chomp my root

I still don't see that just because you disagree with something that you automatically have to offer up a better/different solution. Palestine being an example, I may deplore the situation but that doesn't mean I have a working alternative that would suit all involved. I'm not involved with drugs in any real way directly, maybe if I were I'd have more of an answer for you. I'm absolutely certain that,A. The Utopian NHS drop in centres would be unworkable for the reasons already stated and B. Politicians and the vast majority of the population (for right or wrong) wouldn't be persuaded that its a good idea so basically a non starter. I would love to see the criminals involved removed from drug culture and as I've said, I don't have an issue with the softer ones being legalised. I'm not daft enough to think that people for what ever reason won't take hard drugs, I just don't think the government would/should condone it. The alcohol comparison is a fair one to a point but the 'masses' would not vote for a party who said they were going to ban booze, its to ingrained, you're dealing with people who, like your football fan don't have to justify their reasons or prejudices.

Definitely too much 'product' ! Sorry, I couldn't resist

just noticed this one, what a strange thing for a person to claim, I doubt anything I've posted could be construed this way. Please prove it and..........be specific

Ooft, you're having an off night, maybe too much 'product'. As for you avoiding the company of blah blah blah, to paraphrase you, its deflection and as for your final paragraph, I've posted earlier that I don't have a massive issue with E. Nice try but my only problem is with 'hard' drugs'.

Um, you are, you've said in an earlier post that you go round places campaigning on the subject which does make you kind of a 'salesman'. Even if you weren't ,calling people idiotic for disagreeing with you is unlikely to win them over. Personally I'm not looking to be buttered up but I'm guessing you see my point and are deliberately being provocative to try and provoke a reaction.

Yes mate, its just a pity that for some reason you just can't quite convince all of us that you're right. If you were genuine about your 'crusade' you'd improve your people skills because your 'facts' aren't doing it despite an earlier post by you that you didn't really need to be nice to people as the 'facts' would carry your argument. Again I'll say you're naive because you don't seem to accept that you need to convince PEOPLE who don't require logic or facts to form an opinion, we're a fickle bunch, some just require a bit of 'buttering up' but you don't seem willing to do that. It looks like just an excuse to have a rant to be honest.

You're slipping dude, very selective response but I'm not surprised.

In reply to your first point, I'm not saying we shouldn't look for ways to improve the way we deal with things now. In any aspect of life we should be looking at ways to improve things. What I am saying is that legalising 'hard' drugs doesn't need to be the only change to be looked at. Other options can be looked at which leads me on to your second point. It doesn't necessarily follow that just because I don't like one proposal that I would have a well thought out alternative. In this case, I'm more reactive (not reactionary) due to not being directly affected by any drug issues. Thats not to say I'm unsympathetic. Sorry if this comes across as fence sitting but like I say, if someone throws something open to debate like this I can surely pick holes with it and in this debate I've given reasons why I think its unworkable. Its pub logic to make it a choice A or B scenario, can you really see that happening ? Surely the legalisation of weed would be a step towards any (incredibly unlikely) change to the way we deal with harder drugs.

I think you're being silly now, a public flogging would probably be sufficient

The argument that the current system is flawed so we must change it to another system (which hasn't exactly been proven to work either) is really no argument for change. Any change to the way the nation deals with drugs would cost a fortune to set up and administer and what would we do if it didn't work ? (this would have to be before all the money rolled in from the end of supras's war on drugs, which is contentious anyway) Would we re-criminalise drugs ? The government would already have accepted that people use drugs and may indeed have 'gotten into them' through the NHS. How would these people be 'treated' ? They maybe wouldn't want to be which leaves even more of a mess to be sorted (and paid for). Its not a 'keep things exactly as they are' or 'legalise drugs and have special clinics' argument. That kind of argument is great for the internet or the pub but when theres consequences to be dealt with by politicians and civil servants etc can you really see them going "och , we'll give it a shot and see how it goes" ?

