Bad Batch Of Heroin

[La_Dolce_Vita]

It never ceases to amuse me how those who take "soft" drugs for recreational use try and dress it up with "respectability" e.g. "soft drugs aren't drugs at all, well, not really" , "don't tar us with the same brush as thieving hop-heads, we take drugs but it's ok because we can afford it" , "we're not wrong, the law is wrong etc etc etc". They don't get supplied by a "pusher". Oh no, they get their stuff from a "dealer". Like they were buying antiques or whatever. It's just pathetic. At the end of the day no matter what source they are getting it from they are using illegal drugs and financing the supplier of illegal drugs and they don't like the idea that quite rightly it's treated no differently from any other illegal drug activity - end of story.

 

I love how your always amused. I don't agree with the perspective that your taking.

 

I do understand what you mean about a lot of people who overly justify their drug use, though I don't think in most cases it is necessary. For all the 'hoo-hah' about ecstasy, for example, its short-term and long-term effects appear far less dangerous than those of alcohol. Also the social impact of alcohol is well-known, little comparison can be with ecstasy.

 

I don't think it is useful anymore to draw a line between legal and illegal as to how we morally perceive drugs. That is what a lot of people seem to do and what you seem to be doing. It is not helpful at all because when you clearly understand the patterns of all drug use how certain drugs are categorised there are obvious anomalies, alcohol and tobacco being the best examples.

 

What your talking about isn't people painting a picture of their drug use as being 'respectable'. I think it more about putting things into perspective. Cannabis is not for example the same as heroin. The feeling is completely different, the latter is extremely physically addictive, and the latter is not a 'social drug', heroin is also expensive, heroin is also far more dangerous in short-term and long-term use. They are very different. Drugs are drugs but unless the differences are recognised you might as well continue with the narrow-minded viewpoint in tolerating the problems caused by alcohol and tobacco or in thinking they should be illegal too which would be pointless.

 

I does rile me that there are many people who like alcohol can be so wrong in having a sanctomonius viewpoint on all other people's drug use. People who get pissed are no different in their drug use than those who take ecstasy or cannabis. It just the latter two are illegal.

[ynsheltyn]

I do understand what you mean about a lot of people who overly justify their drug use, though I don't think in most cases it is necessary. For all the 'hoo-hah' about ecstasy, for example, its short-term and long-term effects appear far less dangerous than those of alcohol. Also the social impact of alcohol is well-known, little comparison can be with ecstasy.

 

I don't think it is useful anymore to draw a line between legal and illegal as to how we morally perceive drugs. That is what a lot of people seem to do and what you seem to be doing. It is not helpful at all because when you clearly understand the patterns of all drug use how certain drugs are categorised there are obvious anomalies, alcohol and tobacco being the best examples.

 

What your talking about isn't people painting a picture of their drug use as being 'respectable'. I think it more about putting things into perspective. Cannabis is not for example the same as heroin. The feeling is completely different, the latter is extremely physically addictive, and the latter is not a 'social drug', heroin is also expensive, heroin is also far more dangerous in short-term and long-term use. They are very different. Drugs are drugs but unless the differences are recognised you might as well continue with the narrow-minded viewpoint in tolerating the problems caused by alcohol and tobacco or in thinking they should be illegal too which would be pointless.

 

I does rile me that there are many people who like alcohol can be so wrong in having a sanctomonius viewpoint on all other people's drug use. People who get pissed are no different in their drug use than those who take ecstasy or cannabis. It just the latter two are illegal.

 

I'm sure that there are sanctimonious people, but I think PKs particular point is justified.

Whatever you may personally feel about it, the law is the law. Laws are created to protect the population from others and even from themselves. We might loudly demand personal freedom of choice, but disagreeing with a particular law doesn't give us the right to ignore it. Even those who use cannabis for medical reasons understand that they are breaking the law.

Some laws cover civil misdemeanors, some cover criminal activity. There are laws covering the sale and use of alcohol, there are laws covering the sale and use of tobacco, they are just not as 'strict' as the laws covering the sale and use of drugs.

Adults who choose to drink alcohol or smoke tobacco are generally not breaking the law and most people understand the limits that are placed upon them and where the line is drawn regarding their personal rights and freedoms.

Laws change as society changes. If a law is seen as unreasonable, or if there is a need for a new law, then there are methods to make this change. The general population can use democratic processes to demand change.

Yes, there are anomolies, but as I suggested above, the argument that "I don't agree with that law, so I'm going to ignore it" isn't going to go down too well in a court.

 

Let's use an extreme example, phrased similarly to your own suggestion in the quote. What would you think if you read something like this:

 

I don't think it is useful anymore to draw a line between legal and illegal as to how we morally perceive violence. It is not helpful at all because when you clearly understand the patterns of violence, how certain violent activities are categorised, there are obvious anomalies.

