Bad Batch Of Heroin

[Chinahand]

Erm what very good reason - this disease is only infectious in a very limited series of circumstances. The idea that quarantining is a good public health response to aids is just so much Bull - you want these people quarantined for "moral" and not public health reasons.

 

The vast majority of people have passed on HIV only because of their ignorance - they did not know they had it. A better testing regime and public education is a REASONABLE response to AIDS - not concentration camps.

 

You are wanting to discuss things reasonably aren't you Rog? Not just being a troll.

[Rog]

Erm what very good reason - this disease is only infectious in a very limited series of circumstances. The idea that quarantining is a good public health response to aids is just so much Bull - you want these people quarantined for "moral" and not public health reasons.

 

If a disease has no cure, and AIDS HAS no cure, and if there are a number of people who in spite of knowing they are infected nevertheless expose others to cross infection, and that IS the case, then that in itself is sufficiently good reason why people who have become infected should not be at the very least clearly and indelibly identified as a warning to others.

 

The vast majority of people have passed on HIV only because of their ignorance - they did not know they had it. A better testing regime and public education is a REASONABLE response to AIDS - not concentration camps.

 

The vast majority of people have cross infected others because of their immoral way of life. Testing adds no value. Public education should use AIDS and other incurable immorality communicated diseases as the basis for a moral crusade to raise standards of conduct in peoples lives and NOT simply show how an immoral life and gutter standards can be maintained with the minimum risk of paying the price for doing so.

 

You are wanting to discuss things reasonably aren't you Rog? Not just being a troll.

 

Yes, I am wanting to discuss things reasonably, reasonably from a decent standard and not as is seen as being reasonably from the gutter.

 

Isn’t it amazing how if a person has an opinion that runs counter to the laissez faire immorality of so much of society they get denounced.

 

Is life really now so sordid that to promote better morality is seen as being wrong? Is it that society really has come to the state that a morality even lower than that found in a pack of feral dogs is the accepted way to behave? Have so many people really so little pride in themselves? Is being willing to accept scum behaviour being reasonable?

 

Judging by some of the responces on this thread to my opinions on this matter it would seem so.

 

Or is it that to condemn scum behaviour is making those people who engage in such a lifestyle uncomfortable, and they find it easier to be critical of people who are willing to describe them and what they get up to for the low life that it is.

[Chinahand]

Making public health policy based on morality will not result in good public health.

 

You can't divorce it from reality.

[When Skies Are Grey]

Ah what better way to address the problem than to take a moral high ground....I console myself that the majority of your posts are an attempt to solicit a response with which to enlighten your few remaining years on the planet. Well done and keep up the good work.

[Chinahand]

Rog - everything to you is either scum or heaven. Is every single person who has ever had sex with more than one person, or smoked a single spliff scum?

 

Are remarried widows and widowers scum? Or how about a person who has entered trusting and long standing monogomous relationships, but found for no fault of their own these relationships have broken down. I would accurately discrible myself as a serial monogomist - I presume you think I'm scum.

 

You claim quarantining is a correct response to aids - don't you know that just like vacinations you don't need 100% coverage for a disease to die out. But no you just want to lock up the scum and throw away the key.

 

Rog - You sound like you want everyone to be virgins until married at 16 with no divorce or way out. Sleeping with another person - imoral and likely to further the spread of disease.

 

What's the verse in Leviticus about stoning adulterers?

 

This is meant to be a thread about drugs - you seem to be saying anyone who ever had a spliff is scum. But the proportion of spliff users who abuse their use in such a way as to significantly affect their life is about the same as with users of red wine. Are red wine drinkers scum?

 

Some users of dope destroy their lives and significantly affect the lives of people around them - usually, but not always, by progressing to harder drugs - but far more users of alcohol also do so.

 

You want to discuss morality.

 

Fine - In some ways I agree with you - I want people to make a positive contribution to society. To live life "healthily" (whatever that means - I presume we'll get into eugenics at some point). I will tell my children that abusing any drug will stop them doing this - and with cigarettes and narcotics any use is abuse. Dope really worries me - I think that it is a slippery slope. Not necessarily to other drugs, but to a spaced out world where all you need to feel good is to have some spliff a lighter and a sofa. I don't want my children to be down the pub everynight - pissing their life and worth away - nor do I want them regularly taking dope.

 

But occassionally using a substance - alcohol I hope, its not illegal - to relax to have an enjoyable night out with friends. I can't condeme that. If dope is used I can say its illegal - and any substance use must be monitored to make sure the usage isn't getting out of control - but beyond that I can't divide the world up into Rog's simple rights and wrongs.

 

He'll arm wave at us about alcohol being different. I'm less interested in the legality than ensuring the use remains positive.

 

I have had positive feelings from dope - they were a part of my life I've moved on from - I shared it, never bought it, never let it become a major part of my life. If my kids are the same, I won't mind, but if I catch them at it - I'll express my disaproval and give them a lecture about acting responsibly.

