Bad Batch Of Heroin

[P.K.]

Fool

 

Better an honest fool than a lying hypocrite.

Well, you would know.....

[slinkydevil]

It would seem that the "users" above are in complete denial about cannabis.

 

Pathetic assumption.

 

In a step away from tradition on here why don't you actually try reasoned argument backed up by facts as opposed to the usual insults and nebulous denials that what I say is a feeble attempt (at what exactly?) and that I don't know what I'm talking about because, errrrr, because you say so!

 

Your pathetic attempts to justify illegal behaviour are just that - pathetic attempts. The expression "Dream On" would appear to be particularly apt in your case.......

 

I'm not really concerned either way about cannabis. I don't have to justify illegal behaviour because I'm not bothered about drugs myself. Again you have missed my point which was your link. It was an attempt to say "cannabis is bad, look people turn into murderers" ignoring that this guy was probably fucked in the head long before. My point was that this is a poor argument and life is just not as black and white as you make out. There are plenty of people who get through life who have had the odd toke, probably plenty of people you admire in 'pop' culture too that you don't know about - maybe even your good friends and family.

 

You crack on 'boy', I'm not bothered about this debate, more your ridiculous black and white view on life [and it's not just this thread]. I just won't let you post without a response. Love you.

[sausage]

Bravo Slinky, really couldnt have put it better myself. You will find PK is very adept at 'missing the point' and not responding to completely valid posts picking huge holes in his and his buddy Rog's flawed self righteous black and white outllook on life.

 

My work here is done, I have posted several posts highlighting hypocrisies and inconsistencies in their pathetic views, think the fact that they cannot answer or justify is proof enough for me if i ever needed it that we are dealing with a couple of numpties.

 

Cue for PK to once again roll out his monotonous piffle about 'those who throw insults must therefore be wrong or on crack !!!'

 

Whatever, your still a dick !

 

See ya

[Chinahand]

Erm - declarations of work been done and hypocracies highlighted.

 

Victories claimed over P.K. and all hey - odd that - I don't in anyway feel this thread is a resonding victory against those in favour of prohibition, or simply less use of these substances.

 

I think society would be better off with less booze, less dope, less stimulated highs - and their consequent lows.

 

Is it immoral to waste your life? Piss your wage down the loo, or spend it sitting spliffed with friends - fuck all else to do.

 

I've no idea, but I think it's a waste. There is lots to do.

 

I just wonder how many people on this thread would really say the world would be a better place if people drank more, or took more drugs.

 

I don't think so - I think quite the opposite - a bit less. People voluntarily deciding not to indulge.

 

Ignoring law, prohibitions, and all - just asking the question - more drugs (in all their forms) - or less.

 

100% I think our society - this Island and the UK too - need less. Simple as that.

 

I'd like to hear the opinions of people who genuinely say more - not individually - but generally - they must have a very sad view of the world, IMHO.

[the mo beats experience]

It would seem that the "users" above are in complete denial about cannabis. So much so they're reduced to accusing those against illegal drugs like me of causing the drugs problem we have today, that I have invented "friends" to back up the case against cannabis (not that it needs any) and that I should somehow impose a totalitarian state to stop it's use - even though there are laws against it anyway.

 

You truly are something else. You are now calling people users on the basis that they have a different opinion to you?

People who are mental stab people, people stoned out of their minds can't be arsed thinking about something like that, its media frenzy just because he "also smoked weed" as well as being madder than a fish with hair.

You say your "friend" gave up because it was "fucking him up", who was he ready to stab? You?

Lets get this straight, drugs are illegal, and yet more people use them every year, more people sell them every year, more people go to jail every year, more people get hooked every year, more people's lives are damaged in some way by drugs or their users every year. You're views are shit, wrong and are the reason we have the problems we do these days, the problems that make me fear for my daughters future. I don't know what the answer is, its actually deemed "cool and sophisticated" by a massive part of our society whether old blinkered twats like you like it or not. The laws should've been relaxed on some drugs years ago, to do it now would mean a huge increase in use for years until it subsided and becomes nothing special.

 

I say is a feeble attempt (at what exactly?) and that I don't know what I'm talking about because, errrrr, because you say so!