What your talking about isn't people painting a picture of their violence as being 'respectable'. I think it more about putting things into perspective. Domestic violence is not for example the same as murder.

For all the 'hoo-hah' about domestic violence, it is short-term and the long-term effects appear far less dangerous than those of murder.

They are very different. Domestic violence generally takes place within one's own home, and what I do there is no business of the police. I enjoy it, it makes me feel good, so I'm going to carry on doing it.

 

 

As I said, extreme. But I hope it illustrates the point.

[Tugger]

There's a distinct difference between an activity that, in and of itself, does not harm to anyone else, and an activity that does indeed harm someone else. If I smoke a joint, the only possible harm is to myself (and for the record, I think that people overlook the dangers of long-term marijuana use, but the short terms dangers are negligible). Not so with domestic violence

[Rog]

There's a distinct difference between an activity that, in and of itself, does not harm to anyone else, and an activity that does indeed harm someone else. If I smoke a joint, the only possible harm is to myself (and for the record, I think that people overlook the dangers of long-term marijuana use, but the short terms dangers are negligible). Not so with domestic violence

 

The HARM you stupid ignorant oik is that you are by your actions providing a market to a dealer somewhere. You are helping perpetrate the whole disgusting business.

 

You are also quite possibly ‘normalising’ your stupid selfish hedonistic activities such that another innocent person might think what you are doing IS harmless and so not only add to the dealers market but also start down the path to more toxic substances.

 

As it happens I believe that all drugs should be legally available to anyone who wants them for the simple reason as I have stated before that the sooner the fools kill themselves off the better not to mention the reduction in crime that would come about as the costs of the poisons fall to a level that crime would not be needed to anywhere near the extent that it presently is for the stupid selfish idiots to buy their ticket to eternal oblivion.

[Snaipyr]

Anyone read Howard Marks' "Mr Nice". I used to think cannabis was OK, but it opened my eyes to the level of corruption drug smuggling causes worldwide - from government ministers, customs officials, airport loaders, boat owners, drivers etc etc. I still think having the odd joint is OK, but only if it was legal to grow it yourself! I've never tried any other drugs so am not qualified to make judgements on them (unlike many on here).

[Juan Kerr]

'Rog' date='Mar 17 2007, 01:09 PM]The HARM you stupid ignorant oik

 

Nice way to start an unbiased argument.

 

You are also quite possibly ‘normalising’ your stupid selfish hedonistic activities such that another innocent person might think what you are doing IS harmless and so not only add to the dealers market but also start down the path to more toxic substances.

Do you drink alcohol? Even moderate alcohol use is as damaging over the long term, if not more so, than moderate use of a bit of weed. You clearly believe all that right wing claptrap that all soft drug users end up dead in the gutter with needles hanging out of their arms.

 

As it happens I believe that all drugs should be legally available to anyone who wants them for the simple reason as I have stated before that the sooner the fools kill themselves off the better not to mention the reduction in crime that would come about as the costs of the poisons fall to a level that crime would not be needed to anywhere near the extent that it presently is for the stupid selfish idiots to buy their ticket to eternal oblivion.

 

That statement just proves what blinkered, angry, insensitive, misguided middle age cretin you are Rog. Its clear your views on drugs leave no room for any debate or middle ground. As with all topics you respond to you just post ill informed vitriolic bullshit and resort to classic condecending abuse such as "stupid ignorant oik" rather than reasoned agrument you silly old twat.

[Tugger]

Anyone read Howard Marks' "Mr Nice". I used to think cannabis was OK, but it opened my eyes to the level of corruption drug smuggling causes worldwide - from government ministers, customs officials, airport loaders, boat owners, drivers etc etc. I still think having the odd joint is OK, but only if it was legal to grow it yourself! I've never tried any other drugs so am not qualified to make judgements on them (unlike many on here).

 

It wouldn't cause that corruption if it was legal

[Pat Ayres]

Yeah P.K.'s been overdoing the Reefer Madness probably.

Hiolarious film, who would have thought Tom Thumb was a nark?

[Rog]

'Rog' date='Mar 17 2007, 01:09 PM]The HARM you stupid ignorant oik

 

Nice way to start an unbiased argument.

That statement just proves what blinkered, angry, insensitive, misguided middle age cretin you are Rog.

 

No, that reply is to an ignorant oik who was highly offensive to me earlier in this thread, who has been highly offensive to me in the past, and who is exposing his stupidity on a public forum. As for being middle aged, thanks. I had started to think of myself as being closer to being a senior citizen than middle aged.

 

Its clear your views on drugs leave no room for any debate or middle ground.

