Sheikah Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 I don't see it that way, the fact I come on here rarely works both ways. I don't know you, you don't know me. So take your "I'm always right" attitude elsewhere. =D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightwolf Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 I don't see it that way, the fact I come on here rarely works both ways. I don't know you, you don't know me. So take your "I'm always right" attitude elsewhere. =D an ''i'm always right'' attitude, won't get you very far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thirtynine. Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 You can't pin the proliferation of drugs to the fact heroin was made illegal. I think that drug taking would have increased anyway. Prescribing heroin may well mean people could just sell it, so I don't think the government would want to go down that route. Well weather you want to belive it or not, you are wrong, drug taking doesnt increase when its on prescription, it works the same way methadone does, jesus. I dont see how you can judge something you have NO experience of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheikah Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 Well weather you want to belive it or not, you are wrong, drug taking doesnt increase when its on prescription, it works the same way methadone does, jesus. I dont see how you can judge something you have NO experience of. Drug taking increases because frankly it is addictive and makes people feel good, that's why if it was legal I still think it would be very popular still. an ''i'm always right'' attitude, won't get you very far. Which I don't display. My points have always been that I believe (never said that everyone else should share my view) it would be a good thing for smoking to one day eventually be banned, his view is to state plainly what I am, as if it is written fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightwolf Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 Well weather you want to belive it or not, you are wrong, drug taking doesnt increase when its on prescription, it works the same way methadone does, jesus. I dont see how you can judge something you have NO experience of. Hmm, confused, I thought they gave a subsitute for heroin but only gave the real thing at first until they can be weened off it. I don't have much experince to be fair, on this subject, as much you seem to have. You don't need experince to know about something mind you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twozzok Posted February 11, 2008 Author Share Posted February 11, 2008 He's saying just replace what they do with Methadone with pure and clean heroin. (like hospitals do for pain relief). That ways, junkies have a reliable source so they don't get AIDS and shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheikah Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 If it's legal only for people addicted then it's still illegal for people who aren't, meaning it would still be popular in your line of argument thirtynine. If anything experience with drugs makes you biased, as I'm sure for instance anyone who smoked weed would support the legalisation (not getting into that debate though). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightwolf Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 ah makes sense. I don't tend to take an interest in illegal drugs, only legal ones ^.^ course drugs would be popular, don't be so silly, have you seen the kids who wait outside supermarkets for cigarettes because they aren't old enough? Since the age has been jacked to 18, those kids still haven't relented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thirtynine. Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 Exactly, if it's legal only for people addicted then it's still illegal for people who aren't, meaning it would still be popular in your line of argument thirtynine. Correct thats what I was saying, but it reduces drug related crime which is a good thing no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twozzok Posted February 11, 2008 Author Share Posted February 11, 2008 If it's legal only for people addicted then it's still illegal for people who aren't, meaning it would still be popular in your line of argument thirtynine. If anything experience with drugs makes you biased, as I'm sure for instance anyone who smoked weed would support the legalisation (not getting into that debate though). But weed helps people with Parkinsons etc, it's been shown to not only reduce the effects but sometimes make the person healthier. Just sayin'... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheikah Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 Yes weed may, the point is people who were experienced taking them would be biased on any matter regarding the drug they've taken. Unless it wrecked them really bad. Correct thats what I was saying, but it reduces drug related crime which is a good thing no? If you'd only be prescribed heroin if you're already addicted my point is that the number of people using drugs would be similar, as however people get hooked in the first place would still be there. I just don't think it gives out the right message to give people heroin, you and I won't agree on that but that's just life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightwolf Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 But weed helps people with Parkinsons etc, it's been shown to not only reduce the effects but sometimes make the person healthier. Just sayin'... I think it's just between them twozzok, *hands popcorn* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thirtynine. Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 If you'd only be prescribed heroin if you're already addicted my point is that the number of people using drugs would be similar, as however people get hooked in the first place would still be there. I just don't think it gives out the right message to give people heroin, you and I won't agree on that but that's just life. They ween them off it as they do with methadone. Its not like HAI HERE IZ 3 DRUGZ1111. That would be retarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rokhed00 Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 If anything experience with drugs makes you biased Do you ever stop talking bollocks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bard Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 Then it would seem you're a closed-minded and disgusting person, with no care for others. But what do I care? Nothing you say can bother me, really To be called pompous? I couldn't really care. The irony...it's...it's awe inspiring. That someone professing to be so philanthropic in their intent could hold such disgust and lack of esteem for anyone that says something that conflicts with their beliefs, just shows the fact that you don't really give a fuck about anything more than your own sense of importance. It's either that, or your whining naivete that prevent me from taking you seriously. You look at things far too idealistically. Yes, if smoking was banned, more people would have better health, but inevitably, it's your experiences that shape what you think and who you are; take away the right to choose, and you're taking away people's right to life. Yes, smokers are more likely to die early, junkies sometimes fund their addiction through crime: Statistics say so. The thing is, that statistics mean nothing. You and I are not statistics. To downplay ones individuality to the point where it's nothing more than a number on a page is an insult to a fundamental hallmark of being human; I'm saying the right to individualism is the most important right of all, in a rambling, not altogether