chomp my root Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 OK, but if there's any bumming involved, I've changed my mind about the drugs ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supras Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 You keep re'hash'ing the same arguments and you obviously believe them which is fair enough. You seem to want to wrap the whole drugs thing into one easy 'fix' which it isn't. As for costs, its all speculation but I would imagine the whole process would not be cheap. Thats assuming that all the 'users' of the system play the game and instead of being spontaneous just pick up the phone and book an appointment for a week next thursday instead of saying "I want it now". Naivity in the extreme I'd suggest. Er, I have many arguments for promoting drug legalisation. I have covered some of them here, but certainly not all. Who on earth is saying there is one easy fix? There is an existing disastrous policy, and a significantly better alternative. Your cost argument is going no where, conveniently entitled "speculation", because you seem to think heroin is expensive to produce. Which it really isn't. Who said anything about appointments? But you're right, drug users with consistent access to drugs will behave in a much more reasoned and consistent manner. The evidence for that is clear in Canada, and the trial in the UK. I don't know if this war on drugs that seems to excite you is a 'war on terror' big picture thing or just the general push by law enforcement to arrest criminals so I've no idea and can't and won't comment. Probably because I'm one of the idiotic masses though. Thats probably the reason I don't buy into your all or nothing approach (or is it MY way or the highway, hmmm) This paragraph says nothing. But it is hardly an all or nothing approach, more of an evolutionary approach. Those who don't understand the war on drugs support it, those who have a partial understanding support decriminalisation and anyone who has looked into it in any depth supports legalisation. It is the pro change groups role to err, push for change, they're the ones who don't like the status quo. If you are thinking of starting a pressure group I'd get someone else to be the 'poster boy', theres a few people out there who don't appreciate being described as idiotic and you might not sway them with your charm. This paragraph also says nothing. But if you're concerned or surprised by me calling the "general public" idiotic, these are the same people who sustain medieval institutions like the monarchy. They will be considered idiotic, until they demonstrate otherwise. Why is it everyone bottles the debate and starts trying to pass some comment on my "tone"? Who the f**k cares 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supras Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Just because you agree with him and no matter how hard you wish it were the case it is unworkable. Your heroin user goes along to the government clinic/shop (it sell stuff, its a shop to me, doesn't mean I think it'll be next to RS McColls on the 'High' st.) and gets his stuff, job done. Next day for whatever reason he's having a shit day he wants another hit of the good stuff but the heroin shop says sorry mate you had yours yesterday you'll have to wait XX days/hrs. What does our user do ? Say "fair enough chief I'll pop back then" or does he get it from somewhere else ? You've said unworkable twice, and yet haven't actually demonstrated why it is unworkable. Nor have you put forward arguments for the current policy, the war on drugs, which is clearly and demonstrably unworkable. Maybe he gets it somewhere else? Maybe he doesn't get it? You don't really have much of a point here. The recommended dosage will be determined by medical professionals, under no circumstances will the government decide to give users so much of a product they die. But that's assuming all drug users who are "having a bad day" instantly want heroin, and there is no evidence for this whatsoever. Why has this policy been such a dramatic success in Canada and in a trial in the UK? Er, cause it works. If I have a "shit day" I don't go home and drink a half bottle of vodka. I find it astonishing your justification for "unworkable" is conjecture you have just made up. Does any of what you're saying give a justification for imprisoning drug users? All the talk of prohibition not working is a bit of a smoke screen, what (seems to me anyway) is being said is the government can get better safer drugs. The system being proposed isn't going to be a 'get what you want, when you want, as long as you can pay' approach, whats being suggested is a 'professional' telling you how much you can get and how often. A form of prohibition. While this might work for some do you really think this will work for all ? So we have the heroin shops, we still have illegal drug trafficking and the crime associated with people committing crime to get their fix. This doesn't exactly fit the utopian vision presented to end this 'war on drugs' stuff (forgive my ignorance of all its ramifications). So we still have police trying to stop the 'bad' non state drug sellers and criminals who commit crimes to get them. We also have a situation where people can 'justify' even if