Correct.

 

In a step away from tradition on here why don't you actually try reasoned argument backed up by facts as opposed to the usual insults and nebulous denials that what

Your pathetic attempts to justify illegal behaviour are just that - pathetic attempts. The expression "Dream On" would appear to be particularly apt in your case.......

 

Reasoned enough for you? Some insults too, for good measure.

[P.K.]

At the end of the day cannabis fucks you up.

 

So no, just because you think differently from me it doesn't actually mean cannabis is therefore ok.

 

Cannabis fucks you up and you can deny it all you like and it still won't change anything. So by all means keep bleating on and on about how it doesn't affect you and all the rest of the drug culture bs. The mere fact you are trying to support it's use says that you are weak enough to need to use it. So the more you support it, the weaker you are.

 

So by all means stay as entrenched as possible in the cannabis culture. You need it, I don't. More fool you....

[hboy]

To be honest, no.

 

Liar.

 

Fool

 

I see the standard of your debate is increasing Rog.

 

Please feel free to stick to one word posts in preference to the usual diatribe of shite you come out with.

[Max Power]

I don't smoke and I don't smoke cannabis, but I like a social drink.

 

I thought we were debating the reasons why some people think that so called illegal drugs are actually immoral, when much more harmful legal drugs were regarded as morally acceptable?

 

It seems to have turned into a bit of a slanging match where one side will undoubtably entrench itself against the other and not be able to view the others perspective.

[the mo beats experience]

At the end of the day cannabis fucks you up.

 

So no, just because you think differently from me it doesn't actually mean cannabis is therefore ok.

 

Cannabis fucks you up and you can deny it all you like and it still won't change anything. So by all means keep bleating on and on about how it doesn't affect you and all the rest of the drug culture bs. The mere fact you are trying to support it's use says that you are weak enough to need to use it. So the more you support it, the weaker you are.

 

So by all means stay as entrenched as possible in the cannabis culture. You need it, I don't. More fool you....

You've no idea about me, or about anything it seems. Don't make assumptions, you're the fool.

[nessa]

Instances such as the policemen abusing people amount to gross immorality and I really don't think that, despite what some may say, there is any justification in defending it!

 

I guess the difficult thing for me Max with this contemporary real life illustration offered is ....that there has been many justifications voiced that are defending such activity as being acceptable etc

 

I guess I still cannot imagine that I would support any employment policies that support senior police officers and other powerful persons in positions of authority being able to engage in group sex with any young drunken girl or boy Even if their wives do not mind their husbands cheating, swinging or whatever etc I do know the defence lawyers emphasised the age of consent was not breached but neither the defense nor prosecution seemed to focus on the issue of the alcohol being supplied to underagers involved .... and so its like where do the lines get drawn when it comes to laws and morality perhaps? It was also taken as fact during the trials as well that although some of the girls had been seduced into a relationship with one married man first before the others appeared - so they consented then perhaps but not when faced with different men etc Other girls were regarded as promiscious due to already having a history of rape or incest when underage though sadly and this was painted by some folks as many young girls gagging for sex like pop stars and their fans etc

 

Although this example relates to specific court trials & cases where some young girls were believed and others were not ... this appears to be the result from making sure all the trials were held separately and suppression orders being used etc The victims did not know each other so there was never any suggestion that they had colluded etc The main difficulty imho is that the common claims from the victims is that they were all stating that it was unwanted sex with 3 or 4 adult males using objects like batons and bottles or cuffs, and they were all naming the same men or a few extras and then all being turned away or discouraged from pressing charges of rape etc

 

I guess all of these disclosures and admissions just stun me as a parent Max... and sometimes I simply don't know where to start putting together my thoughts and words

 

I do know that I am finding it very very difficult to respond to the argument that some officers were acquitted as the allegations were not proved therefore it is not illegal and maybe just maybe a sign of thoughtless male activity etc I suppose as I cannot accept that it was merely party behaviour and I should not worry as it was normal and is still normal etc This type of POV basically leaves me floundering for responses etc So yeah I keep trying to find the words that will not become misconstrued as either antimen sentiments nor being a cophater .... and then continually getting dismissed or trolled I suppose

