Bad Batch Of Heroin

[Bombay Bad Boy]

How did we get from 'Bad Batch of Heroin' to 'Anal Sex'?

 

"There's snow on the mountain-we're buggered"

[Pat Ayres]

I bet you say that to all the boys.

[hboy]

Rog' date='Mar 19 2007, 12:12 PM' post='225749']Let’s start with morality and religion.

 

Or more correctly YOUR morality and religion as I doubt few of us share your morality in particular.

 

I agree that most of the ‘religious’ claim good morality for their own and miss the rather obvious point that most religions are not the source for good morality, simply the repository of it. That does not mean that a good thing should be disregarded on the basis of its source.

You're simply the repository for the dead ideas of a dying generation of bigots and buffoons. I simply could not care what you regard as moral and what you do not.

 

The Dutch way good? I certainly have no problem with people wanting to dull their senses and destroy their brains and even destroy themselves by engaging in what amounts to a form of chemical masturbation. But is it good that people should do this? After all, there is the world of difference between what is wholesome and what is permitted.

 

Chemical masturbation is better than the verbal masturbation of the grand-master wanker of them all.

 

Personally I don’t give a stuff. Whatever leaves the junkies to drift into their early deaths and commit the fewest crimes in the process to reach this end the better that I like it.

I'm sure they love and respect you too Rog.

 

In an earlier post I wrote

 

“Personally when it emerged out of Africa and onto the world stage I saw AIDS as nothing more than nature attempting to cleanse the hives of assorted scum. It was communicated almost exclusively by immorality of one form or another,

 

It should have been left to run its course undisturbed, with the very few who were innocently infected seen as unfortunate victims of the immorality of the immoral.”

 

You did and it was one of the most abhorent, obnoxious, ill-informed views I have ever seen expressed on any message board.

 

Take the first part.

 

“when it emerged out of Africa and onto the world stage I saw AIDS as nothing more than nature attempting to cleanse the hives of assorted scum. It was communicated almost exclusively by immorality of one form or another,”

 

It WAS initially communicated almost exclusively by immorality. promiscuous homosexuals, injecting drug users, and the utterly disgusting bi-sexuals. What else could you call such activities other than gross immorality?

Disgusting bi-sexuals? Is that as bad as it gets? You hate the bi's most of all (was it an early life experience? Did you not feel like a man because you knew she'd been with a woman before?)

 

Anyway.

 

Before the discovery of HIV, AIDS, or "Acquired Immune Deficiency", was a fairly common term that applied to a wide range of illnesses. Today it can still be applied to both HIV + and HIV - individuals indeed its quite possible to be HIV - and have "AIDS" as the definition of AIDS is linked to your CD4 count which can naturally become deficient whether your HIV + or not. It could equally apply to the state of your immune system after contracting autoimmune diseases and other illnesses that ravage your immune system. Maybe you hate those ill bastards with MS and other immune deficiencies as well?

 

You really are a class act. A grade "A" moron.

 

Now the second part.

 

“It should have been left to run its course undisturbed, with the very few who were innocently infected seen as unfortunate victims of the immorality of the immoral.”

 

If it HAD been let to run its course the majority of the scum who contracted the disease would have died out, the level of fear induced into the population would have significantly reduced the immorality that is the scourge of the young and now the not-so-young, and the prevalence of the disease in societies where immorality is a part of life would today be enforcing decent morality as a survival necessity. .

 

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.

 

Your version of the Final Solution hey Rog? You really are a foul, thoroughly offensive, deeply disturbed individual with absolutely no redeeming qualities as a human being whatsoever.

 

AIDS a plague? It is now, it wasn’t when it first emerged.

 

It was if anything s social immune response to a social infection.

 

Today because sensible steps were not taken when AIDS entered society the infection has entered decent society, some cases as a result of infected blood and blood products, some by infection of the innocent by the immoral, some by deliberate cross infection by the infected, and far too much simply by the immoral behaviour of scum.

 

Its still infecting decent people. Again you seem to be harbouring the mistaken idea - that existed circa 1983 - that this is some sort of gay plague sent by God to punish whose who live ungoldly lives. Statistics nowdays, outside of Europe anyways, say different. Are you saying there are 40m queers in Africa who had it coming?

