Supras Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 My argument in favour of the war on drugs? Which arguments that? I haven't put one forward. People would be more willing to enter serious debate with you if you didn't get so defensive and upset that someone could possibly disagree with you but that's an argument for a different day. Bullshit. I have been explaining and backing up my position the entire thread, as people who support legalisation tend to. But it's not enough, those who oppose absolutely should be able to pose an alternative policy. It's no where near enough to point out potential problems with a legalisation approach if you don't have any suggestion yourself. Doing nothing is the status quo, the ludicrous failure of a policy that is the war on drugs. So put up an alternative proposal? Go on, if you think you're good enough. On your point, are we to have doctors on call at all hours for addicts to contact when they are taking a hit or will this be set times that the addict is allowed to consume? What if a doctor isn't available to them and they take it anyway? Would that be illegal or are we just legalising it altogether and letting them get on with it? Doctors will not be on call. There would be a discussion as to opening hours,but I would propose them being open to 24/7 within hospitals. Which are open 24/7 anyway. It would absolutely never be illegal to consume a product. If people want to obtain an unsafe product from a criminal, a ludicrous proposition but it appears to be all you've got, then that's their prerogative. What if I wanted to use heroin, a new user. Would the government provide me with a dose to take or would I have to go to a dealer? Would this be illegal if I wanted to take it but not if addicts do?How do you control the drug in this circumstance. As you probably know, people start taking drugs when it is supplied to them by people, usually friends, to try. No one goes out and just buys a bag of smack one day because they fancy it. When people undoubtedly became hooked would they then be entitled to government doses or would they have to be supplied by a dealer? Would these dealers be illegal? I would allow consenting adults to consume heroin, absolutely. Your second point rambles on and says nothing. Would dealing drugs be illegal? Obviously, just like dealing illegal cigarettes is illegal. The point about trying "smack" with their friends is not relevant. These points are getting more bizarre by the page. The costs of such legalisation coupled with safe dosing would be monumental and a far higher amount of doctors time would be consumed by this problem than previously.When an addict has to go to a dealer, which they inevitably will, to get their fix, what's to say crimes would not be committed to acquire the funds? Dealers are highly unlikely to also pay tax on their product when the government is undercutting them. This would be a crime and tax avoidance can carry a jail term. Jail terms of course incur yet more costs. What happens if a junkie dies during a safe dosing procedure? There would surely be investigations into how it occurred which will of course incur yet further costs. First statement is explicitly not true, and I've already posted an article as to the exact costs of the current war on drugs. The medical bill would be reduced significantly too, as it would monitoring people consuming a safe product, not letting them take junk and get rushed to hospital. There's little more I can do when people are posting such blatant untruths. It's in exactly the same category as "maybe slaves are happy being slaves, maybe they don't want freedom". The paragraph is bold is fucking embarrassing. It's basically saying "what if crimes are committed? What then!?!?" I actually lol'd at the third paragraph. Extra cost from a report On the safe dosing idea that I actually disputed- After the safe dose, what happens if the persons needs are not met? They then go to the same dealers the government would be attempting to eradicate surely? Given the amount of junkies in the country, how much is it going to cost to build these facilities capable of housing huge stocks of Heroin and cells for the junkies who misbehave?.How long do you estimate it would be before someone robbed one of these facilities. That would surely force heightened security which will be a huge cost as well. Where are we to get the cash required to build this Narcotic Utopia? Of course, this all before taking into account where the government would grow and produce their completely safe stock and of course the massive costs of labs to test all this gear. This guy's great. He's your typical opponent to drug legalisation. Utterly out of his depth and playing well into your heads with complete nonsense a child could see through. He's the exact reason why people who support the war on drugs are so difficult to find, they can't help but look stupid with their views. 1st question - If someone wants to OD, fine. Not anything anyone can do about it. This is an argument against legalistiion, how? 2nd question - Maybe, it wouldn't matter. 3rd question - Er, prisons are full of drug users Worst point of the three so far, but how low will we go? 4th question - What, like robbing a hospital? How is this fucking relevant to anything? 