only to themselves that its not their fault and as we all know wheres there blame theres a claim so its the governments fault. It's not a smokescreen, it is an absolutely fundamental part of the debate. Obviously. Prescribing a safe amount of drugs is not prohibition. Again, obviously. I have no idea if it will work for all, it will provide everyone with the opportunity to live a normal life, whether or not they take it. It's certainly preferable to the current system, who offers nobody a choice, and which only works for criminals. I find it greatly amusing you are using "drug trafficking and crime" as an argument AGAINST drug legalisation and FOR drug prohibition. There will be greatly reduced criminal involvement in drugs following legalisation. They, more than anyone, oppose it vigorously. I imagine the police will treat non state dealers the same way they treat those who sell illegal alcohol or cigarettes. Committing a crime, but clearly idiots who are hardly important enough to devote significant resources to. Don't really know what this has got to do with drug legalisation, however. Your last sentence makes no sense. While in your eyes, I don't get it, I could argue the reverse and suggest your approach is very naive and possibly dangerous to many (as it is now I realise) but state sanctioned and therefore potentially a different financial burden on the state. Before Supras asks me for my 'specific' solutions (for his no doubt unbiased consideration) to the problem I don't have it, sorry, it's not something that I've given a great deal of thought to but as ever I try and keep an open mind and theres not been any real 'logic' in this thread that works in the messy world of people (for me).I have to say as a closing comment that if 99% don't get it then maybe its the 1% that are at odds. Keep trying to change peoples minds by all means but I would suggest that legalising cannabis would be the first step rather than the all or nothing angry approach. You don't get it, at all. This is demonstrated by your scatter gun, contradictory, posts. It's not naive, there is one of us here with a developed understanding of different drug policy alternatives. That person is not you. The current system is dangerous to all users, and indeed society as a whole. A legalisation system would be considerably less dangerous, for the reasons already outlined. By different financial burden, you should be saying considerably reduced financial burden. There is no logic that appeals to the messy logic of people? Well, people crave for substances that alter their state of mind. They will also want drugs. We as a society have neither the capability nor desire to stop the production of drugs. Therefore, the current system is fatally flawed and doomed to failure, as it has done on every level. To develop an alternative policy requires a certain amount of scholarship in addition to practical studies. Which is why the system in place in Canada, and the trial in the UK, are so important in determining the best way to progress. Your closing comments laughably assumes that 99% of people support the war on drugs and only 1% support legalisation. This simply isn't true. Legalising cannabis is a positive move, and step one of full scale legalisation. I am "angry" about the war on drugs the same way the abolitionists were "angry" about slavery. When you see human beings suffering, and know of ways to alleviate it, of course you will vigorously support the implementation of a new policy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 So what have you done to advance the legalisation cause? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaz Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Supras has every right to adopt the tone he does in these threads. He has obviously done his research. If someone decides to enter a debate and spout uninformed pish why should he tip toe around pointing that out to them? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dee Man Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 You've said unworkable twice, and yet haven't actually demonstrated why it is unworkable. Nor have you put forward arguments for the current policy, the war on drugs, which is clearly and demonstrably unworkable. Maybe he gets it somewhere else? Maybe he doesn't get it? You don't really have much of a point here. The recommended dosage will be determined by medical professionals, under no circumstances will the government decide to give users so much of a product they die. But that's assuming all drug users who are "having a bad day" instantly want heroin, and there is no evidence for this whatsoever. Why has this policy been such a dramatic success in Canada and in a trial in the UK? Er, cause it works. If I have a "shit day" I don't go home and drink a half bottle of vodka. I find it astonishing your justification for "unworkable" is conjecture you have just made up. Does any of what you're saying give a justification for imprisoning drug users? It's not a smokescreen, it is an absolutely fundamental part of the debate. Obviously. Prescribing a safe amount of drugs is not prohibition. Again, obviously. I have no idea if it will work for all, it will provide everyone with the opportunity to live a normal life, whether or not they