 

I could be accused of being a hypocrite for doing that. But I think I have been responsible in my substance use - whether booze or dope. And for me that is more important than black and white laws or morality.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Is life really now so sordid that to promote better morality is seen as being wrong? Is it that society really has come to the state that a morality even lower than that found in a pack of feral dogs is the accepted way to behave? Have so many people really so little pride in themselves? Is being willing to accept scum behaviour being reasonable?

 

Judging by some of the responces on this thread to my opinions on this matter it would seem so.

 

Or is it that to condemn scum behaviour is making those people who engage in such a lifestyle uncomfortable, and they find it easier to be critical of people who are willing to describe them and what they get up to for the low life that it is.

 

 

It is the fact that your idea of morals and judgement are not the same as everyone else's. In this respect, I think there would be very few who would talk of anal sex as immoral and only a view who could ever match your perpsective of viewing those who take part in immoral acts as scum and those who don't as the 'innocent'. I not so sure you just want to be the Ariel Sharon, maybe you want think your God as well.

 

If the immorality you speak of is promiscuity, why do you see it as immoral? The worst thing that could happen to society is to return to the whole nuclear family structure and sexual repressive times of the 1950s.

[Frances]

I think there would be very few who would talk of anal sex as immoral

without wishing to enter the argument I merely point out that this is the position taken by all Abrahamaic religions - Judaism, Christianity + Islam - though some of the liberal wings of the first two somewhat soften their condemnation - the Biblical story of Sodom & Gemorrah is often quoted.

 

To return to the drugs - I was intrigued to hear that the Sunday Independent which for many years had a campaign to liberalise the laws on Cannabis recanted and said that in hindsight its judgement was wrong.

[P.K.]

I'm calling bullshit imaginery 'good' friend for effect then. Who are 'they' BTW?

Even a limited intellect should be able to figure out that "they" are the tossers (in my humble opinion of course) who rarely bring anything to a debate other than to diss those who are making interesting debating points. I find the insults flying are the surest signature of those unable to make any real impact with what grey matter they might actually possess.

 

Actually by comments weren't directed at P.K. solely.

 

Juan Kerr, is of course, Melvyn Hayes, the bees Una Stubbs, whilst Rog is James Robertson Justice and P.K. Robert Morley.

Many thanks Declan as Robert Morley was one of my favourite character actors. A real gent and a "proper" Englishman I think his most memorable line was from "Topkapi" when he was at Istanbul airport arguing with a Turkish policeman. The copper announces "Ahhh.... you're a foreigner" (iirc) to which Morley replies "No no my dear fellow, I'm not a foreigner, I'm English, English!" - Classic.

[P.K.]

There was a very interesting piece this weekend in the Family Section of my Saturday Grauniad on cannabis addiction. They claim about 10% of users are psychologically dependent on this harmless, recreational weed. Anyway, it's a very good piece about the breakup of a family because of cannabis and well worth a read for anyone who has posted something useful on here as opposed to just the playground stuff:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/family/story/0,,2035809,00.html

[sausage]

Okay thanks for the link. Can we now have comparison against psychological addiction to two other well known soft drugs, namely cigarettes and alcohol. Can we also have comparison against violent crime and physical disability caused by excesses of alcohol or tobacco vs cannabis.

 

And finally you were the staunchest supporter of Rog earlier in this thread. Following the recent bile he has published in the last few pages I think it might be your grey matter that is in need of some serious analysis.

 

And a final point on the 'they are illegal so they are bad' and 'they are legal so they are ok' point. I for one cannot bring myself to trust the UK government on defining legality in light of their recent record. If you choose to do so like sheep and dont challenge things that you see as wrong then thats up to you baaaaaa !!

 

Cheers !!

[P.K.]

Okay thanks for the link. Can we now have comparison against psychological addiction to two other well known soft drugs, namely cigarettes and alcohol. Can we also have comparison against violent crime and physical disability caused by excesses of alcohol or tobacco vs cannabis.

As I stated earlier sausage, you're free to look up whatever you like thus:

 

sausage: Right so suicide or killings due to huge debts incurred by gambling doesnt happen then ? And exactly how many people have you seen in the morgue because their last spliff was just a bit too strong ? Once again and for the last time stop generalising about DRUGS !!!

 

PK: Where in any of my posts have I stated that gambling is not a curse either? Where have I said cannabis kills? However I can tell you that a very good friend of mine recently gave up cannabis because "It was fucking me up" and he's not the only one. As you get older the appeal would seem to diminish. Anyway, I put numbers around crime and crack and heroin, why don't you do the same for suicides and gambling? You can then throw in numbers around alcohol abuse as well. But, of course, it will neither justify nor change the misery around drug abuse now will it?

So Google away to your little hearts content, for all the difference it will make......

 

And finally you were the staunchest supporter of Rog earlier in this thread. Following the recent bile he has published in the last few pages I think it might be your grey matter that is in need of some serious analysis.

You called Rog a "cretin". I said he wasn't. That doesn't mean I support what he said but I respect his right to say it. Anyway, let me refer you to this earlier post of mine:

 

I'm calling bullshit imaginery 'good' friend for effect then. Who are 'they' BTW?

