Jump to content
aberdeen-music
Sign in to follow this  
Pierre Von Mondragon

End Prohibition Thread

Recommended Posts

That's all well and good but I think you should change your user name.

:laughing: shit, I walked into that one!

I still think you would get a surge in use at the time it became legal, if it was made readily available, and yeah the novelty wears off and most people will move on. It happens with everything, chocolate companies releasing defunct retro chocolates and such; its a known market trend.

Plus not everyone knows where to get drugs from and I bet the majority of the public wouldn't even have the first clue where to start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This

All the FACTS from countries with more liberal controlled substances laws show that useage in these countries falls, often quite dramatically, as it has in Portugal and the Netherlands, and that problem use falls even more, go look it up, I'm off hame.

and this

Legalization would bring about large-scale awareness of the dangers and that can't be a bad thing.

The friends and patients mentioned above had their lives ruined whilst the drugs were illegal. The war on drugs will never be won and they'll always be around on the black, unregulated, uncontrolled, criminal market.

Obviously part of my argument comes from my desire not to have to go round to folk's high rise flats who own reptiles and have shifty looking mates cutting about (if I ever did want to experiment with illegal drugs that is) but I honestly believe I have the greater good in my argument too.

As an aside, if I was a politician I wouldn't fucking touch it with a barge pole....until I'd retired as per the former MP I linked to before.

Dave, given the broken homes, physical and mental illness, crime, disorder and ruined lives caused by alcohol would you back its prohibition? keeping politics, tax, the economy and such like out of the argument would you actually be for making the sale and consumption of booze illegal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which they wouldn't, even mild psychoactives aren't to many peoples taste, and even fewer people really want to end up a junkie. It's the senseless locking up, persecuting and insidious corruption of civil society that I object to in prohibition. No-one wants more cokeheads (particularly), but compulsory education about strokes, heart attacks and the dangers of mixing with booze, at point of sale, would achieve far more harm reduction than todays black market which encourages polydrug use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, must have just imagined the first hand experience of friends going totally off the rails and ending up in mental institutions due to "moderate" cannabis use. The gifted folk I knew from school who went from taking the odd e at weekends who quickly became addicted to stronger substances and lost everything. People who should have had glittering careers and worthwhile lives on the scrapheap by the age of 30 because their drug use became more important to them than everything else. I've seen the lifestyle associated with drugs, and it's sordid, ugly and unhealthy. I'm not "making shit up", how dare you?

:sleeping: Why is it that people think having a friend or relative who fell victim to something or other gives them authority, moral and otherwise, on the subject? If that's all that's required to lend weight to a position, I have lost a friend to drugs, don't take anything other than alcohol and caffeine and support the legalisation of everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've lost a friend to Tippex thinners. I kid you not. Of course, this is an unacceptable reality to most, as are the statistics that show solvent abuse kills more kids than anything else every year. Still, the rumour around town was that it was 'drug's that killed him so that must have been it I expect. Never mind the toxicology report or witnesses. Or that the union shop where he bought it from continued to display the product at night, after the event.

My point being that, as a society, we are not dealing with these issues in a particularly mature way, preferring to support our prejudices instead of looking at the facts, which are that we are entirely permissive when it comes to the widespread abuse of legally available substances and entirely paranoid about those that are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most people, at one time or another, will have come in contact with drug users, have been offered drugs or is in a situation where drugs are being used. What stops them from getting involved? Uncertainty at what they're taking, fear of the effects the drug may have on them, and, probably most important of all, an unwillingness to get caught and get a criminal record. The illegality of drugs puts off a lot of people even considering letting drugs into their lives, just as the speed limit dissuades most people from driving over 70mph.

Not necessarily, plenty of people just might not fancy it. Plenty of people don't drink alcohol, caffine, smoke fags etc etc etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. I wouldn't advocate banning caffeine, or refined sugar, or adhesives or indeed any other substance that is known to have adverse effects on the user if used irresponsibly. The point about alcohol is that its effects are much more predictable and more easily dealt with than those of cannabis and other banned substances. Drawing the line at cannabis seems to be the sensible option.

