Supras Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 It's been like that for about 30 pages of your bible-length posts. Why are you still here, then? Your presence is not sought, and you will not be missed when you leave. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lambie's Pigeon Feed Posted February 15, 2014 Author Share Posted February 15, 2014 http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/how-to-make-drugs-better-in-2014 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BradHorse Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 Why are you still here, then? Your presence is not sought, and you will not be missed when you leave. Do you reckon even a single individual has been glad of your input on this forum, em... Fucking, ever? You make some decent points now and again but they're always followed with a 'Did you hear that? I'm fucking brilliant. Don't bother trying to debate with me. What I just said is fact and anything you say from here on in will be dismissed by me in the most ignorant fashion possible.' You don't belong on a forum mate, you would be more suited to a blog. You don't wish to listen and learn from others' opinions; go and find a medium where you can just write and write till your heart's content and no-one can disagree with you... Seems more up your street tbh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 1. I'm not going to bother with the rest of your posts because they're getting tedious and repetitive. 2. But the part in bold? You've said it several times before, but it's something that already happens and already works. Sources: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7101085.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8255418.stm http://www.psmag.com/science/vancouvers-free-heroin-injection-clinic-58029/ http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1926160,00.html http://sciencenordic.com/heroin-clinics-improve-addicts-lives It's not laughable, it something that already works. Addicts are unstable predominantly because they are criminalised and forced to go to violent gangs for their drugs. 3. The drugs themselves can and are consumed safely by people with normal lives, there has been heroin and cocaine addicts who have lived normal lives for decades. E.g. Dr. Clive Froggratt. 4. I believe this counts as "specific, relevant, devastating". He'll totally ignore all the evidence and continue to post the exact same thing, obviously. 1. For starters, I reckon you'll 'bother' with any further posts I contribute, you can't help yourself. A prime example being the post I've quoted which was my response to The Moonster. You can't help yourself you strange little man. 2. For clarity, you're using these reports to say that if we legalise drugs for any user, old or new that drug dealers would be put out of business. A couple of small scale programmes that are used to specifically get long term addicts who want to get off heroin (but still commit crimes to get 'top up' fixes from dealers) gives the green light to your proposals ? I enjoy that you pull a few reports off the internet that are sympathetic to your argument and call them facts. There's no mention of how the participants are selected or any of that kind of stuff. Doesn't matter though, not really I'm sticking with naive (at best) 3. As for Dr Froggratt, seriously, are you using him as your poster boy for legalising drugs, he was faking prescriptions to feed his habit, that doesn't exactly scream 'living a normal life'. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/COCAINE+SHAME+OF+TOP+TORY+DOCTOR%3B+EXCLUSIVE%3A+NHS+reform+adviser...-a061160679 4. Stop the press....someone disagrees with you and despite your 'charm offensive', ready wit and 'facts' still doesn't agree with you. My spider senses tell me that the argument is more important than the subject with you, I suppose I'll never find out seeing as how you're not going to 'bother' with my posts................ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supras Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 Do you reckon even a single individual has been glad of your input on this forum, em... Fucking, ever? You make some decent points now and again but they're always followed with a 'Did you hear that? I'm fucking brilliant. Don't bother trying to debate with me. What I just said is fact and anything you say from here on in will be dismissed by me in the most ignorant fashion possible.' You don't belong on a forum mate, you would be more suited to a blog. You don't wish to listen and learn from others' opinions; go and find a medium where you can just write and write till your heart's content and no-one can disagree with you... Seems more up your street tbh Yes, of course they have. My posts are fucking brilliant. 1. For starters, I reckon you'll 'bother' with any further posts I contribute, you can't help yourself. A prime example being the post I've quoted which was my response to The Moonster. You can't help yourself you strange little man. I was actually referring to the 4 near identical posts you made before that reply, and it had nothing to do with what came after. But, you're right, that was very much a chance for you to accept your complete and utter defeat but instead you chose to complete ignore the evidence put forward, as you have repeatedly done throughout this entire debate. And with reference to Dr. Clive Frogratt, it's an excellent example of addicts being able to live, normal productive lives if the doses are stable and the product is monitored. The very opposite of what you want, clearly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blanco Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 And with reference to Dr. Clive Frogratt, it's an excellent example of addicts being able to live, normal productive lives if the doses are stable and the product is monitored. The very opposite of what you want, clearly. Fraudulently writing prescriptions for diamorphene using the names of dead patients, being suspended from practicing as a doctor and subsequently losing his the family home. That's more of a stereotypical junkie than a normal member of society. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 (edited) But, you're right, that was very much a chance for you to accept your complete and utter defeat And with reference to Dr. Clive Frogratt, it's an excellent example of addicts being able to live, normal productive lives if the doses are stable and the product is monitored. The very opposite of what you want, clearly. I worked on the principle it was a debate not a defeat but I think your right, your meltdown does indicate a defeat, sorry dude, I don't take any pleasure in your humiliation. Are you really sticking with Clive Frogratt as your example of 'self medicating' working ? Hmm, I guess you're never wrong, ever. edited cos I can't speel Edited February 15, 2014 by chomp my root 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supras Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 Fraudulently writing prescriptions for diamorphene using the names of dead patients, being suspended from practicing as a doctor and subsequently losing his the family home. That's more of a stereotypical junkie than a normal member of society. Er, he was a GP for years whilst being addicted to heroin. And was so renowned in his profession that he was appointed as an adviser to the government. That's a high functioning human being, and is something that is eminently possible were addicts given correct doses of a monitored product. I worked on the principle it was a debate not a defeat but I think your right, your meltdown does indicate a defeat, sorry dude, I don't take any pleasure in your humiliation. Are you really sticking with Clive Frogratt as your example of 'self medicating' working ? Hmm, I guess you're never wrong, ever. edited cos I can't speel This post is a catastrophic failure, tbh. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 Er, he was a GP for years whilst being addicted to heroin. And was so renowned in his profession that he was appointed as an adviser to the government. That's a high functioning human being, and is something that is eminently possible were addicts given correct doses of a monitored product. This post is a catastrophic failure, tbh. He lied and cheated to get a fix, get over it, bad example of a 'functioning addict'. He was renowned professional until he started to fall apart and degenerate into drug addiction. He had better access to 'good' drugs and he could have as much as he could steal from the NHS. He still didn't have the moral character to keep his habit in check, despite the fact he was a doctor of medicine and an advisor to the government on drugs. I don't care how 'high functioning' he is, he's an addict and it bit him in the arse. I'll try to learn to live with my 'catastrophic failure', as BradHorse points out, try blogging, you're not really a natural debater (I'm sure there's a joke in there somewhere). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blanco Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Er, he was a GP for years whilst being addicted to heroin. And was so renowned in his profession that he was appointed as an adviser to the government. That's a high functioning human being, and is something that is eminently possible were addicts given correct doses of a monitored product. This post is a catastrophic failure, tbh. He was suspended from practicing when his habit got so out of control he was writing dodgy prescriptions in dead patients names to get his fix. He was given a suspended prison sentence for actions, he also lost the family home due to his behaviour. Is this your vision of a normally functioning doctor and the kind of person you think should be allowed to prescribe heroin to drug addicts? Be extremely specific or just admit you're trolling 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supras Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Don't debate with idiots, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. Of course, Dr. Clive Froggratt lived and thrived as a GP for years whilst consuming heroin. The shit about him losing his job came after his heroin use became public, it was because of its illegality - not because of the effect of the drug itself. Again, this is painfully obvious. So are you two intentionally being idiotic, or is this really the best you can do? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Don't debate with idiots, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. Of course, Dr. Clive Froggratt lived and thrived as a GP for years whilst consuming heroin. The shit about him losing his job came after his heroin use became public, it was because of its illegality - not because of the effect of the drug itself. Again, this is painfully obvious. So are you two intentionally being idiotic, or is this really the best you can do? Not quite how it went though was it ? Froggratt was self medicating and you'd think with his knowledge and experience he'd know what your mythical ''safe dose would be. He didn't stick to it though did he, the drugs took over and he started faking prescriptions to get more. This doesn't fit in with your 'clinics' where everyone is happy with their 'safe dose' and pops off again. When it became public that he was basically stealing from his employer yes, that did have a negative effect on his career, his dishonesty led to his downfall and the cause of his dishonesty was drugs. Its also understandable that people may not want to go to (or especially take their kids to) a known drug addict for treatment (or alcoholic for that matter) as there would be suspicion about their judgement. You're either incredibly naive or so arrogant that you're unwilling to even see the other side of the argument but we know this anyway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blanco Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Don't debate with idiots, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. Of course, Dr. Clive Froggratt lived and thrived as a GP for years whilst consuming heroin. The shit about him losing his job came after his heroin use became public, it was because of its illegality - not because of the effect of the drug itself. Again, this is painfully obvious. So are you two intentionally being idiotic, or is this really the best you can do? The man is a criminal who lost everything because he was unable to function normally without using illegal substances. Is this really the sort of thing you think of as normal. Heroin addicts should be given treatment to overcome the addiction, not a daily dose for life to get them through the day. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supras Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Not quite how it went though was it ? Froggratt was self medicating and you'd think with his knowledge and experience he'd know what your mythical ''safe dose would be. He didn't stick to it though did he, the drugs took over and he started faking prescriptions to get more. This doesn't fit in with your 'clinics' where everyone is happy with their 'safe dose' and pops off again. When it became public that he was basically stealing from his employer yes, that did have a negative effect on his career, his dishonesty led to his downfall and the cause of his dishonesty was drugs. Its also understandable that people may not want to go to (or especially take their kids to) a known drug addict for treatment (or alcoholic for that matter) as there would be suspicion about their judgement. You're either incredibly naive or so arrogant that you're unwilling to even see the other side of the argument but we know this anyway. I find it amusing how much you are focusing on this one aspect, is it really the only one you think you have any chance in? He did consume a safe dose, that is why he has had no adverse medical affects as a result of his addiction. Were heroin legalised, he could have easily continued his career and lifestyle. The man is a criminal who lost everything because he was unable to function normally without using illegal substances. Is this really the sort of thing you think of as normal. Heroin addicts should be given treatment to overcome the addiction, not a daily dose for life to get them through the day. Except safe and consistent (eventually reducing) doses is the best method of treatment. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinkle Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Not sure if i could trust the judgement of my doctor if he was a junkie tbh. Everyone to their own tho.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 I find it amusing how much you are focusing on this one aspect, is it really the only one you think you have any chance in? He did consume a safe dose, that is why he has had no adverse medical affects as a result of his addiction. Were heroin legalised, he could have easily continued his career and lifestyle. Except safe and consistent (eventually reducing) doses is the best method of treatment. Not sure about your one aspect stuff but seeing as how you've 'gifted' us with your example of Froggratt its too good an opportunity to pass. You really are making an arse of your argument, using him as your example and claiming that if heroin was legal he'd still be in his job. I'm sure I don't need to break this down for you, you know but refuse to accept that you made a boo boo. You genuinely think that he just took a 'safe' amount each day and he never had a wee lapse in judgement and thought 'f**k it, I can control this, I'm too clever/disciplined (or whatever)'. He got caught stealing drugs from his employer, because the drugs became all consuming and he needed more, that doesn't fit in with your philosophy of clinics and safe doses. If your last paragraph is a change of tack by you and you now think it should only be used to try and wean people of heroin then I applaud your new found maturity of thought. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supras Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Not sure about your one aspect stuff but seeing as how you've 'gifted' us with your example of Froggratt its too good an opportunity to pass. You really are making an arse of your argument, using him as your example and claiming that if heroin was legal he'd still be in his job. I'm sure I don't need to break this down for you, you know but refuse to accept that you made a boo boo. You genuinely think that he just took a 'safe' amount each day and he never had a wee lapse in judgement and thought 'f**k it, I can control this, I'm too clever/disciplined (or whatever)'. He got caught stealing drugs from his employer, because the drugs became all consuming and he needed more, that doesn't fit in with your philosophy of clinics and safe doses. Making an arse of this argument? I've been relentlessly winning this argument for the past 29 pages, my superior knowledge has shone through my posts. You've admitted how far our your depth you are, and how little you know in comparison to me. It's been a complete and utter surrender on your part, and the only reason you're still here is that you appear to not know/care when you've been beaten. Fine. This is a topic I know a lot about, I will continue destroying you on it if you so wish. It absolutely does fit in with my philosophy of clincs and safe doses. At no point did it affect his competence in his job, at no point did it affect his health. This could be the case for many addicts, but instead you want to force them down a road of criminality. If your last paragraph is a change of tack by you and you now think it should only be used to try and wean people of heroin then I applaud your new found maturity of thought. This point is fucking idiotic, we criminalise them and force them to take unsafe products, then offer them the safe product? FFS, another catastrophe of a post. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 1. .Making an arse of this argument? I've been relentlessly winning this argument for the past 29 pages, my superior knowledge has shone through my posts. 2. You've admitted how far our your depth you are, and how little you know in comparison to me. It's been a complete and utter surrender on your part, and the only reason you're still here is that you appear to not know/care when you've been beaten. Fine. This is a topic I know a lot about, I will continue destroying you on it if you so wish. 3. It absolutely does fit in with my philosophy of clincs and safe doses. At no point did it affect his competence in his job, at no point did it affect his health. 4. This could be the case for many addicts, but instead you want to force them down a road of criminality. 5. This point is fucking idiotic, we criminalise them and force them to take unsafe products, then offer them the safe product? FFS, another catastrophe of a post. 1. Surely its for others to decide how good your argument is and whether your superior knowledge has shone through. You may be just a tad biased ( and maybe a teensy bit egotistical too). 2. Yes, this sounds like something I'd say in this scenario, but you know the drill so prove it and , oh, 'be specific' ! I can only assume by the tone of this post that its your last desperate roll of the dice and you're trying to distract me with this poor rhetoric, sorry mate, you know we've got you by the 'happy sack' on this one but to paraphrase you don't know/care that you've been beaten. 3. A man stealing drugs to feed his habit that got out of control and 'pushed' him into greater and greater risks to get his fix supports your Utopian clinics does it ? Ooft 4. Yeah, legalise everything, that would cut down on crime because there wouldn't be any. Froggratt had the best possible scenario for access to 'good' drugs and fucked it up. Even the price didn't drive him to crime, the craving did. The government have a duty of care which means not putting us in this position in the first place. 5. Yeah, basically you're told 'don't take drugs, its naughty' if you do the state don't wash their hands of you, they try and help (this is the only point that I can see any argument for legal heroin). You can argue that things could be done better but after speaking to a friend who's a drugs and alohol addictions nurse she said she didn't know a single colleague who would be happy to work in your clinics. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour Skinner Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 f**k it. Aye, it should be legal. Most c***s will still buy from their mates anyway 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 I'm guessing we can take supras's absence as a capitulation, shame he hasn't been along to admit it, still I suspect he can be 'Beetlejuiced' up, supras was beat..... supras was beat...... supras was beat........ 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.