Even a limited intellect should be able to figure out that "they" are the tossers (in my humble opinion of course) who rarely bring anything to a debate other than to diss those who are making interesting debating points. I find the insults flying are the surest signature of those unable to make any real impact with what grey matter they might actually possess.

Keep the insults coming, it's always the surest sign......

[sausage]

PK you could have just said 'sorry I cant answer your question' or more truthfully 'i dont want to answer your questions'

 

So your telling us that possibly maybe if someone misuses or does not moderate their use of a soft drug then they may incur some physcological or physical harm ?

 

Its a fuckin revelation, all bets are off, I have seen the light, so glad you brought this to my attention !!!

 

For christs sake at least contribute something worthwhile !

 

Ta

[leeiom]

At the VERY least those infected should have in someway been indelibly and obviously marked, and preferably kept in quarantined some form of modern day equivalent to a leper colony where those incurables who stood a chance of infecting others were kept safe and apart from the rest of us.

 

I am not sure if you are aware of a person called Tommy Morrison here let me help you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Morrison

 

Now this guy had a very bright boxing future ahead of him he was a couple of fights away from a crack a Mike Tyson, and a bloke being a bloke, liked to put it about a bit. He was a couple of hrs away from a fight, and the fight was cancelled due to being tested HIV+. This obviously destroyed his career, and sent him into a downward spiral which resulted in him ending up in prison for a number of years.

 

About a year or so back he was undergoing some routine tests and the tests appeared to show he was infact HIV- not positive, and after another batch of tests he is still showing as HIV-.

 

It appears that the tests that where taken 10 years ago may of been bad tests, and it is those tests that have ruined a career & family.

 

http://sportsline.com/columns/story/9561292/1

 

He has since began boxing again and won his first fight a couple weeks back.

 

So, under your fantastical regime of marking, quarantining and anything else in your twisted head, this bloke never would of had a chance.

 

And in that any person that happens to fall into some misfortune, of sharing the wrong needle, sleeping with the wrong person and getting the wrong blood transfusion befalls the same treatment. Would you be so opinionated if it was someone close in your family, just because of some unfortunate event?

 

“The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye. The more light you shine on it, the more it will contract.”

[Chinahand]

These are two of the Independent on Sunday's articles on the dangers of Cannibis. They've reversed a 10 year campaign to decriminalise dope and now say the laws are about right.

 

Leading Article

 

The Dangers of Skunk

 

We report today that the number of cannabis users on drug treatment programmes has risen 13-fold since our campaign was launched, and that nearly half of the 22,000 currently on such programmes are under the age of 18. ... there is no question ... that cannabis use is associated with growing mental health problems.

 

... there is a strong case for believing that the present state of the law and of government policy is about right. The way the police enforce the law seems to be a reasonable compromise, while the emphasis of public policy is on information, education and treatment. The more the facts can be driven home about the differences between old-style hash and modern skunk, and about the risks to mental health, the better. And the more that policy towards drugs generally focuses on the causes of addictive or self-destructive behaviour, rather than locking people up, the better still.

 

The growing evidence of the risk of psychological harm posed by cannabis means that the time has come for us to reverse one of the positions with which ... this newspaper was most identified.

 

We quote John Maynard Keynes in our defence: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

 

Today record numbers of young people are in treatment programmes for skunk abuse and hospital admissions due to the drug are at their highest ever.

 

An increase in the strength of the drug and widespread use among Britain's teenagers has the potential to be a disaster, according to experts, who say that the young are at most risk of developing psychosis and schizophrenia.

 

The scale of the problem has prompted calls by doctors, politicians and addicts for a rethink on the way we view cannabis, after a succession of reports have stated that it is less harmful than alcohol and tobacco. A new independent UK drug policy commission, chaired by Dame Ruth Runciman is being launched next month, and will call for a total rethink of the government's approach.

 

"Society has seriously underestimated how dangerous cannabis really is," says Professor Neil McKeganey, from Glasgow University's Centre for Drug Misuse Research. "I think we are faced with a generation blighted by the effects of cannabis use."

 

Robin Murray, professor of psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry in London, says that one-quarter of people are particularly at risk, having a five times higher risk of psychosis if they smoke cannabis. The drug is known to increase the production of dopamine in the brain, an excess of which produces the hallucinations characteristic of schizophrenia.

 

Research to be published in this week's Lancet will show how cannabis is more dangerous than LSD and ecstasy. Experts analysed 20 substances for addictiveness, social harm and physical damage. The results, which will show many illegal drugs being less harmful than alcohol and tobacco, will increase the pressure on the Home Office to reform the existing ABC system of classification.

[slinkydevil]

http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentat...icle2368901.ece

 

Rosie Boycott - Independant on Sunday

 

Unlike the old-fashioned cannabis of my youth, skunk makes people aggressive: they steal, break into cars and snatch phones.

 

Mmmn, maybe Rosie should try some skunk and see if she gets aggressive. I doubt it. It might be true in some cases, but not the norm and to state it outright as an 'aggressive' drug is scare-mongering IMO.