 

I guess I just see it as being the difficult subject of discussing modern morality perhaps Max? I agree with you that I consider policemen abusing people could amount to gross immorality BUT then how on earth do I respond to the very vocal groups who consider that it is NOT immoral - and in fact shout that it is not illegal either etc

 

End of the day I know that I can choose to not engage with the folks who may hold different opinions to my own and such like and only hold discussions when or where I wish .... but then how on earth do I hold convos with my own teenage girl?? She watches the news too and talks or texts with her friends and get these same argiebargies etc I have also not forgotten that there is also some backlash on other police officers on the street who may not engage in group sex and such like but they are seen now as rapists not just by a few but the many and also the criminals are exploiting this imho

[Max Power]

Instances such as the policemen abusing people amount to gross immorality and I really don't think that, despite what some may say, there is any justification in defending it!

 

I guess the difficult thing for me Max with this contemporary real life illustration offered is ....that there has been many justifications voiced that are defending such activity as being acceptable etc

 

I guess I still cannot imagine that I would support any employment policies that support senior police officers and other powerful persons in positions of authority being able to engage in group sex with any young drunken girl or boy Even if their wives do not mind their husbands cheating, swinging or whatever etc I do know the defence lawyers emphasised the age of consent was not breached but neither the defense nor prosecution seemed to focus on the issue of the alcohol being supplied to underagers involved .... and so its like where do the lines get drawn when it comes to laws and morality perhaps? It was also taken as fact during the trials as well that although some of the girls had been seduced into a relationship with one married man first before the others appeared - so they consented then perhaps but not when faced with different men etc Other girls were regarded as promiscious due to already having a history of rape or incest when underage though sadly and this was painted by some folks as many young girls gagging for sex like pop stars and their fans etc

 

Although this example relates to specific court trials & cases where some young girls were believed and others were not ... this appears to be the result from making sure all the trials were held separately and suppression orders being used etc The victims did not know each other so there was never any suggestion that they had colluded etc The main difficulty imho is that the common claims from the victims is that they were all stating that it was unwanted sex with 3 or 4 adult males using objects like batons and bottles or cuffs, and they were all naming the same men or a few extras and then all being turned away or discouraged from pressing charges of rape etc

 

I guess all of these disclosures and admissions just stun me as a parent Max... and sometimes I simply don't know where to start putting together my thoughts and words

 

I do know that I am finding it very very difficult to respond to the argument that some officers were acquitted as the allegations were not proved therefore it is not illegal and maybe just maybe a sign of thoughtless male activity etc I suppose as I cannot accept that it was merely party behaviour and I should not worry as it was normal and is still normal etc This type of POV basically leaves me floundering for responses etc So yeah I keep trying to find the words that will not become misconstrued as either antimen sentiments nor being a cophater .... and then continually getting dismissed or trolled I suppose

 

I guess I just see it as being the difficult subject of discussing modern morality perhaps Max? I agree with you that I consider policemen abusing people could amount to gross immorality BUT then how on earth do I respond to the very vocal groups who consider that it is NOT immoral - and in fact shout that it is not illegal either etc

 

End of the day I know that I can choose to not engage with the folks who may hold different opinions to my own and such like and only hold discussions when or where I wish .... but then how on earth do I hold convos with my own teenage girl?? She watches the news too and talks or texts with her friends and get these same argiebargies etc I have also not forgotten that there is also some backlash on other police officers on the street who may not engage in group sex and such like but they are seen now as rapists not just by a few but the many and also the criminals are exploiting this imho

 

It seems that the law and morallity ARE two seperate entities these days. At one time the church was the foundation of most if not all laws, however thankfully imo, those times are gone. The price it seems is that we must find other ways of determining what is acceptable outside of the law and dealing with it!

 

In the case of the police officers, there is no doubt that they used their position and access to the girls to procure immoral acts, which as custodians of the law, I believe that they have made their positions untenable and should be dismissed with loss of rights.

 

Legally they probably acted within the law, but perhaps the question of consent to perform whatever is debatable?