take it. It's certainly preferable to the current system, who offers nobody a choice, and which only works for criminals. I find it greatly amusing you are using "drug trafficking and crime" as an argument AGAINST drug legalisation and FOR drug prohibition. There will be greatly reduced criminal involvement in drugs following legalisation. They, more than anyone, oppose it vigorously. I imagine the police will treat non state dealers the same way they treat those who sell illegal alcohol or cigarettes. Committing a crime, but clearly idiots who are hardly important enough to devote significant resources to. Don't really know what this has got to do with drug legalisation, however. Your last sentence makes no sense. You don't get it, at all. This is demonstrated by your scatter gun, contradictory, posts. It's not naive, there is one of us here with a developed understanding of different drug policy alternatives. That person is not you. The current system is dangerous to all users, and indeed society as a whole. A legalisation system would be considerably less dangerous, for the reasons already outlined. By different financial burden, you should be saying considerably reduced financial burden. There is no logic that appeals to the messy logic of people? Well, people crave for substances that alter their state of mind. They will also want drugs. We as a society have neither the capability nor desire to stop the production of drugs. Therefore, the current system is fatally flawed and doomed to failure, as it has done on every level. To develop an alternative policy requires a certain amount of scholarship in addition to practical studies. Which is why the system in place in Canada, and the trial in the UK, are so important in determining the best way to progress. Your closing comments laughably assumes that 99% of people support the war on drugs and only 1% support legalisation. This simply isn't true. Legalising cannabis is a positive move, and step one of full scale legalisation. I am "angry" about the war on drugs the same way the abolitionists were "angry" about slavery. When you see human beings suffering, and know of ways to alleviate it, of course you will vigorously support the implementation of a new policy. Nobody bottles the debate. You bore the tits off everyone with your eye raping posts. I could rip you to shreds if I could be arsed, but quite frankly I'd rather sandpaper my helmet and dip it in a bowl of salt and vinegar. -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Supras has every right to adopt the tone he does in these threads. He has obviously done his research. If someone decides to enter a debate and spout uninformed pish why should he tip toe around pointing that out to them? 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". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supras Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 So what have you done to advance the legalisation cause? A wide spectrum of things, from writing articles to debating and funding. 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. You'll have a go, will you? Looking forward to that Er, your first question makes no sense. Your second makes even less sense. Of course the age of consent shouldn't be reduced. Poor attempt at deflection tbh. People skills? This is an online football forum, I'm not going to pander to people who say stupid things and know f**k all. Sorry. Supras has every right to adopt the tone he does in these threads. He has obviously done his research. If someone decides to enter a debate and spout uninformed pish why should he tip toe around pointing that out to them? It's hardly fair, really, and it doesn't matter how gracious I am the significant knowledge gap will be evident, and the opponent will have his feelings hurt. Nobody bottles the debate. You bore the tits off everyone with your eye raping posts. I could rip you to shreds if I could be arsed, but quite frankly I'd rather sandpaper my helmet and dip it in a bowl of salt and vinegar. You could rip me to shreds? On a topic you know nothing about, and I know a lot about? Of course you could, kiddo. What's next, I take you could rip Stephen Hawking on physics? Maybe teach Mourinho on football management? You fucking fantasist. I've comprehensively destroyed you already on this thread, and I'm more than happy to do so again. 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". Unlike you, of course, who has no facts. And is trying to turn this into a discussion on me for some reason Is it because you are doing so badly on the topic itself? Common courtesy doesn't covert people, facts do. And if people aren't converted by facts, then they are the idiots I previously referred to. Funny that you're green dotting each other, though, alone you were failing, and together you are doing even worse. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy85 Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 I'll need to come back to annihilate you when I have more time. Nobody bottles the debate. You bore the tits off everyone with your eye raping posts. I could rip you to shreds if I could be arsed, but quite frankly I'd rather sandpaper my helmet and dip it in a bowl of salt and vinegar. