Thursday no-brainer....

So what are these effects then?

 

Nothing like? Lets see now

death
injury
despair
lack of self worth
violence to self
violence to others
huge societal costs - health system, policing, support agencies, crime.
costs to families

Sounds quite similar to me. You've obviously not had someone close to
you die of alcoholism.

 

Can we chop off hands for stealing, cut out tongues for perjury or blasphemy
and castrate those caught wanking?

Also, can we televise all of the above?


--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, TEAR#3 (and KotL), DS#5, Keeper of the TFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

http://www.saudinf.com/

I think that Rikki would like it there.


--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, TEAR#3 (and KotL), DS#5, Keeper of the TFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

And more addicts that need helping.

You will indeed always find some people willing to take the chance but the
amount of those willing to chance it would reduce.

Believe me I would have more reason than most to say so as my career was
ended 5 years ago thanks to a bunch of pissed up arseholes in NI but no,
banning booze wouldn;t be a good thing because it's something that the vast
majority of the population take socially and in general take without causing
others grief. Sure there's plenty out there that get pissed up and cause
bother but it's a tiny minority when compared with the amount of people who
drink.

The same cannot be said about drug addicts as you well know.

Agreed the majority of people choose not to do drugs and some don't do them
because they are not as easily available as some people might think. If I
had a notion to take smack this afternoon then I'd need to go hunting around
for a dealer as the only one I know personally is banged up. However if I
could get them from the chemist 50 yards away it would make it a damn site
easier should I chose to try them and get addicted to them.

"the majority of people in this country chose not to do hard drugs," you
first then

 

eh, did I say it worked? I thought I said...

"No because it went against what the vast majority wanted. Legalising or
making more readily available hard drugs is the same, against what the vast
majority want."

Now I can try and break that down a bit so it's a bit easier for you to
understand if you wish? Just let me know.

 

I *suppose* we can do it doggy-style ... and I'll wear a collar, but
that's as far as it goes, OK?

Woof.

 

This to show how a perfectly innocent remark can be made to look dodgy with
careful editing.

I'm off now to nail my penis to a board.

 

Possibly if they're a habitual offender...

A mute Police force.. now there's a thought!

If someone's so ugly that they can't get laid then maybe it's better that
they don't breed ?

Of course, get it on pay per view. Self sustaining TV! Using the pay per
view fee to subsidise the crack and smack to keep the number of addicts up.

In turn this will keep the number of thieves up, the number of cops trying
to fit up dealers (unless of course smack is legalised by then) up, the
number of dealers crying out " i swear to fucking god your honour, they
lying bastards planted it!" up,and the amount of manky junkies having to
have a good hard wank to get a vien up in their arm.

At last, a true master plan Andrew.

 

I don't think you can necessarily equate legal drugs with less attraction.

 

That's just misunderstood.

 

Good cos I'm straining up under the bear.

 

Please do.

I suggested you learnt from history; relating to prohibition.

You suggested I learnt myself, I asked you to show me where prohibition
(which is what you're advocating for drugs) had worked. So far you've
failed to show me any evidence that prohibition worked.

You're suggesting that prohibition didn't work because, in your opinion,
'the majority didn't want it'. You're also suggesting that removing the
prohibition on drugs would be like introducing the prohibition on
alcohol because, again in your opinion, it 'goes against what the vast
majority want'.

I believe there's a lot of opinion in there with nothing easily tested.
I'd like some evidence where prohibition has been shown to work, you
seem unable to provide this and yet you seem to suggest it's the only
way forward.

 

Judging on my experience of my peer group when in our teens the
illegality and 'anti-establishment' part was a motivator.

Maybe if all the politicians admitted to taking drugs when at uni it
would stop the young using them now?

 

What do you have to support this argument? In Amsterdam the number of hard
drug users is declining, despite having only accounted for 0.7% of the
population of the city anyway.

Figures to support longer sentences being a deterent to crime, please.

Is this all just heresay or does somebody actually support you in these
claims?

OK, based on a quick search of BBC news ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1425706.stm

"According to Drugscope, a policy think tank, there are about 266,000
"problem users" in the UK".

Now you.


--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, TEAR#3 (and KotL), DS#5, Keeper of the TFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

Rikki wrote

I have known more than a couple of drug addicts do that sort of thing.
For most of them 'petty' crime is just a part of what they do. For some
the extra adrenaline helps improve the buzz. It is a sort of addict
mentality thing.

Then there are the Monty Burns types. The suits who don't give a shit
about us, the world or anything as long as they have lots more pennies
today in their bank accounts than they did yesterday.

Selfishness is a part of the human condition.

 

So people who drink socially aren't alcoholic but people who use drugs
recreationally are addicts?

Try a comparison of people who take drugs but aren't 'addicts' or
failing that a comparison of alcoholics and drug addicts.

So you'd get addicted by taking it just once?

That's not quoting a source, it's expressing an opinion.

 

That might be true for a younger audience.

I think I assumed that if drugs were to be legalised there would be a
minimum age, much like we have now for cigarettes and alocohol.

 

You obviously missed the fucking point that if the drugs were legal
than the crime surrounding them would disappear.

 

Rikki wrote

If you change the words 'hard drugs' to 'thrill seeking' so that it
encompasses a wider range of potentially dangerous substances then your
argument will fall apart in an instant.

Have a close looks at your strings and see if you can recognise the
person pulling them.