La_Dolce_Vita Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/children...--and-died.html Here we go again, someone dies from a drug that most people haven't heard much about and then the media starts screaming for it to be banned. And the media make it all the worse, in respect of how real ecstacy is perceived, by constantly referring to it as liquid ecstacy, even though it has nothing to do with pills. Why not some education, maybe show young people what users of GBH and GBL look like in a club - that'll put people off! I think it takes someone very foolish to go and do GBH if they don't know much about it, but banning it isn't the answer and nor will it solve the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 The point is though that the Mother is obviously full of emotion and understandably wants to lash out. The fault to my mind here is the media who seem to encourage this without thought of the consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 It's GHB, not GBH (although it possibly causes that). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted June 25, 2009 Author Share Posted June 25, 2009 It's GHB, not GBH (although it possibly causes that). Like I was saying, considering how people act in clubs when they have taken it is does seem like grievous bodily harm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Roo Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 I should'nt imagine showing what people look like will do anything, they've done that one with booze and it hasnt made any difference. If its good enough for the celebs.... Education, maybe! But we all got educated about smoking and how many people smoke. Kate Moss has got a lot to answer to, hard to believe she's a mum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted June 25, 2009 Author Share Posted June 25, 2009 I should'nt imagine showing what people look like will do anything, they've done that one with booze and it hasnt made any difference. If its good enough for the celebs....Education, maybe! But we all got educated about smoking and how many people smoke. Kate Moss has got a lot to answer to, hard to believe she's a mum. I think the problem with smoking is that it is such an established and massive addiction in the population. Same with drinking. Harder to change attitudes towards them when so many smoke and drink too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulgarian Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 I think education is the way forward to safer drug use (and that's what we should be aiming for as people are going to use them anyway, no matter how much time and money the government spends trying to eradicate them). Educating people frankly, not through scare tactics, about the different types of drugs available, what they do, and the dangers of using them. For me the issue of drugs boils down to a basic libertarian question: "What right does the government have to tell me what to do with my own body?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overdose Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 ......maybe show young people what users of GBH and GBL look like in a club - that'll put people off! This should do the trick.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b4mbi Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 Pete Doherty is the very worst example of this. Why do the media give that scumbag so much attention, hey look how cool drugs are and how I get really don't get into that much trouble for doing them.... Sooner he O/D's the better IMHO.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 For me the issue of drugs boils down to a basic libertarian question: "What right does the government have to tell me what to do with my own body?" Frank Zappa - A drug is neither moral nor immoral -- it's a chemical compound. The compound itself is not a menace to society until a human being treats it as if consumption bestowed a temporary license to act like an asshole. But the fact is too many people do act like assholes under the influence - and that costs, costs lots and lots and lots and lots. Not only for the asshole themselves, but for the assholes familly and friends, and for the state in everything from health care, to social security, to crime prevention, to courts and the prison system. If someone wants to go off to some dessert island, or Somalia and do as many drugs as they like fine by me - but uf they do it here, then more than likely I'll end up paying for it. Its quite simple for me - as there are too many assholes around the state has a right to step in and regulate etc - governments have a right to tell people what to do when they end up paying for the consequences of the behaviour. How we reduce the number of assholes is one difficult question - I'm not totally against decriminalization or whatever - but if you are selling a substance which is designed to be taken in a leisure environment, which lowers inhibitions and can kill when mixed with tiny quantities of booze then there are very very real issues about how to stop deaths. I can't think of any substance like that and I'm not surprised there are calls to regulate its supply/ban it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jehovah Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 I was really hopeful with the title of this thread, up until the comma that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulgarian Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 For me the issue of drugs boils down to a basic libertarian question: "What right does the government have to tell me what to do with my own body?" Frank Zappa - A drug is neither moral nor immoral -- it's a chemical compound. The compound itself is not a menace to society until a human being treats it as if consumption bestowed a temporary license to act like an asshole. But the fact is too many people do act like assholes under the influence - and that costs, costs lots and lots and lots and lots. Not only for the asshole themselves, but for the assholes familly and friends, and for the state in everything from health care, to social security, to crime prevention, to courts and the prison system. If someone wants to go off to some dessert island, or Somalia and do as many drugs as they like fine by me - but uf they do it here, then more than likely I'll end up paying for it. If it's the fiscal cost of drugs that concerns you, then consider how much is being spent sustaining the government's futile efforts to eradicate them. Alcohol is a drug, and it's ill effects cost the government a lot of money, but they make this up by taxing it heavily. The same with cigarettes. The difference with drugs is that there is no system to regulate them because they have only widely emerged fairly recently, unlike alcohol and tobacco which have been taxed for hundreds of years, and instead of forming a proper strategy or plan the govt have totally illegalised them, and stubbornly continue this policy even though it clearly isn't working. Its quite simple for me - as there are too many assholes around the state has a right to step in and regulate etc - governments have a right to tell people what to do when they end up paying for the consequences of the behaviour. I strongly disagree with that statement in principle, but let's not get started on that because it'll go nowhere. How are you defining "asshole" here? People who want to use perfectly safe drugs recreationally? They are currently criminalised because of the govts ridiculous stance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted June 26, 2009 Author Share Posted June 26, 2009 How are you defining "asshole" here? People who want to use perfectly safe drugs recreationally? They are currently criminalised because of the govts ridiculous stance. And even if I was authoritarian in my views and believed that the state has a right or duty to involve itself, the current situation bears little similarity to liberal governmental theory. The whole system of laws and ways of dealing with drugs are completely hypocritical, irrational, and create strange anomalies. Depends what you mean by arsehole. But loads people get wasted on a weekend, sometimes I do, and can act like arseholes. The government isn't doing much about it, not that I believe it has the right to, but clearly there are far far more drunken arseholes in Douglas at the weekend than Class A users being arseholes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 How are you defining "asshole" here? People who want to use perfectly safe drugs recreationally? They are currently criminalised because of the govts ridiculous stance. If drugs were perfectly safe what would be the point in taking them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 The pleasure they cause surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.