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 I think your style of posting is detracting from your argument. If that is repeated in the other fields you're not going to convince anyone who is opposed to legalisation. It's a bit like Peter Tatchell, most of what he said was right, bit he got peoples backs up and his message was lost. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LinkinFighter Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Deeman 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zetterlund Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 I have read the first 6 or 7 pages of this topic and may read the rest later. It's not a subject I've spent much time on, so I don't claim to be an expert. Firstly the topic poll - weed, I wouldn't actively campaign to legalise it but I wouldn't be up in arms if it did get legalised either. It's not obviously harmful, but I have no doubt that prolonged use has a lasting effect on people. The debate about the legalisation of all drugs raises a few issues with me. For the record, I agree the "war on drugs" isn't working and needs dramatically overhauled. - Imprisoning of people for the mere crime of consumption. While I don't think people should be imprisoned for consuming drugs in most cases, I do think it should be illegal. Consuming a product creates the market for it so it's the consumer which perpetuates the entire drug trade. - Forcing users to consume unsafe products. This line has been repeated throughout the thread. Nobody is being forced to take drugs? I've never felt under any pressure from the government to take drugs. I quite easily could if I wanted to but I choose not to, as taking a mind-altering and/or addictive substance could only have a negative effect on my abilities to function as a normal human being in day-to-day life. The rocketing usage figures for cocaine and other drugs over the past few decades is usually used to show how prohibition doesn't work but there are other factors which go some way to explain this too. It's a feature of the West's global capitalist economies that poorer countries can produce the drugs so cheaply, and the more the economic gap widens the cheaper the product will be. The average man on the street has much more disposable income than he did 30 years ago too. I'd need to know more about the government facility idea to comment further on it. If you could legally consume drugs in here, would it still be illegal to buy and consume outside of such a facility? If so then it doesn't sound any different to current prescription drug laws? It also seems to me that the market would still be flooded with illegal suppliers undercutting the state. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lambie's Pigeon Feed Posted February 9, 2014 Author Share Posted February 9, 2014 I have read the first 6 or 7 pages of this topic and may read the rest later. It's not a subject I've spent much time on, so I don't claim to be an expert. Firstly the topic poll - weed, I wouldn't actively campaign to legalise it but I wouldn't be up in arms if it did get legalised either. It's not obviously harmful, but I have no doubt that prolonged use has a lasting effect on people. The debate about the legalisation of all drugs raises a few issues with me. For the record, I agree the "war on drugs" isn't working and needs dramatically overhauled. While I don't think people should be imprisoned for consuming drugs in most cases, I do think it should be illegal. Consuming a product creates the market for it so it's the consumer which perpetuates the entire drug trade. This line has been repeated throughout the thread. Nobody is being forced to take drugs? I've never felt under any pressure from the government to take drugs. I quite easily could if I wanted to but I choose not to, as taking a mind-altering and/or addictive substance could only have a negative effect on my abilities to function as a normal human being in day-to-day life. The rocketing usage figures for cocaine and other drugs over the past few decades is usually used to show how prohibition doesn't work but there are other factors which go some way to explain this too. It's a feature of the West's global capitalist economies that poorer countries can produce the drugs so cheaply, and the more the economic gap widens the cheaper the product will be. The average man on the street has much more disposable income than he did 30 years ago too. I'd need to know more about the government facility idea to comment further on it. If you could legally consume drugs in here, would it still be illegal to buy and consume outside of such a facility? If so then it doesn't sound any different to current prescription drug laws? It also seems to me that the market would still be flooded with illegal suppliers undercutting the state. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 1. Your cost argument is going no where, conveniently entitled "speculation", because you seem to think heroin is expensive to produce. Which it really isn't. Who said anything about appointments? But you're right, drug users with consistent access to drugs will behave in a much more reasoned and consistent manner. The evidence for that is clear in Canada, and the trial in the UK. This paragraph says nothing. 