 

Your views, your shocking inhumanity, and your seering blinkered ignorance only offer us enlightenment in one area. And that is that you are part of a generation, an attitude, and a world view that is quickly dying and to be replaced by a more tolerant and decent society.

[Pat Ayres]

As the instigater of this thread can I just say that some of the emotions stirred by this subject are real and heartfelt to those posting. I was hoping for a decent debate on the subject, unfortunately that is not to be.

Warnings of physical harm and extreme insults have been issued from many to few.

Hijacking of the thread has also occurred by one particularly nasty individual.

I feel it is time to put it to bed, all had been said that is useful.

I hereby ask the moderators to lock this thread to avoid any more embarrassment and exposure to the vitriol being levelled at law abiding members of this society.

[Rog]

So ignoring the sort of comments emerging from the people who are probably at risk of God knows what as a result of whatever immorality they engage in let’s look at the post by Cinahand,

 

Chinahand writes ---

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

 

If morality is damaging the health of the public as in the case of an incurable disease that has so far been primarily spread by immorality then it must be a factor in policy and what is done to protect the health of the public.

 

Chinahand writes ---

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?

 

No. Not at all, but there are far too many who do NOT limit the immorality in their lives to engaging in a very limited number of sexual partners or the experiment with an illegal substance.

 

Chinahand writes ---

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.

 

Again. Not at all but if the NEW person that comes into their lives is carrying the AIDS virus or some other disease spread by a licentious and immoral lifestyle then the innocent victim is a victim of an immoral life, just not their own.

 

Chinahand writes ---

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.

 

Quarantine does not need to be physical quarantine. An obvious indelible mark would provide a social quarantine.

 

Chinahand writes ---

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.

 

Yes, I would like it if that impossible situation could prevail. There is no reason why it should not be an ambition.

 

After all, when you engage in sex with a person you are likely to encounter germs and moulds picked up from all the partners that they have had before you. And the same goes for each of them and THEIR previous ‘partners’.

 

I believe that people, both men and women, engage in sex far too easily and at far to young an age. Divorce? A very necessary thing especially today but in my opinion the law needs changing to return to the concept of a guilty party where there is one and it’s not a simple breakdown and commensurate financial impact.

 

Chinahand writes ---

What's the verse in Leviticus about stoning adulterers?

 

In Leviticus Adulterers are required to be stoned. I presume you intended the NT text in which Jesus stopped the stoning with his call for he that is without sin to cast the first stone.

 

Chinahand writes ---

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?

 

People who habitually use cannabis in my opinion ARE scum. Not just because of their weak willed selfish self pleasuring personalities but because the use of cannabis is ILLEGAL. What do you call someone who engages in an illegal activity, especially habitually or with indifference to the law? In MY book scum.

 

And guess what? I am not alone and more and more people are now seeing the situation in exactly the same light.

 

Chinahand writes ---

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.

 

Just because a thing is permitted doesn’t make it right.

 

Chinahand writes ---

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 occasionally 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.

 

The law has done this division for us. Personally I am uneasy about this, personally I would much rather the plethora of illegal substances were legalised, personally I would be quite content to watch druggies end their lives as soon as possible.

 

Chinahand writes ---

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

 

Not at all. I see alcohol as a very dangerous drug with some very bad knock on effects but its use is not ILLEGAL. Immoral, certainly but illegal? No. Therein lies the difference.

 

Chinahand writes ---

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.

 

The increasing rejection of good morality and living a wholesome life is behind a very great deal that is wrong with society today. The number of bastards being brought into in existences, the number of families that fracture because there is so little condemnation of a couple for breaking apart due to infidelity or unreasonable behaviour by one or both of them, the number of couples who simply live together without being married, in fact the whole erosion of all that was good and solid IN society is what has caused so much that is evil in this world.

 

Chinahand writes ---

(snip) --- 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.

 

Anal sex immoral? I would have thought it would be distasteful for many but immoral? I wouldn’t go that far and nor did I say that it was.

 

Homosexuality is a different matter. In my opinion that IS a dirty perverted immoral practice.

 

As for the repeated dig about Ariel Sharon, Sharon was and remains one of my heroes He was one of the greatest PM’s that ANY country has had and if people took the time and trouble to learn the facts and not simply go from the propaganda there might well be a different viewpoint being expressed.