 

There is no middle ground. Certain drugs are by law prohibited for unrestricted use, as a result they cost a great deal for people to buy them, this in turn creates a need for the users to commit crime to fund their hedonistic stupidity as well as making the supply of them a highly lucrative business.

 

Prohibition doesn’t work, it never can, best is to destroy the market price as well as the market value and the crime committed associated with this filth would reduce massively.

 

Add to that the benefit of the drug abusers having an early death and it’s a win win scenario especially as people not yet into the drug scene would see for themselves the result of the use of the filthy stuff.

 

Do I believe that all soft drug users end up dead in the gutter with needles hanging out of their arms? No, more’s the pity. With relaxation of drug prohibition a substantially greater number would and that would have to be for the good all round.

 

My reasoned argument is very simple. Let ‘em use what they want and let nature take its course.

 

Silly old twat? Or maybe a man who has a dammned sight more experience of life than you and a few more besides on here who is condemned because I am willing to tell it like it is.

[Declan]

"Hop heads"?

 

Have I woken up in a Cliff Richard movie?

 

It's older even than Cliff. Certainly as far back as Dashiell Hammett and Raymond Chandler. That would be about the time it was current.

 

Now it would only be an affectation. Like calling someone old chap. Or speaking Molesworth.

 

 

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

 

The whole thread has an air of a Cliff Richard film. I keep expect sausages to suggest we "stick it to the man" and announce "hey, kids! Let's do the gig right here". Juan Kerr, is of course, Melvyn Hayes, the bees Una Stubbs, whilst Rog is James Robertson Justice and P.K. Robert Morley.

[Pat Ayres]

So, reduce the price top next to nothing and free up supply to enable people without much money, the poor and underprivileged, to gain the drugs cheaply? This will stop people using drugs as an escape from the depravation and misery of everyday life on benefits and without any meaningful reason to get up in the morning and contribute positively to society.

 

Another vote winner from the most intelligent man on the forum.

Certainly a simple argument, can't argue with that.

As for being reasoned?????

[Rog]

So, reduce the price top next to nothing and free up supply to enable people without much money, the poor and underprivileged, to gain the drugs cheaply? This will stop people using drugs as an escape from the depravation and misery of everyday life on benefits and without any meaningful reason to get up in the morning and contribute positively to society.

 

Another vote winner from the most intelligent man on the forum.

Certainly a simple argument, can't argue with that.

As for being reasoned?????

 

Close, but no cigar.

 

IF people chose to reduce their lifespan by using substances that will have that effect then why stop them – it’s not as if you can anyway, at present those same people commit crime to buy the stuff anyway. At least a free market will reduce the amount of crime they need to commit in the process of terminating their worthless lives.

 

On the other hand the knowledge that this filth is NOT the fashionable thing to use but actually results in an early messy death there’s more than a few who simply would decide that end was not for them, the whole drug scene would revert to what it was, a dirty sleazy matter generally associated with low life and therefore a thing decent people would avoid.

 

If people do want to wreck their lives then let them just don’t make it hard for them with the result their activities to get the wherewithal to indulge their stupidity results in harm and expense to the majority who don’t.

 

I have no time for people who use drugs. None whatsoever.

 

They are at best criminals simply on the basis of their criminal use of banned substances and at worst criminals whose crimes affect a great many who should be protected from such scum, for scum they certainly all are.

 

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.

[When Skies Are Grey]

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.

 

I'll remind you of that post in the unfortuante event that one of your poor family contracts it via infected blood transfusion or the like....you are one objectionable little man. Only saving grace is that you havent long left on this planet.......

[Pat Ayres]

When the shades of night are falling,

Comes a fellow everyone knows.

It's the old dope peddler,

Spreading joy wherever he goes.

 

Every evening you will find him,

Around our neighborhood.

It's the old dope peddler

Doing well by doing good.

 

He gives the kids free samples,

Because he knows full well

That today's young innocent faces

Will be tomorrow's clientele.

 

Here's a cure for all your troubles,

Here's an end to all distress.

It's the old dope peddler

With his powdered happiness.

[hboy]

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.

 

I missed this post. It has to be one of the most singluarly, cataclysmically insensitive posts I have ever read. You assume most people with AIDS deserve it because they are immoral? Its often the opposite - poor wives infected by their immoral husbands, haemophiliacs, people infected through hospital operations in poorer countries.

 

You really are the nastiest, most malicous, evil individual ever to have posted here. Your views have no redeeming qualities whatsover.

 

I often find that people who subscribe to the "they're all deviants and queers" school of thought have thoughts they personally find deeply disturbing inside of them. As they find these thoughts and ideas so overwhelmingly distasteful they are forced to come out with statements like yours to convince themselves and other people to the contrary.

 

Your not fooling anyone here.