2. But it is hardly an all or nothing approach, more of an evolutionary approach. Those who don't understand the war on drugs support it, those who have a partial understanding support decriminalisation and anyone who has looked into it in any depth supports legalisation. This paragraph also says nothing. 3. But if you're concerned or surprised by me calling the "general public" idiotic, these are the same people who sustain medieval institutions like the monarchy. They will be considered idiotic, until they demonstrate otherwise. 4. Why is it everyone bottles the debate and starts trying to pass some comment on my "tone"? Who the f**k cares 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 1. You've said unworkable twice, and yet haven't actually demonstrated why it is unworkable. Nor have you put forward arguments for the current policy, the war on drugs, which is clearly and demonstrably unworkable. 2. Maybe he gets it somewhere else? Maybe he doesn't get it? You don't really have much of a point here. The recommended dosage will be determined by medical professionals, under no circumstances will the government decide to give users so much of a product they die. But that's assuming all drug users who are "having a bad day" instantly want heroin, and there is no evidence for this whatsoever. Why has this policy been such a dramatic success in Canada and in a trial in the UK? Er, cause it works. If I have a "shit day" I don't go home and drink a half bottle of vodka. I find it astonishing your justification for "unworkable" is conjecture you have just made up. Does any of what you're saying give a justification for imprisoning drug users? 3. It's not a smokescreen, it is an absolutely fundamental part of the debate. Obviously. Prescribing a safe amount of drugs is not prohibition. Again, obviously. I have no idea if it will work for all, it will provide everyone with the opportunity to live a normal life, whether or not they take it. It's certainly preferable to the current system, who offers nobody a choice, and which only works for criminals. 4. I find it greatly amusing you are using "drug trafficking and crime" as an argument AGAINST drug legalisation and FOR drug prohibition. There will be greatly reduced criminal involvement in drugs following legalisation. They, more than anyone, oppose it vigorously. I imagine the police will treat non state dealers the same way they treat those who sell illegal alcohol or cigarettes. Committing a crime, but clearly idiots who are hardly important enough to devote significant resources to. Don't really know what this has got to do with drug legalisation, however. Your last sentence makes no sense. 5. You don't get it, at all. This is demonstrated by your scatter gun, contradictory, posts. It's not naive, there is one of us here with a developed understanding of different drug policy alternatives. That person is not you. The current system is dangerous to all users, and indeed society as a whole. A legalisation system would be considerably less dangerous, for the reasons already outlined. 6. By different financial burden, you should be saying considerably reduced financial burden. 7. There is no logic that appeals to the messy logic of people? Well, people crave for substances that alter their state of mind. They will also want drugs. We as a society have neither the capability nor desire to stop the production of drugs. Therefore, the current system is fatally flawed and doomed to failure, as it has done on every level. To develop an alternative policy requires a certain amount of scholarship in addition to practical studies. Which is why the system in place in Canada, and the trial in the UK, are so important in determining the best way to progress. 8. Your closing comments laughably assumes that 99% of people support the war on drugs and only 1% support legalisation. This simply isn't true. Legalising cannabis is a positive move, and step one of full scale legalisation. I am "angry" about the war on drugs the same way the abolitionists were "angry" about slavery. When you see human beings suffering, and know of ways to alleviate it, of course you will vigorously support the implementation of a new policy. 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Unlike you, of course, who has no facts. And is trying to turn this into a discussion on me for some reason Is it because you are doing so badly on the topic itself? Common courtesy doesn't covert people, facts do. And if people aren't converted by facts, then they are the idiots I previously referred to. Funny that you're green dotting each other, though, alone you were failing, and together you are doing even worse. Sorry, did I not get back to you quick enough, getting bored not having anyone to 'seethe' at ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zetterlund Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 ??? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dee Man Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Trawling through pages and pages for that? Tragic. Yet another stellar contribution to the forum from Jimmy85. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LinkinFighter Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 To be fair you mentioned destroying someone 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.