This is garbage, frankly. The effects of illicit substance use are broadly predictable, most will tolerate them well, as most people tolerate alcohol well. A few will suffer a bad reaction, as is the case with alcohol.

Conversely, the predictable effects of heavy cannabis use, in terms of social behaviour and physical damage to the user, are far less acute than chronic alcoholism in our society. Argue the per-capita use differential if you must.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is garbage, frankly. The effects of illicit substance use are broadly predictable, most will tolerate them well, as most people tolerate alcohol well. A few will suffer a bad reaction, as is the case with alcohol.

Conversely, the predictable effects of heavy cannabis use, in terms of social behaviour and physical damage to the user, are far less acute than chronic alcoholism in our society. Argue the per-capita use differential if you must.

This is undeniable. There is also a wider range of problems associated with alcohol. Surely most people in the world who drink have experienced physical, mental or emotional harm as a consequence of it at some point in their lifesuch as liver disease, alcohol dependence and eventual death, personality changes, high jinx gone wrong, casual violence, domestic abuse, divorce, depression, rape, hypothermia, impotency, poor live musical performances, cancers, vandalism, heart problems, hangovers, disorderly behaviour, bankruptcy, stomach ulceration, piles, unwanted pregnancies, broken limbs, embarrassment, anxiety, vomitting, choking on vomit, vomiting on a family heirloom, absence from work, beer bellies, purchase of pink cowboy hats from street vendors.

(some worse than others of course and only a handful of the above relate to my own experiences)

I dont deny the potential dangers of drug use but to claim that alcohol is easier to predict or control is just plain barmy.

You simply cant predict how a person will react to alcohol. Only people themselves can do so by learning from their past experiences of it. They can then make a decision regarding their continued use of it.

Drink a half bottle and then beat up your wife? Stop drinking.

Smoke some grass and feel paranoid? Stop smoking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drink a half bottle and then beat up your wife? Stop drinking.

Smoke some grass and feel paranoid? Stop smoking.

That's one of the problems with grass being illegal. You don't know how much you're smoking because there are no laws in place to force the vendors to give you that information.

Pretty much everyone knows what half a bottle of spirits does to them (to a greater or lesser degree) because each half-bottle contains exactly the same amount of alcohol as the one next to it, the alcohol content is clearly labelled and they even have the units on them for the hard of understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was accused of "making shit up", which is a pretty low blow and deserves to be dealt with with contempt. I'm not challenging the accounts of those who had positive experiences of drugs, but I think I should be allowed to point out that the reverse is often true without someone trying to take a cheap shot.

No, you said that drugs affected people in such a way "invariably" and it turns out you based this on a few anecdotes. With everything else you've posted here being spurious nonsense, I don't think it was a cheap shot.

Speed limits, for one thing, are a prime example of an impotent law which no one agrees with, to the point that the government is compelled to paint speed cameras brightly so that people don't get caught (just a tiny minority who are too blatant or unlucky; ditto with, say, cannabis).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely if alcohol causes all the problems that it does while under the control of government it is clear that the governments policies on its control are pretty poor.

Why would their policies on controlling any other substances be better and cause less problems? Reports from other European countries might show improvements when legalising substances but is that country comparable in its substance use/abuse to the UK? They already get told the UK's alcohol problem is the worst in the EU. Also you have to look at how these countries are operating as a whole and what their reputation/status with the rest of the world. These are the things the politicians would be asking.

There appears to be lots of assuming that stoners will all be responsible and self regulate, which yes, Im sure lots will do and I have see happen myself but think of the view a politician gets of the average drug user; they probably know little of the quiet stoners keeping themselves to themselves, they see the headlines about crime due to drug use all that shite.

To a politician the legalising of pot takes a growing problem affecting a section of society, with massive problems abroad, and opens it up to all of the country with massive uncertainty over a huge number of issues.

And we live in a country where the majority tells the minority what they can do, it sucks! Ask the fox hunters, off roading enthusiasts, anyone told to turn it down after 10pm! :popcorn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Surely if alcohol causes all the problems that it does while under the control of government it is clear that the governments policies on its control are pretty poor.