coherent way. You can argue the bad effects of smoking all you want, I'll back you up from first hand experience, but what you can't do is force people to make the choice that to you is the right one. Nobody here is arguing that smoking isn't detrimental to health. The thing you don't seem to be able to accept is that to some people, physical well being isn't the most important aspect of ones life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rokhed00 Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 They ween them off it as they do with methadone. Its not like HAI HERE IZ 3 DRUGZ1111. That would be retarded. They'd be better off weening them off with heroin, methadone is a hell of a lot more addictive than heroin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesley Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 I don't get the big deal with smoking. Some people decide to smoke. Some don't. Some people drive cars. Some don't. All the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheikah Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 For christ's sake. Do you ever stop talking bollocks? It seems pretty obvious to me that someone smoking weed would think it was perfectly fine, while someone who never smoked it may not think so. Not getting into that debate though, just pointing out that having experience with a drug does not necessarily equip someone with the facts for a debate. Even if a drug did something to them, to form a statement on a drug solely from their experience is again a unfair bias. So nerr. The irony...it's...it's awe inspiring. That someone professing to be so philanthropic in their intent could hold such disgust and lack of esteem for anyone that says something that conflicts with their beliefs, just shows the fact that you don't really give a fuck about anything more than your own sense of importance. It's either that, or your whining naivete that prevent me from taking you seriously. Anyone who holds something different to their beliefs? You do realise that comment was in reply to someone who had no regard of people's health and saw the smoking ban as useless? Then you might want to think again before saying that. I've already discussed what you've said, regarding "people's right's" being taken away. Several substances are banned, yet people do not claim that their rights are being infringed. It just happens that cigarettes are more popular. My view is that smoking will eventually be banned, this is not your view, and I am not saying that your view should be replaced with mine. My view may sound like people will be forced to do something, but it's not as if I'm saying "no, your view on smoking is utterly irrelevant". At the end of the day it is what I think will happen eventually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesley Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 Eeek, this has turned into a drugs debate. I can see where this is going. No where! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thirtynine. Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 For christ's sake. Do you ever stop talking bollocks? It seems pretty obvious to me that someone smoking weed would think it was perfectly fine, while someone who never smoked it may not think so. Not getting into that debate though, just pointing out that having experience with a drug does not necessarily equip someone with the facts for a debate. Even if a drug did something to them, to form a statement on a drug solely from their experience is again a unfair bias. So nerr. Taking any drug is fine, as long as it doesnt affect anyone else, I used to smoke weed, untill i smoked to much and my actions started to harm others around me, from what your saying we should make alcohol illigal since it costs the nhs so much and it damages people who do it and others around them. no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bard Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 Yes weed may, the point is people who were experienced taking them would be biased on any matter regarding the drug they've taken. Unless it wrecked them really bad. Yeah, and I'm sure you speak from experience. I used to smoke weed, I've taken Ex and Ketamine, none of them fucked me up, and I don't do them anymore because 1. I got bored 2. I didn't like the culture associated with them 3. Alcohol is the socially respectable man's mind altering drug of choice. I just find the huge number of assumptions present in your comments to be fucking hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rokhed00 Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 For christ's sake. Do you ever stop talking bollocks? It seems pretty obvious to me that someone smoking weed would think it was perfectly fine, while someone who never smoked it may not think so. Not getting into that debate though, just pointing out that having experience with a drug does not necessarily equip someone with the facts for a debate. Even if a drug did something to them, to form a statement on a drug solely from their experience is again a unfair bias. So nerr. So, what experience do you have with drug users to make it so obvious? I've taken every drug under the sun, some I've liked, some I haven't, but I've also known plenty of other people who've done all the same drugs but have had different reactions to them. True, someone having taken a drug does not give them facts for a debate, but it gives them something a hell of a lot more valid than someone who has never touched drugs, an opinion based on experience, not on some government propaganda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheikah Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 Taking any drug is fine, as long as it doesnt affect anyone else, I used to smoke weed, untill i smoked to much and my actions started to harm others around me, from what your saying we should make alcohol illigal since it costs the nhs so much and it damages people who do it and others around them. no? Yes, let's ban alcohol because some people don't consume it in reasonable amounts, or are stupid enough to drive afterwards. Your posts are full of thought, I can't find a single flaw! So, what experience do you have with drug users to make it so obvious?I've taken every drug under the sun, some I've liked, some I haven't, but I've also known plenty of other people who've done all the same drugs but have had different reactions to them. True, someone having taken a drug does not give them facts for a debate, but it gives them something a hell of a lot more valid than someone who has never touched drugs, an opinion based on experience, not on some government propaganda. This is quality stuff. Are you suggesting we replace the people responsible for the classification of drugs with drug users, as they are more knowledgeable in the field of drugs? Some people on this forum talk such nonsense, it's a good read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twozzok Posted February 11, 2008 Author Share Posted February 11, 2008 Let's ban smoking because some people smoke it and are inconsiderate of others during the fact! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thirtynine. Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 Yes, let's ban alcohol because some people don't consume it in reasonable amounts, or are stupid enough to drive afterwards. Your posts are full of thought, I can't find a single flaw! This is quality stuff. Are you suggesting we replace the people responsible for the classification of drugs with drug users, as they are more knowledgeable in the field of drugs? Some people on this forum talk such nonsense, it's a good read. Then why would you want to buy fags? Jesus. Your beyond belief. Your argument has NO valid points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts