov. Had some interesting stuff on E and what it does.

That's if you believe what a government says

They left out a bit, didnt explain things at all, and also gave some flase information.

These are better:

E-verything you never wanted to know
Negative afteraffects of Ecstacy
Neurotocix brain damage caused by MDMA