Why would their policies on controlling any other substances be better and cause less problems? Reports from other European countries might show improvements when legalising substances but is that country comparable in its substance use/abuse to the UK? They already get told the UK's alcohol problem is the worst in the EU. Also you have to look at how these countries are operating as a whole and what their reputation/status with the rest of the world. These are the things the politicians would be asking.

There appears to be lots of assuming that stoners will all be responsible and self regulate, which yes, Im sure lots will do and I have see happen myself but think of the view a politician gets of the average drug user; they probably know little of the quiet stoners keeping themselves to themselves, they see the headlines about crime due to drug use all that shite.

To a politician the legalising of pot takes a growing problem affecting a section of society, with massive problems abroad, and opens it up to all of the country with massive uncertainty over a huge number of issues.

And we live in a country where the majority tells the minority what they can do, it sucks! Ask the fox hunters, off roading enthusiasts, anyone told to turn it down after 10pm! :popcorn:

The problems are not caused by policy but culture. If you look abroad you are not going to find more formidable laws or whatever it is you're looking for. I can point you towards countries with very laid back alcohol laws, big drinking cultures and very little violent crime. On the other hand there are countries with little legislation against drinking and yet little drinking going on at all There are countries with draconian anti-drug laws and non-tolerating cultures to back them up right next door to countries with similar laws yet no enforcement of them.

As for your last comment, I really don't think the majority of people in the UK see cannabis users as criminals. With regards to harder drugs, if this thread is anything to go by, along with such things as government advisers being fired for not toeing the line, I doubt you will be in the majority for long. :popcorn: indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for your last comment, I really don't think the majority of people in the UK see cannabis users as criminals.

I don't know like, I'd think most would lump cannabis users in the general "druggie" bin. Going on what is reported in news/papers and all that.

I can see the reasons why people see legalisation is the way ahead, it does make some sense but I just don't think it will happen in this country. It needs a massive amount of investigation/study into how it would affect all aspects of UK life, just saying it works in country X doesn't cut it. All the uncertainties involved would have to be worked out before systems of operation could be considered. How long does it take to build a freekin bypass round aberdeen for example! I think if the government even proposed forming a team to look at this just now (hey maybe there already is one, I'm not kenning) it would get stiff opposition on just cost grounds.

If it wasn't so cold outside I'd say I'd be prepared to eat my hat if I was wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that's democracy for you. I think the outlook for legalisation of cannabis (at the least) is unlikely, given the electorate's prejudices are reinforced by whatever their daily twaddle sheet reports.

"FATHER OF THREE KICKED TO DEATH BY TEENAGERS HIGH ON DRUGS (okay they were completely smashed also as we admit in the small print)"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No I didn't. In your rush to have a dig at me, you completely misread what I wrote. We were talking specifically about "weekend" or casual drug users, which is only a section of the drug-using community as a whole. I said that invariably their lifestyle eventually catches up with them, and they have to make a choice between quitting and letting the drug affect other parts of their life besides their leisure time. And this is true in 100% of cases I've witnessed.

If you don't think that people who have negative experiences of drugs should use their knowledge to contribute to the debate, fine, but's a pretty daft and closed-minded approach to take. Talking of rubbish viewpoints...

I'm sorry, what? No-one agrees with speed limits? Seriously? You do realise there are more people in the world than you and Jeremy Clarkson, right?

No, I did not misread what you posted. You said that in the case of casual drug users "invariably their lifestyle eventually catches up with them and they have to make a choice between quitting and letting the drug affect other parts of their life". You used a few anecdotes to come to this sweeping and spurious conclusion. If we're to use anecdotes to argue this point, it is true only in a small minority of cases I've witnessed.

I don't have a problem with someone using their own experiences in an argument but I do have a problem with them being painted as everyone's experience and using a sob story as an excuse for a holier-than-thou attitude. It's not close minded-either. Using your experience to make sweeping statements about everyone else, that's close-minded.

A large amount of people do not agree with speed limits as they stand, particularly on places like motorways (in residential zones, yes, but I would contend few people would speed in residential zones simply through wariness of running over some kid). Many would support if not removing limits on motorways then increasing them. Again, is it not true that speed cameras are painted in bright colours so that motorists can circumvent them? Are the authorities so keen to make it easy for violent criminals? Your Jeremy Clarkson jibe just shows you up as blinkered and prejudiced, again: I don't drive and never have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How long before the Guardian re-evaluates Pat Robertson's contribution to public life?