I can't speak for the others but in the poll at the start of the thread (way back when it was just a debate about legalising weed) I voted yes. I'm not sure about E, coke etc but I know guys who do and seem fine, I could probably be swayed on these but my reticence is more to do with the length of time that they've been 'around' like I say, I could probably be persuaded. Stuff like Heroin, I just can't see being legalised, for all the reasons I've stated and also because the 'masses' and the MP's won't go for it. It would take a huge change in the publics attitude and frankly of the reasons to go down the legalised root, the only one that has any merit is the argument about (trying) to take drugs out of the hands of criminals but as I've said, it comes across to me as incredibly naive (or hopeful). I've never been bothered (never even tried weed) and its unlikely if I will, whether its legal or not but I know plenty who have/do and I think its about how addictive a person you are, I'm surprised nobodies mentioned gambling to be honest, that can be harmful to a lot of people, some who have financial responsibilities but then, thats not as 'sexy' as drugs.

I thought 99% supported the war on drugs because if we didn't understand then we were pro war on drugs. I'm using your figures here so I would have thought they/we/me (not too sure, definitely the 99% then) wouldn't be 'so difficult to find'.

Valid points, the one you've missed is that they now have to convince us 'doubters' that we're wrong, thats us, the vast majority of the population that think allowing the state to sell heroin might be a bit 'iffy'. Apparently its all about education and we're missing the point but as we're 'idiotic' (copyright supras) we'd probably not get it anyway Oh and its not just the small chance of someone OD'ing on the 'good' stuff, if some poor wee soul who was in a government sponsored program OD'd on the 'naughty' stuff, it would still be the governments fault for 'allowing' them to get into drugs in the first place. As you've pointed out but the 'pro' campaign refuse to accept (due to a staggering amount of naivity in my opinion) that what the drug user wants and what the government would consider the mythical safe dose might vary hugely. None of the pro's have even attempted to deal with this point. The amount of 'seethe' generated about something that just isn't going to happen is laughable. edited for bad speeling

My point was that even if the drugs can be manufactured cheaply, the infrastructure of staffing these establishments will have to be met too. There'll have to be medical and security people who the users would have to effectively pay for to make the service more or less cost neutral. On the issue of cost, nobody seems keen to stick their neck out and guestimate a cost, which makes sense, theres so many things to consider apart from staffing, there's tax, the secure storage and transportation of the drugs and of course the cost of the drugs themselves (which I suspect will be more than people think, purely because the government (in this case the NHS I would imagine) couldn't be seen to be buying crap and the companies who produce it will rip the government off, as companies do across government contracts generally).

Fair one bruv. ETA: should have said harsh...............but fair

Linking someones views on drugs to the independence vote and then saying anyone who doesn't agree with you shows a lack of intelligence is stretching things a tad. I'm sorry but thats poor on a number of different levels.

I'm guessing that on a thread entitled 'Should Weed Be Legal ?' and we're talking about 'hard' drugs you've read the last couple of pages at least and seen how the debate has moved. Which bit don't you understand ?

These state drug emporiums will no doubt be built and staffed round the clock by good samaritans only too happy to provide a service for the sterling hard working user. They'll be more than happy to meet all expectations, more smack Sir, suit you Sir.

Sorry, had to come back for a second pop. Surely the cessation of the 'war on drugs' will pay for it, never mind the cost, even if you don't know what it would be and if all the hard working 9 to 5 working drug users play by the rules.

Hmmm so you're speculating like tbe rest of us. The prosecution rests its case !

Sorry, did I not get back to you quick enough, getting bored not having anyone to 'seethe' at ?