5th question - Narcotic utopia is something you have made up. But given I've already posted extensively about the money saved from legalisation, there is little more I can add. 6th question - Governments do not make drugs, drug companies do. You didn't think the NHS made all the drugs they have in hospital? How fucking stupid is this guy? I'm upgrading this to worst point. And people complain about my tone? I thought I was quite reasonable there. Certainly a lot more than I needed to be. It's hard to take seriously questions like "but what if crimes are committed?" Could I put you forward as someone to speak publically against legalisation? It would be a major boost to the movement. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supras Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Is a violent meth head going to voluntarily walk up to this facility and agree to take their fix under the eyes of the authorities?Yes or no? I have no idea. People will generally go for a safer and cheaper option that doesn't involve being threatened by criminal gangs, but it's hardly something I can guarantee. Will someone stab themselves with a knife occasionally, yes or no? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 (edited) My argument in favour of the war on drugs? Which arguments that? I haven't put one forward. People would be more willing to enter serious debate with you if you didn't get so defensive and upset that someone could possibly disagree with you but that's an argument for a different day. On your point, are we to have doctors on call at all hours for addicts to contact when they are taking a hit or will this be set times that the addict is allowed to consume? What if a doctor isn't available to them and they take it anyway? Would that be illegal or are we just legalising it altogether and letting them get on with it? What if I wanted to use heroin, a new user. Would the government provide me with a dose to take or would I have to go to a dealer? Would this be illegal if I wanted to take it but not if addicts do? How do you control the drug in this circumstance. As you probably know, people start taking drugs when it is supplied to them by people, usually friends, to try. No one goes out and just buys a bag of smack one day because they fancy it. When people undoubtedly became hooked would they then be entitled to government doses or would they have to be supplied by a dealer? Would these dealers be illegal? On the safe dosing idea that I actually disputed- After the safe dose, what happens if the persons needs are not met? They then go to the same dealers the government would be attempting to eradicate surely? The costs of such legalisation coupled with safe dosing would be monumental and a far higher amount of doctors time would be consumed by this problem than previously. When an addict has to go to a dealer, which they inevitably will, to get their fix, what's to say crimes would not be committed to acquire the funds? Dealers are highly unlikely to also pay tax on their product when the government is undercutting them. This would be a crime and tax avoidance can carry a jail term. Jail terms of course incur yet more costs. What happens if a junkie dies during a safe dosing procedure? There would surely be investigations into how it occurred which will of course incur yet further costs. Given the amount of junkies in the country, how much is it going to cost to build these facilities capable of housing huge stocks of Heroin and cells for the junkies who misbehave? How long do you estimate it would be before someone robbed one of these facilities. That would surely force heightened security which will be a huge cost as well. Where are we to get the cash required to build this Narcotic Utopia? Of course, this all before taking into account where the government would grow and produce their completely safe stock and of course the massive costs of labs to test all this gear. What with it being illegal virtually everywhere else they'll not be able to simply import it so the government will be needing to grow, produce, test, price, supply and monitor the drugs of 300,000 (known) heroin addicts. 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 Edited February 11, 2014 by chomp my root 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hearts Daft Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Answered absolutely nothing and clouded it with insults and swearing. Absolute hyperbole from you as per the norm. I never once stated the NHS make their own drugs. However, given the supply and making of heroin is illegal worldwide the pharmaceutical companies would have to go to massive costs to even facilitate making it and would cost far more than you are attempting to make out. This I don't know so an actual answer would be smashing rather than answering points I never made. Can a pharmaceutical company make Heroin in large supplies anywhere in the world or would it have to be made in Britain? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 This guy's great. He's your typical opponent to drug legalisation. Utterly out of his depth and playing well into your heads with complete nonsense a child could see through. He's the exact reason why people who support the war on drugs are so difficult to find, they can't help but look stupid with their views. 