 

We NEED to return to the Nuclear family and the values of the middle of the 20th century. That truly was the golden era in Britain.

 

What a shame the 60’s came and screwed it all up. It seemed so good at the time, the freedom, the choices, the opportunities, the rejection of the traditional values and responsibilities. If only the price that is being paid today was known by more people at the time I fancy the 60’s might not have been quite so ‘swinging’ after all.

 

That’s it for me on this matter. I stand by my views about druggies and them being let to get what they deserve, about AIDS and its place in society, and about scum being scum. The wages of sin should be paid in full and paid early.

[Chinahand]

Chinahand writes ---

(snip) --- 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.

 

Actually it was La_Dolce_Vita.

[Rog]

Chinahand writes ---

(snip) --- 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.

 

Actually it was La_Dolce_Vita.

 

Sorry about that, it’s been hard at times to keep track of who was writing what!

 

There’s been so many who have for a variety of reasons ranging from dislike of being referred to in terms descriptive to what they are, to those who simply didn’t understand what points I was making who were hell bent on just being personally insulting that the points and observations made by the one or two who fervently disagreed with my principles at times got mixed up in my reply.

[sausage]

People who habitually use cannabis in my opinion ARE scum. Not just because of their weak willed selfish self pleasuring personalities but because the use of cannabis is ILLEGAL. What do you call someone who engages in an illegal activity, especially habitually or with indifference to the law? In MY book scum.

 

And guess what? I am not alone and more and more people are now seeing the situation in exactly the same light.

 

 

 

Just because a thing is permitted doesn’t make it right.

 

Rog you argue that cannabis users are scum because they use an illegal drug. In the very same post you say in relation to alcohol just because something is permitted doesnt make it right.

 

Surely you can see the blatantly obvious hypocrisy you are purveying here. If just because something is permitted it doesnt make it right ergo just because something is not permitted it doesnt make it wrong

 

Finally we agree that just because a government make some laws it doesnt mean they are correct, therefore soft drug users deserve to be no more punished for moderate consumption than those who choose alcohol or tobacco and use it responsibly.

 

Penny dropping ?!!!

[P.K.]

ergo just because something is not permitted it doesnt make it wrong

Errrrr..... yes it does actually. It's called "against the law". Maybe you've heard of it?

 

Every parents nightmare. Which is why a topic like this tends to polarise around age I suppose. I have two teenage daughters and them getting mixed up with drugs is probably the thing I fear the most. Unless you have kids yourself I wouldn't really expect you to understand it but it is the main reason why I have nothing but hatred and contempt for those who not only supply drugs but also make the quite rediculous claim that there is no harm in them......

[Rog]

People who habitually use cannabis in my opinion ARE scum. Not just because of their weak willed selfish self pleasuring personalities but because the use of cannabis is ILLEGAL. What do you call someone who engages in an illegal activity, especially habitually or with indifference to the law? In MY book scum.

 

And guess what? I am not alone and more and more people are now seeing the situation in exactly the same light.

 

 

 

Just because a thing is permitted doesn’t make it right.

 

Rog you argue that cannabis users are scum because they use an illegal drug. In the very same post you say in relation to alcohol just because something is permitted doesnt make it right.

 

Surely you can see the blatantly obvious hypocrisy you are purveying here. If just because something is permitted it doesnt make it right ergo just because something is not permitted it doesnt make it wrong

 

Finally we agree that just because a government make some laws it doesnt mean they are correct, therefore soft drug users deserve to be no more punished for moderate consumption than those who choose alcohol or tobacco and use it responsibly.

 

Penny dropping ?!!!

 

Not at all. The premise of your argument that just because a thing is not permitted doesn’t make it wrong falls the moment that a thing is not only not permitted but in fact banned as in the case of certain substances such as those under the generic term ‘drugs’..

 

If the government has made a thing illegal it IS wrong precisely because of its illegality,

 

It may be that such illegality is based on a wrong premise, that is another matter, the fact remains that the law of the land states that it is illegal to use cannabis except under specific licensed circumstances.

 

If and when the false premise can be proven to be false and the law is changed then that is different, and the thing that was previously banned though still not wholesome nor morally right or acceptable, it is not in absolute terms wrong as was the case when the law stated that it was.

 

Beyond the moral aspects that should provide a personal code of conduct that people should at least try not to break what is very wrong is the breaking of the law.