1. I may have said unworkable twice, probably because I think its really unworkable, I've given examples, you chose not to accept them, move on. Again with the war on drugs, I've not given an argument to back it because apparently I don't understand it but still back it according to you. Not sure how I could 2. Aye, because we all listen to what the government says, 3-4 units of alcohol a day blah blah blah, if you want something you'll try and get it, as for 'all' heroin users (words in mouth stuff), it doesn't take all, even just a few to come straight out of the heroin shop and go and get another hit of dodgy stuff and die. Again, not exactly your utopian dream of fluffy drugs for all who want them scenario. As for imprisoning drug users, thats a seperate argument and one that you're trying to throw into the mix. 3. Your argument that state controlled drugs for all, administered by professionals means what ? I'm guessing what the pro's decide is the correct amount, not what Joe Public think/want, surely you can see that there might be a slight difference of opinion. Sounds like 'control' to me which could be interpreted as prohibitions wee brother. Not to mention that depending on the hours the 'shop' is open (more hours mean more cost) that people might want 'out of office hours' hits, where to turn to, hmm. 4. I take your point and I'd love to remove the criminal element but even if the police said they weren't going to go for illegal drug dealers, some of these guys are involved in other crime too so fair game. There's also the people who may commit crime to get the money for their hit either from the 'shop' or dealers. 5. Meh, opinion, you've got yours and I've got mine, and in my opinion your's is naive, for the reasons I've given 6. Again, you're saying that coming from your no 'war on drugs' if they're all legalised and so the police won't spend a bean chasing drug dealers. As I've said, I find that scenario extremely naive. 7. So, replace one flawed system with another, involving the government as a partner, aye, even if your heroin shops were 99.9% successful that still leaves the government with a couple of unwanted statistics. 8. I think its you that thinks 99% of the population support the war on drugs, you're the only one banging on about it. 99% of the population may be against the legalisation of heroin and the like but what does that matter, they're all idiotic. As for your 'anger'. grrrr you get 'em tiger.

I've numbered your points for simplicity 1. I've no idea how expensive heroin is to produce but the medical professionals and security will need to get paid, there may even have to be new constructions due to people (rightly or wrongly) not wanting a heroin shop 'in my neighbourhood'. For these shops to work, they can't exactly be a 9 to 5 operation either. As for your assumption that the police will not have to spend a bean on 'naughty' drug related crime, I'm dubious to say the least. 2. Ooft, those who don't understand the war on drugs support it ? You've made yourself look a bit daft with that sweeping generalisation. 3. I agree with you about the monarchy, I'd abolish it but those pesky idiotic masses eh ? Democracies a bitch 4. The reason everyone 'bottles' the debate is because you're obsessed with your 'war on drugs' that you cherry pick what the debate entails, I can't speak for all of us but I'm not quite as 'into' it as you are, so for most of me its a non-debate, I'm guessing in your own head you've got some killer arguments desperate to see the light of day As for your 'tone' you really should work on it, I'm not saying you should be kissing babies but slagging off the people you're trying to convert is, you know, counterproductive and as you're not daft and know this, it makes me wonder why you take this approach.

No doubt he's done research but he's presenting it like the word of God, to quote Disreali (or Twain) lies, damn lies and statistics. I'm sure anyone who decided to set themselves up as the guru on any topic could find 'facts' to back themselves up. Oh and if he's wanting to convert people to his way of thinking, common courtesy is a good starting point, if he becomes sick of repeating himself (ha) then theres no need to re-enter the debate. No offence but you're coming across as the wee guy stood behind the big guy going "yeah, what he says".

On a busy choo choo and on phone so not too practicle to break down all your various 'shotgun' points but I'll have a go later. I will say that on planet Sheldon your policy might work but are you really that naive that you think people will just what they're supposed to ? As for your abolishionist comparison, which I was half expecting, I'll counter with the age of consent issue, kids under sixteen are shagging should we abolish the age of consent ? We govern ultimately by concensus (sort off) through our elected members (not a perfect system, maybe you've got ideas to improve that too). Like I say, you just need to convince either (or both) the MP's or the idiotic masses. I'd work on your people skills first though. Just in case you're not aware, the Sheldon reference is from a popular TV (television) programme.