 

My stance on the drink, drugs and smoking issue, is that the situation of legality for some and not the other should never have arisen in the first place. To criminalise one sector and accept the other shows an imbalance, which it seems that on 'moral' grounds nobody seems to want to address for fear of appearing hedonistic or whatever!

This despite the proof that more people are victims of drink and smoking, through health or violent crime than any 'recreational' drug'.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Cannabis fucks you up and you can deny it all you like and it still won't change anything. So by all means keep bleating on and on about how it doesn't affect you and all the rest of the drug culture bs. The mere fact you are trying to support it's use says that you are weak enough to need to use it. So the more you support it, the weaker you are.

Oh dear! Why are you so bothered who's weak and who is not. This isn't a contest, haha.

I don't understand how you came to that conclusion that people who support the use of cannabis are therefore those who are weak enough to use it. How did you work that one out?

 

 

My stance on the drink, drugs and smoking issue, is that the situation of legality for some and not the other should never have arisen in the first place. To criminalise one sector and accept the other shows an imbalance, which it seems that on 'moral' grounds nobody seems to want to address for fear of appearing hedonistic or whatever!

This despite the proof that more people are victims of drink and smoking, through health or violent crime than any 'recreational' drug'.

 

I would agree. The situation over legality for some and illegality for others makes no sense from the perspective of public safety and health. Alcohol could never be restricted to a significant degree without uproar and mass opposition.

 

I still don't see why everyone is in a flap over cannabis though. Evidence has shown that continued use can predispose to mental health problems and some people can get 'fucked up' off the stuff. Though why should be reason to have it prohibited. If people want to smoke it then there will always going to be people who will supply it because for the vast majority of users it is fun to smoke.

 

I think few people on here have really questioned how effective criminalising drugs is. What good does it do? From my point of view it worsens things. Drugs use has not been lessened by criminalising them. All it does it creates glaring disparaties in legal morality between legal and illegal so that the ignorance can be mistaken that somehow the legal are safer and that the illegal drugs are fundamentally bad. If alcohol and tobacco use (which is obviously drug use) are accepted in society then I believe that any laws criminalising others have to criticised and scrutinised. Other than heroin, crack, and crystal meth I don't see any reason why people should not be allowed to take drugs they want and not be worried about the law. I don't think criminalising ecstasy and cannabis was sensible at all.

 

I do, however, think that people need to be educated about drug use so that they can make better informed choices and know the differences and dangers between all the drugs that are used in society.

 

Though to finish, any person who believe that drug use can be significantly reduced by de-liberalising the criminal system in respect of drugs would have to be themselves wholly ignorant of drug use and drugs themselves.

 

Drugs have been with the human race for thousands of years. I think it ludicrous to try and stop and people. Better to learn why that particular person wants it in the first place.

 

I just wonder how many people on this thread would really say the world would be a better place if people drank more, or took more drugs.

 

Even though I do tend to drink too much when I do go out, which is rare these days, I would say that drink is a BIG problem in the UK, though I think much of the alcohol comsumption in society is a reflection of the society we live in rather than the people who use it. Though I would love it if rather than have people gewt shit-faced on alcohol they would take ecstasy. I think that would make for far less overall crime and better nightclub atmosphere. But then, that's just my opinion.

I am no sociologist but it seems clear that the UK and the Isle of Man are facing bigger problems all the time in terms of crime, I feel there is something decadent in today's society. Maybe I have just lived in Salford, Manchester for too long and been out on nights out in Douglas too many times.

[When Skies Are Grey]

"To make marijuana against the law is like saying God made a mistake." - Bill Hicks RIP Mr Funny Man

 

Goat boy rides again!!!

[Max Power]

I can certainly understand a concern that people who over indulge in drugs i.e. alchohol or cannabis etc, will be underperforming in the work place. I wonder if this is the reason for reluctance to legalise cannabis and ecstacy?

If all the drinkers and ravers combined to bring down the economy? Very unlikely, but you can imagine the train of thought!

[K.os Theory]

"To make marijuana against the law is like saying God made a mistake." - Bill Hicks RIP Mr Funny Man

 

Goat boy rides again!!!

 

amen to that brother