It's a sad day when your heroes let you down eh Dave? :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The reason why cannabis and other drugs will never be legalised in this country is because most people share these experiences

Followed immediately by:

Point out exactly where I made a sweeping statement about everyone else, please.

I concede you say "most" not all, but it's still pa pretty sweeping statement no?

xx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, is it not true that speed cameras are painted in bright colours so that motorists can circumvent them?

Dave is right on this one it's so they can say that what they want to do is slow the traffic down rather than just raise cash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So I'm still waiting for that sweeping statement about "everyone else", then.

What Scotty said:

You said that in the case of casual drug users "invariably their lifestyle eventually catches up with them and they have to make a choice between quitting and letting the drug affect other parts of their life". You used a few anecdotes to come to this sweeping and spurious conclusion.

You're making a sweeping statement about anyone who uses or has used drugs.

You made out that it's impossible to casually use drugs without becoming dependant on them (or quitting, for fear of becoming dependant) which is just flat out untrue, no matter what your personal experience is.

It's perfectly possible to casually consume a substance without it affecting other areas of your life. Drugs, alcohol, caffiene, it doesn't matter which is your substance of choice. The only thing making illegal drugs any more dangerous than any other stimulant (or depressive..) is the unpoliced nature of it. The only unpredictability within drug consumption is the potency - something legalisation would standardise.

Drugs = Alcohol. Trying to make out they are in any way different is as illogical as it is naive. Either can ruin a life and either can be used recreationally.

xx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this issue is huge...

my post here doesnt really add to the current line of discussion (sorry) but for those interested I would recommend this lengthy but fascinating book...

The Underground Empire: Where Crime and Governments Embrace: Amazon.co.uk: James Mills: Books

It sensationally opens with:

"The inhabitants of the earth spend more money on illegal drugs than they spend on food. More than they spend on housing, clothes, education, medical care, or any other product or service. The international narcotics industry is the largest growth industry in the world. Its annual revenue exceed half a trillion dollars - three time the value of all the US currency in circulation, more than the GNP of of all but a half-dozen of the major industrialised nations [1986] ... The statistics on which the above statements are based appear in classified documents prepared with the participation of the CIA and NSA. These studies are circulated in numbered copies with the warning of "criminal sanctions" for unauthorised disclosure... Why is this information withheld from public view? ... because the narcotics industry is, in fact, not an industry at all, but an empire."

TIME review

"Mills became convinced that the governments of all the major drug-producing countries support narcotics traffic either tacitly or actively. But U.S. Administrations, fearful of jeopardizing diplomatic alliances, military bases or intelligence resources, habitually hold back from forcing these governments to adopt serious antidrug measures. "Without the indulgence of the U.S. Government," he writes, "the Underground Empire could not exist."

carry on.... :popcorn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having a glass of wine with a meal and shooting up in a pool of your own filth are not the same,

But the pool of filth thing is definitely equivalent to alkies pissing and crapping themselves, yet we are happy to provide them with the means to that end. A glass of wine and a bong of decent Weed are pretty equivalent by all measurements I can think of, and is no barrier to a civilised evening, unlike PCP, which I'm glad you keep mentioning Dave, as thats the one substance that seems to genuinely dehumanise those who take it, not an issue in the UK though, thankfully.

A final point on the cannabis potency myths, herbal weed is 2 to 3 times stronger than was average in the 60s-90s, but it isn't much, if at all stronger than most of the hashishes that were prevalent in those eras, hashish only started the decline into soapbar dogshit hash-ish in the UK in the 80s. In short 60s gear was easily as strong as now, and it all depends on titration anyway ie some who smoked an ounce of soapy a week, at terrible cost to their lungs, can get by on a fraction of the amount of pure cannabinoid. And prohibition has caused the potency rise as well, as breeders focus on THC at the expense of the other compounds that contribute to the holistic effect of the plant. Such as CBD, a natural anti-psychotic, in the killer loco weed, how can that be?! It needs to be gene sequenced toute suite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...