The smoking topic.

[Sheikah]

Let's ban smoking because some people smoke it and are inconsiderate of others during the fact!

 

Alcohol is fine in reasonable amounts, smoking is never is. This closes this line of argument.

 

And I mean for Christ's sake, it's evident that this argument is full of smokers or ex-drug users, frankly I wouldn't expect any less than a full-out argument from you all. It's like debating with a school of fish that water should be banned.

[Twozzok]

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.

 

Well, they are looking at reclassifiying it, and guess what... it's researchers who have actual experience (albeit it not on themselves) with the drugs in question.

 

Funnily enough those same researchers found alcohol to be more harmful then weed.

 

 

 

Alcohol is fine in reasonable amounts, smoking is never is. This closes this line of argument.

 

This just takes us back to the choice thing. The few people who drink drive hurt others. The few smokers who are inconsiderate hurt others. Your point?

[rokhed00]

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.

 

Why do they employ ex drug users as councellors for drug users?

Couldn't possibly be because they've got a better idea of what they're talking about, could it?

[thirtynine.]

Why is smoking NEVER ok?

[rokhed00]

Alcohol is fine in reasonable amounts, smoking is never is. This closes this line of argument.

 

Again, more bollocks.

Some smokers live full healthy lives and never contract cancer or any other smoking related diseases.

[Sheikah]

Why do they employ ex drug users as councellors for drug users?

Couldn't possibly be because they've got a better idea of what they're talking about, could it?

Do they employ ex-drug users to classify drugs? No. That point still pretty much stands.

 

And to be honest, if I was a drug user trying to get over drugs I would probably feel better if given help or encouragement from someone who has gone through the same experience. But that doesn't mean a councellor could jump into a hardcore debate on the facts of drugs.

 

Again, more bollocks.

Some smokers live full healthy lives and never contract cancer or any other smoking related diseases.

 

Wrong, wrong, utterly wrong. You clearly know little or nothing about the effects of smoking. In any smoker the lining of the lungs is continuously irreversibly broken down, just one of the things that smoking causes. I have studied this at uni, I'm pretty sure my lecturers know what they are talking about. You on the other hand just seem to be saying things that you believe without any real factual background.

 

 

 

This just takes us back to the choice thing. The few people who drink drive hurt others. The few smokers who are inconsiderate hurt others. Your point?

 

No, if you drink drive you will be arrested. That's like choosing not to sell knives because they could be used to stab. The point is that drinking and buying knives for kitchen use are responsible and safe, while smoking is never healthy.

[Twozzok]

Do they employ ex-drug users to classify drugs? No. That point still pretty much stands.

 

No, they employ researchers who have experience (like i said not personal, but tests and shit).

 

And like I said they're looking for a big reclassification.

[rokhed00]

Do they employ ex-drug users to classify drugs? No. That point still pretty much stands.

 

And to be honest, if I was a drug user trying to get over drugs I would probably feel better if given help or encouragement from someone who has gone through the same experience. But that doesn't mean a councellor could jump into a hardcore debate on the facts of drugs.

 

Why not, they know them first hand.

[thirtynine.]

Do they employ ex-drug users to classify drugs? No. That point still pretty much stands.

 

And to be honest, if I was a drug user trying to get over drugs I would probably feel better if given help or encouragement from someone who has gone through the same experience. But that doesn't mean a councellor could jump into a hardcore debate on the facts of drugs.

I bet a large amount of the people in power in this country have smoked weed and done coke, you just dont know it. Also the people who classify drugs actually have knowlage of the subject unlike you.

Also why is smoking never ok?

[Sheikah]

Why not, they know them first hand.

 

Facts of drugs does not = what happened to them, facts of drugs are based on reading medical journals, possibly being a scientist who studies in that area.

 

No, they employ researchers who have experience (like i said not personal, but tests and shit).

 

And like I said they're looking for a big reclassification.

Then that doesn't contest my point, about non drug users in debates about drugs. Research on drugs could be done by reading medical journals or (something I disagree with) animal testing. Not from drug users giving their opinions.

[The Bard]

Alcohol is fine in reasonable amounts, smoking is never is. This closes this line of argument.

 

And I mean for Christ's sake, it's evident that this argument is full of smokers or ex-drug users, frankly I wouldn't expect any less than a full-out argument from you all. It's like debating with a school of fish that water should be banned.

 

Yeah, that's a perfectly viable likening, presuming, of course, that these particular fish have somehow transcended the need for water as a respiratory medium (seeing as nobody in this thread is dependent on drugs, and most of us don't use them anymore). Of course, then, their willingness to preserve water would be more a genuinely benevolent act to preserve their fellow, less fortunate fish.

 

In this metaphor I prefer to see the water dependent fish as self important, inexperienced know it alls with a penchant for bad analogies and fascist tendencies.

 

Alcohol is fine in reasonable amounts, smoking is never is. This closes this line of argument.

 

Wrong. Basic chemistry:

Alcohol, no matter the amount, is broken down into aldehydes and ketones in the digestive tract; poisonous substances that damage synaptic clefts (which is why many long term drinkers have hilariously inept motor functions). Alcohol, and it's removal from the blood stream is also what's responsible for what could very well be every liver disease/ infection/ ailment under the sun.

[rokhed00]

Facts of drugs does not = what happened to them, facts of drugs are based on reading medical journals, possibly being a scientist who studies in that area.

 

No, the only important facts about drugs are how they affect the human body.

Anything else is largely irrelevant.

[Sheikah]

In this metaphor I prefer to see the water dependent fish as self important, inexperienced know it alls with a penchant for bad analogies and fascist tendencies.

 

I think you have taken that metaphor too literally.

 

 

Wrong. Basic chemistry:

Alcohol, no matter the amount, is broken down into aldehydes and ketones in the digestive tract; poisonous substances that damage synaptic clefts (which is why many long term drinkers have hilariously inept motor functions). Alcohol, and it's removal from the blood stream is also what's responsible for what could very well be ever liver disease/ infection/ ailment under the sun.

 

Right, I've been waiting for someone to post some science, now to get to work.

 

Alcohol in reasonable quantities is actually beneficial. There is no evidence to suggest that in reasonable quantities alcohol damages your health. In fact, evidence argues the opposite. Doll et. al (2005) showed that mortality was higher in non-drinkers in a large sample of doctors who did and did not and did drink. Studies also show that alcohol reduces the risk of heart attack in woman with the consumption of small amounts of alcohol. It's also been shown that in studies involving drinkers and non-drinkers, people were less likely to develop Alzheimer's if they drunk.

 

Before suggesting that 'any amount of alcohol is bad for you', you should have researched beforehand.

 

No, the only important facts about drugs are how they affect the human body.

Anything else is largely irrelevant.

 

Your body =/= everyone elses.

[The Bard]

I did, and I maintain that any amount of alcohol is bad for you. Beneficial, too perhaps, but that's irrelevant. You complain that I took your metaphor too literally, and in a reciprocal gesture, I'm going to say that you look and rely too much solely on the tangible; you speak only of medical and physical benefits, and that is totally beside the point of what drugs are for in the first place. That is the true reason why your view is purely trivial; you speak without experience, and thus can have nothing more than a vicarious appreciation of drugs in the first place.

[Sheikah]

I did, and I maintain that any amount of alcohol is bad for you.

 

Do you have any scientific proof, or are you going to keep saying that just for argument's sake?

 

 

Beneficial, too perhaps, but that's irrelevant.

Given that you tried to tell me about alcohol not being beneficial, I would say my post was very relevant indeed. Plus it was fun watching you fall flat on your arse.

 

 

You complain that I took your metaphor too literally, and in a reciprocal gesture, I'm going to say that you look and rely too much solely on the tangible; you speak only of medical and physical benefits, and that is totally beside the point of what drugs are for in the first place. That is the true reason why your view is purely trivial; you speak without experience, and thus can have nothing more than a vicarious appreciation of drugs in the first place.

 

Drugs are obviously used not for the sake of damaging someone's health, but that is their unfortunate side effect. The statement "you can't talk about drugs because you haven't taken them" seems an all-too-convenient line to simply reject anyone elses opinion of them, despite plenty of factual evidence being available to anyone, drug user or not.

[Twozzok]

The statement "you can't talk about drugs because you haven't taken them" seems an all-too-convenient line to simply reject anyone elses opinion of them, despite plenty of factual evidence being available to anyone, drug user or not.

 

That isn't what he's saying though, he's saying you have no experience with them. The scientists that research them have experience with them, and they probably don't take them.

[Sheikah]

Actually, even scientists wouldn't know what drug taking was like, presuming they hadn't taken drugs. They publish their information from studies in journals, for all to see.

[thirtynine.]

But they have studied them and the effects they have on people for years which you have not, you have no and or very limited experience and knowledge of drugs, so your opinion is invalid.

[Sheikah]

But they have studied them and the effects they have on people for years which you have not, you have no and or very limited experience and knowledge of drugs, so your opinion is invalid.

 

No one in this topic has studied anything about drugs, we just have a few people who are expressing their views more strongly because they believe having tried drugs means they a) know their effects on the everyone who takes them, b) know exactly the consequences. Therefore according to you, all opinions are invalid.

 

Frankly this is ridiculous, and to be honest I was never aiming to talk about other drugs to begin with, rather smoking (as the topic implies).

[rokhed00]

No one in this topic has studied anything about drugs, we just have a few people who are expressing their views more strongly because they believe having tried drugs means they a) know their effects on the everyone who takes them, b) know exactly the consequences. Therefore according to you, all opinions are invalid.

 

Frankly this is ridiculous, and to be honest I was never aiming to talk about other drugs to begin with, rather smoking (as the topic implies).

 

How many people do they test prescription drugs on before they deem them safe for everyone?

[Sheikah]

How many people do they test prescription drugs on before they deem them safe for everyone?

 

What does this have to do anything? But in answer to your question, not nearly as many people as animals.

[rokhed00]

What does this have to do anything? But in answer to your question, not nearly as many people as animals.

 

We're not talking about animals, you can leave that to your deluded girlfriend.

[Sheikah]

We're not talking about animals, you can leave that to your deluded girlfriend.

 

Thanks for that, you've basically confirmed I don't need to waste any more time talking to you. If you'll discard animal testing so easily and say it's for the deluded, I have no reason to continue talking to you about moral issues. You are one nasty piece of work.

[Hem]

I sometimes go to sleep and dream a wonderful dream of a world free of government, free of law, of oppression and of business... where people care for Mother Nature's hemp fields and share pipes under tall autumn-leaved oak trees. Then I wake up .

[Daniel]

Day three! woooooooo