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'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Of course, this all before taking into account where the government would grow and produce their completely safe stock and of course the massive costs of labs to test all this gear. What with it being illegal virtually everywhere else they'll not be able to simply import it so the government will be needing to grow, produce, test, price, supply and monitor the drugs of 300,000 (known) heroin addicts. Most of your points have already been addressed, and I can't be bothered repeating them, on this point tho. What massive lab costs? Do we have massive lab costs for paracetamol? Are we unable to grow/produce the morphine we use? I would hazard a guess we may use a little more of that than we would heroin. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hearts Daft Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 By the way, even more laughable is your hospital suggestion. Quite possibly the most ludicrous thing I have ever read. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zetterlund Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 In my opinion (and that bit is important as I'm not claiming that I'm 100% correct and everyone else lacks intelligence), the only potentially sensible idea discussed in this thread is for heroin to be prescribed to help break a user's addiction. This happens in a small amount of cases in the UK already, and this is possible without the drug being "legalised". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LinkinFighter Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Arguments against safe dosing? You clearly know nothing about drug addiction if you actually think an NHS/Government provided safe dosing scheme would work. Is a violent meth head going to voluntarily walk up to this facility and agree to take their fix under the eyes of the authorities? Yes or no? Almost everything you people come back with is to do with extreme cases, we have extreme cases with alcohol at the moment and its still legal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hearts Daft Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Most of your points have already been addressed, and I can't be bothered repeating them, on this point tho. What massive lab costs? Do we have massive lab costs for paracetamol? Are we unable to grow/produce the morphine we use? I would hazard a guess we may use a little more of that than we would heroin. None of my points have been adressed. Supras has decided to b*****dise most of them so he can provide an answer. Paracetamol and Morphine are painkillers. Morphine is highly controlled. Paracetamol doesn't give you a mortality rate 14x the general population and has already undergone stringent lab tests like every other legal drug. Just because people currently take heroin doesn't mean the government can just buy it and sell it to the public. Tests would have to be done to ensure the safety of the product is as high as it can be and to research the possibility of making it even safer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hearts Daft Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 (edited) TBF, I'm not completely against legalisation of certain drugs. I don't like or want to be around the majority of people who smoke weed but it is one drug that does have a very strong argument for legalisation. Heroin though I will never ever agree should be a legal choice. Especially given that drug treatment in the UK currently has high levels of known users being treated and has the user figures at record lows. Edited February 11, 2014 by Hearts Daft 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 None of my points have been adressed. Supras has decided to b*****dise most of them so he can provide an answer. Paracetamol and Morphine are painkillers. Morphine is highly controlled. Paracetamol doesn't give you a mortality rate 14x the general population and has already undergone stringent lab tests like every other legal drug. Just because people currently take heroin doesn't mean the government can just buy it and sell it to the public. Tests would have to be done to ensure the safety of the product is as high as it can be and to research the possibility of making it even safer. If only heroin was already tested the same way as prescription drugs, that would solve the problem. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Are DeeMan, Hearts Daft, chomp my root etc against the legalisation of 'party drugs' such as Ecstasy, MDMA, ketamine or whatever? I can sort of understand people being against the legalisation of the really serious addictive drugs such as heroin and crystal meth that have obviously devastated communities. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lambie's Pigeon Feed Posted February 12, 2014 Author Share Posted February 12, 2014 Are DeeMan, Hearts Daft, chomp my root etc against the legalisation of 'party drugs' such as Ecstasy, MDMA, ketamine or whatever? I can sort of understand people being against the legalisation of the really serious addictive drugs such as heroin and crystal meth that have obviously devastated communities. What tends to happen when this topic is discussed is the anti-legalisation brigade get shown up for fools on the cannabis debate so move to recreational. Get shown up for fools on recreational so move to heroin and crystal meth. And when shown up for fools on those you start getting really bizarre bullshit flung around. The posters you mention are in the advanced final stage. Meltdown imminent. