ans Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 Let's not try and make this all about you for a change eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 But it doesn't mean you have to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 Maybe you could start a new thread about it? If you think that will achieve anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 none of the things you list are illegal,and that's why there's little to no sympathy for smackheads, you just shouldn't be doing it in the first place. Oh for christ's sake the law has nothing to do with it. If someone crashes into a wall doing 53mph in a 50 zone and they get killed, should they get no sympathy as well, because they shouldn't have been doing it in the first place? Fuck the law. the point, is that you are allowed to drive in the first place, but you're not allowed to speed. wheras the drugs in question are not permissable in the first place regardless of dosage, or speed ( pun intended ) for the driving analogy. that said, if drugs were legal, then better quality drugs and knowledge about accurate 'safe' dosage should make use safer, NOT SAFE exactly, but safer, which may be better all round. i do find myself wondering how many people do drugs cos your not supposed too, the fuck you types. and how many use it for a cheaper kick than alchohol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mission Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 Is herorin cheaper than alcohol? Alcohol's pretty cheap these days too - well if you're buying from the supermarket - not pub prices. You probably would be surprised at how many people do drugs these days - most people aren't even shy about asking who's got some gear either - even in the pubs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 In many ways I agree with a tough attitude towards people who use mind altering substances (legal and illegal) to deny the reality of life - and an even tougher attitude towards the pushers of the illegal variants thereof. Abdicating your responsibilities via a bottle, a pipe or a needle makes the problems worse not better and usually passes on the difficulties to those near and (meant to be) dear to you. I can understand the anger in some of the posts which seem to be from people who have been on the receiving end of that sort of thing. I agree there is a lack of sympathy in their posts - I do sympathise with the family involved and regret that this young person ended up this way - but expecting the state, or mum and dad, or who ever to take responsibility which can ultimately only lie with the user is a part of their denial. Then there are those who claim just to seek pleasure and excitement through the various chemicals available to us - my main response is that I get extreme pleasure from my life without these chemical enhancements and the risks of addiction and misery are risks I am not willing to take. Plus I am very aware that my brain is a finely balanced beautiful thing and to upset it with the blunt chemicals of pleasure is to seek simplicities and not the intricacy of the mind. The claim that people are only taking these chemicals for a bit of fun or relaxation seems to me to be a slippery slope to taking them to escape - especially as these substances are at the very least psychologically and often strongly chemically addictive. I wonder if the poor individual reported here started out just having a bit of fun; not realizing the misery they would bring to themselves and their loved ones. When it comes to the legalize/prohibit debate my reply is that I want fewer people to use and abuse these substances - lowering their price and availability will not do that, plus it will give the pusher a get out to their immorality - they are pushing addictive substances on people who may not be able to overcome their cravings - in that case it is not a free choice of a rational individual to buy the drug with the seller being free of responsibility. Legalization will seem to lessen the pushers responsibility for the misery they create when they profit from addiction – too many pushers ignore this issue now – if it was legalized the problem would increase a thousand fold. That isn't a society I want to live in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted October 27, 2007 Share Posted October 27, 2007 BlueMonday - my comment was indirect, 'you' meaning any of the people reading it - and it was genuine not a cloaked wish of evil. Drug addict partners are a pain in the ass, you get them off the shit, they meet their friends again, back on it, money vanishes, things from around the house vanish and you think you can change them, its never going to happen. Last seen selling the big issue in Manchester....I still hope he is ok though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted October 28, 2007 Share Posted October 28, 2007 When it comes to the legalize/prohibit debate my reply is that I want fewer people to use and abuse these substances - lowering their price and availability will not do that, plus it will give the pusher a get out to their immorality - they are pushing addictive substances on people who may not be able to overcome their cravings - in that case it is not a free choice of a rational individual to buy the drug with the seller being free of responsibility. Legalization will seem to lessen the pushers responsibility for the misery they create when they profit from addiction – too many pushers ignore this issue now – if it was legalized the problem would increase a thousand fold. That isn't a society I want to live in. i think if drugs are legalised, 'pushers' would not be in business. after all, how many people do you see offering alchohol or fags on street corners? pubs excluded unless landlords are pushers?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shasto100 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Read this last week on BBC, big shock He was in my form in CHRS, came around my house a few times. Saw him last time I was over but never said hello If anyone knows the funeral details I'd be eternally grateful. RIP Peter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insomniac Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 i think if drugs are legalised, 'pushers' would not be in business. after all, how many people do you see offering alchohol or fags on street corners? pubs excluded unless landlords are pushers?? Watched 2 programes this week one called Amsterdam nights where armed police in a cage like police car race around looking for dealers to shoot and a Cook Report update which reviewed all his years of chasing drug dealers, money launderers and gangs etc some very close ties. Included a woman from England who applied for a job as a nursery teacher who was kidnapped and sold to the wonderful 'regulated' red light district. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 Saw him last time I was over but never said hello If anyone knows the funeral details I'd be eternally grateful. Uh, are you like a professional mourner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 Saw him last time I was over but never said hello If anyone knows the funeral details I'd be eternally grateful. Uh, are you like a professional mourner? That reply deserves you the title - 'inconsiderate and thoughtless poster of the year'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 That reply deserves you the title - 'inconsiderate and thoughtless poster of the year'. From someone who takes obvious pleasure from mocking the disabled and their disabilities that's a bit rich. Apparently in a recent interview about his failed marriage, Sir Paul McCartney was asked if he would ever go down on one knee again In response he said, "I'd prefer it if you called her Heather." ...Jeebus! £50 million - she's certainly landed on her foot. Hypocrite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 That reply deserves you the title - 'inconsiderate and thoughtless poster of the year'. From someone who takes obvious pleasure from mocking the disabled and their disabilities that's a bit rich. Apparently in a recent interview about his failed marriage, Sir Paul McCartney was asked if he would ever go down on one knee again In response he said, "I'd prefer it if you called her Heather." ...Jeebus! £50 million - she's certainly landed on her foot. Hypocrite. Rubbish - you haven't a leg to stand on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 I have a brace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.