 

People who deliberately flout the law are in my opinion criminals, and criminals are scum.

 

The government has not made alcohol illegal.

 

It has made consumption of alcohol illegal under certain circumstances such as consumption by a person under the age of eighteen.

 

Here again children under the age of eighteen who do consume alcohol are in my opinion a disgrace to themselves and their families.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

There’s been so many who have for a variety of reasons ranging from dislike of being referred to in terms descriptive to what they are, to those who simply didn’t understand what points I was making who were hell bent on just being personally insulting that the points and observations made by the one or two who fervently disagreed with my principles at times got mixed up in my reply.

Don't be silly. You only post because you are confrontational so therefore post very offensive comments.

 

ergo just because something is not permitted it doesnt make it wrong

 

Errrrr..... yes it does actually. It's called "against the law". Maybe you've heard of it?

 

Yes, I would agree with P.K. However, it is the case that not all laws are sensible and do not really work. Such laws such be questioned and if they do not work should be repealed, maybe to be replaced with different laws. In respect of drugs I think it is blinkered to question the problem in society with sole recognition of the morality set by laws. Clearly, the justice system as it stands is not effective in reducing, never mind eliminating drug use.

 

I don't understand why anyone should be in a flap about cannabis anyway. I don't like the stuff but discussing that with loathing anf contempt for its users without having the same opinion of those who drink is just barmy. Comparing the antics of those who get extremely drunk and those who get very stoned (the same could be said for ecstasy) I just the impression that there seems something WRONG in the categorisation of drugs.

 

I would like to know Rog, why in the case of cannabis smoking do you see people who break the law as scum. I just need it explaining to me.

 

Considering your joyous outlook on modern-day society I would recommend a spliff!

[Lonan3]

A couple of notes on the history of cannabis:

Cannabis sativa has been used therapeutically from the earliest records, nearly 5,000 years ago, to the present day.

It did not become general in the Near and Middle East until after the fifth century A.D., when travelers, traders and adventurers began to carry knowledge of the drug westward to Persia and Arabia. Historians claim that cannabis was first employed in these countries as an antiseptic and analgaesic.

In the 1600s the British (including the Pilgrim Fathers) took cannabis with them to the New World and created huge hemp plantations in what became the United States. The Declaration of Independence was written on hemp paper.

Several years after the return of Napoleon's army from Egypt, cannabis became widely accepted by Western medical practitioners. Previously, it had had limited use for such purposes as the treatment of burns.

South Africa, a prohibition pioneer, stated at the League of Nations in 1923 that cannabis should be prohibited because it affected the productivity of (black) mine-workers. Cannabis was declared a "narcotic" the next year.

Britain made cannabis illegal in September 1928.

The USA passed the Marijuana Tax Act in 1937 which forbade hemp farming, despite objections from the American Medical Association. (the act was based on the Machine Gun Transfer Act which made it illegal to pass on machine guns without a government stamp - no such stamps being available).

"Coincidentally", immediately after the passing of this act, DuPont filed patents for nylon, plastics and a new bleaching process for paper.

A substance that was freely useed for thousands of years, without causing any obvious problems, is now banned, much to the relief of the tobacco barons and several other products.

 

I don't believe that Cannabis should be banned as long as tobacco and alcohol are legally obtainable. I also believe that, if a law is inherently wrong, it is the citizens' duty to alter it, even if it means civil disobedience being used to do so - the problem being that cannabis smokers just can't be arsed....

[thebees]

the problem being that cannabis smokers just can't be arsed

 

I dont think this is necessarily true, I know a lot of users who do feel strongly about changing the law but fear prison and discrimination. For the sake of my children I do not want to goto prison for speaking out and that IS what would happen.

[Rog]

I would like to know Rog, why in the case of cannabis smoking do you see people who break the law as scum. I just need it explaining to me.

 

Very simple.

 

I consider anyone who habitually and or deliberatly breaks the law is scum.

 

People may think that I got into this thread just to be confrontational, I have even been accuseed of being a "troll". neither is true. I utterly detest drugs, junkies, and those people who think that it's in ANY WAY acceptable to break the law of the land especially so when the law is enacted for the protection of others.

[ans]

Quick question for you. If the UK Government legalised weed, would you still refer to the users of it as scum?