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Are DeeMan, Hearts Daft, chomp my root etc against the legalisation of 'party drugs' such as Ecstasy, MDMA, ketamine or whatever? I can sort of understand people being against the legalisation of the really serious addictive drugs such as heroin and crystal meth that have obviously devastated communities. 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hearts Daft Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 (edited) What tends to happen when this topic is discussed is the anti-legalisation brigade get shown up for fools on the cannabis debate so move to recreational. Get shown up for fools on recreational so move to heroin and crystal meth. And when shown up for fools on those you start getting really bizarre bullshit flung around. The posters you mention are in the advanced final stage. Meltdown imminent.I'm not anti-legalisation. Nice try though.I'm yet to hear an argument for the legalisation of smack other than "War oan drugs a pyoor failure" while ignoring the drug treatment programmes successes. Smack is already losing it's appeal. Legalising it would be fucking stupid. The "legalisatiion brigade" to steal your shite patter, are always desperate to paint a picture of vast savings and massive falls in crime which just wouldn't come to fruition. It's all utter shite and fantasy. Yes there probably would a fallbin crime, what with something illegal becoming legal. Nowhere as huge as some seem to think IMO. Edited February 12, 2014 by Hearts Daft 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zetterlund Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 What tends to happen when this topic is discussed is the anti-legalisation brigade get shown up for fools on the cannabis debate so move to recreational. Get shown up for fools on recreational so move to heroin and crystal meth. And when shown up for fools on those you start getting really bizarre bullshit flung around. The posters you mention are in the advanced final stage. Meltdown imminent. A couple of your "I'm right and everyone else is stupid" posts here are abysmal and candidates for the worst thing you've ever seen seen posted on here thread. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dee Man Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Are DeeMan, Hearts Daft, chomp my root etc against the legalisation of 'party drugs' such as Ecstasy, MDMA, ketamine or whatever? I can sort of understand people being against the legalisation of the really serious addictive drugs such as heroin and crystal meth that have obviously devastated communities. I joined the debate last year after reading a ridiculous post that said all drugs should be legalised. I originally asked if this included crystal meth as I have personal experience in being around people who've used ice regularly and seen first hand the devastating effect it has on individuals and their families, including two guys I know who now have disabled children as a direct result of using it. I have stuck specifically to crystal meth despite others saying it is irrelevant as it is not much of a problem here. If all drugs are to be legalised then that includes crystal meth which shows how ridiculous the argument is. I haven't commented on any recreational drugs despite what shite Lambies Pigeon Feed is spouting as usual. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Moonster Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 I joined the debate last year after reading a ridiculous post that said all drugs should be legalised. I originally asked if this included crystal meth as I have personal experience in being around people who've used ice regularly and seen first hand the devastating effect it has on individuals and their families, including two guys I know who now have disabled children as a direct result of using it. I have stuck specifically to crystal meth despite others saying it is irrelevant as it is not much of a problem here. If all drugs are to be legalised then that includes crystal meth which shows how ridiculous the argument is. I haven't commented on any recreational drugs despite what shite Lambies Pigeon Feed is spouting as usual. So people have a big problem with meth, is making the meth they take safer (i.e. better for them) not the way we should be going, rather than fining them/locking them up/whatever? I can't believe people can't grasp that concept. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dee Man Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 So people have a big problem with meth, is making the meth they take safer (i.e. better for them) not the way we should be going, rather than fining them/locking them up/whatever? I can't believe people can't grasp that concept. How exactly do you go about making meth safer? Are you suggesting it's the impurities that lead to violent behaviour, psychosis, birth defects, weeks/months long comedowns etc etc etc? These are just a few of the side effects of pure meth so "making it safer" is not an option I'm afraid. 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.