egafd.com

So lets see. You are going to stand on a street corner giving out ?20 notes to smackheads so they can get there stuff without having to rob for it?

Do you know how completely and totally fucking stupid that sounds but I shouldn't be surprised as your last post was some of the biggest load of crap I have EVER read. ANYWHERE.

A harder line on drugs is needed not people like you who feel sorry for the poor lambs.

Drugs fuck up lives in case you didn't know.

No doubt you'll come back with some more liberalisation bollocks but I've read enough of your crap and I'm not going to waste my time by reading anymore of it. So go ahead and post away some more drivel.

the paddington pros on the streets now are very hard faced try walking on ignoring them they still shout out to you want buisness some are a fucking nuiscance.Ace wrote:

> Brothels would be the answer if health checks etc were
> up-to-date ala Amsterdam etc, but gals will still work the
> streets 'under-cutting' established whore houses, especially if
> they aren't as 'healthy' as the legit prostitutes.
>
>

[quote]Sam,
Can only reply to para one because in it you imply that "illegal" is synonymous with bad.[/quote]

You're only replying to 'para one' because it's the easiest way to ignore the points I've brought up in the other paragraphs Mike. That's what these drugs do to you - makes you more likely to see one 'selfish' side to an argument, whilst being ignorant of alternative views.

Is 'illegality' synonymous with bad? Well legally bad, or morally bad? One's definite because we have it in black and white, while the other is an individuals personal view.

All I get from 'drug' users is being labelled ignorant of 'drugs'. They seem to forget their ignorance of society and law. I disagree with a lot of laws but I refrain from breaking them unlike junkies.

Maybe I should stop paying my licence fee because I don't agree with it? I could go on forever I suppose..........but I won't because you refuse to answer straight forward questions and just go in some other direction that skirts the issue.

May I interrupt? (just bored you see !happy!)

[quote]Nicotine and alcohol are harmful but legal drugs. Where do you stand on them?[/quote]

Alcohol -as society recognises it- is only harmful in large quantities over a long period. One thing that sets alcohol apart from heroin, cocaine, ecstasy, and various other substances, is that our gut has a certain reflex that makes it difficult for us to overdose to toxic levels whereby it can cause death. It's called being sick! !sick! It works pretty well for most people. Chemicals that are injected or inhaled means that retching will not remove excess toxins the body cannot deal with, so you're more likely to die.

Because of this I actually agree with you that nicotine can become just as destructive to a persons life -and their family-, and a financial burden on the NHS, and thus: the taxpayer. In fact I'd go as far to say that nicotine should be made illegal due to the affects of passive smoking. How can someone get away with slowly poisoning another, whilst harming that other persons lungs?

[quote]The original post in this thread was careful to use "drugs" in inverted commas in the header - because he recognises that people like you have a hypocritical, ignorant, head-in-the-sand attitude to this debate and use the word drugs in a biased way.[/quote]

I agree with you here, but lets be fair Warren. 'Drug' users also argue for legalisation in an ignorant, biased 'head in the sand' way too. You could argue that because what they're consuming is illegal, and knowing full well they could fall into a life of crime if they become addicted, then they're more ignorant than the ignorance that surrounds 'drugs' from non-users.

[quote]You allege I am "stupid" for wanting to give a "smackhead" (or "unfortunate person addicted to a substance that was legal in this country comparatively recently and is still available on prescription") ?20 rather than he/she stealing my car stereo and thus costing me ?300[/quote]

I certainly don't see you as stupid Warren, however you'd be naive to think that 'joe bloggs' would accept working 60 hours a week knowing he's helping to keep junkies in good supply. Your maths look good on paper, but like Man Utd against West Ham today, the reality doesn't always back up what's on paper!

[quote]Sounds like you have a hang up and a totally unjustified sense of superiority about those people who happen to be addicted to some drugs which happen to be illegal in this country in this year.[/quote]

Want me to be totally and utterly honest here? I do think I'm superior. Not in a 'class' perspective, just a mental one. Growing up in the middle of a working class council estate for a lot of my child/teenage years where 30% of my friends were criminally active, 70% smoked, and 40% dabbled in illegal drugs, I was offered this path everyday for years. I refused it everytime. Never smoked or tried any drugs -apart from alcohol- once. We all know that being accepted is a big thing for a teenager, so why did I refuse to join the collective; being under daily pressure? I like to think it was because I was strong willed and was determined to make my own decisions, rather than peer pressure make them for me. So yes, -mentally- I feel superior to an addict, who's' addicted' to illegal drugs.

[quote]Maybe you think they have had far too much fun, and deserve to suffer?[/quote]

Hmmm....yes and no! Far too much fun compared to non addicts who've had their lives ruined by junkies, but not deserving of suffering, for sufferings sake.

[quote]There will be many addicts to illegal (and legal substances) who are not nice people. But there are not nice people who are not addicts as well![/quote]

I don't think he meant anything like that anyway.....did he?

[quote]You can of course argue for total criminalisation of all potentially harmful drugs, but what you cannot do is just pick and choose a few drugs which you personally don't approve of.[/quote]

I also don't think you can generalise and make sweeping laws which cover all substances the same. Heroin, Cocaine, Ecstasy, Alcohol, Marijuana, Sugar (even), and Nicotine all have different addictive potencies, and have different affects on the body and society, so I see it as 'stupid' to lump them all under one law (whether for or against). I brought this up with Mike. I can ride a skateboard on the pavement legally but not a moped, whilst a car driven on the M1 is legal where a moped ->50CC- isn't. I can navigate a 4 lane roundabout legally on a mountain bike, but not a scooter. They're all vehicles that get someone from A-B but their uses, and the laws governing their use differ. I call it 'sensibility'. When people generalise about 'drugs' they are scorned, but you want to generalise the laws concerning these 'drugs'? Hypocrisy means banning Fosters lager but not Carling lager. Different laws for alcohol and heroin isn't hypocrisy at all.

[quote]And prohibition in the USA in the 1920's would suggest that total ciminalisation would not help the crime rate![/quote]

A special case in my view. The citizens of America all came from European countries where they'd had thousands of years of use of alcohol perfectly legally. It was part of British, Spanish, Irish, German, Dutch, and Italian culture whether you like it or not. Heroin, marijuana, ecstasy etc. isn't part of our culture the same way alcohol is and as such, making alcohol illegal in the 20's was a dumb move.

[quote]Remember, you want to keep funding terrorism, through illegal drug revenues. I don't.[/quote]

I don't think anyone who advocates the illegality of these substances wants to fund terrorism Warren and you know this! Ideally he/they/me want the illegality to work where it's so hard to purchase these substances that addiction is nearly wiped out, and without the customers, the poppy fields would seem a waste of a fertile field. Reality tells me this would have to involve all European and US countries to have very very strict border control whilst working together. It's an ideal view, but I concede that it's unlikely in the recent future.

Notes:

I'm not blind to the fact that 'some' legalisation of Marijuana -for use privately at home- could be acceptable, and I'm all for the government putting restrictions on food manufacturers, restricting the amounts of sugar they put in things like children's' confectionery and cola etc. I'd also like to see a ban on MacDonalds -and the like- advertising around children's TV, and finally I definately support a ban on nicotine consumption in public. I DO NOT want to be poisoned throughout my life by ignorant idiots who smoke around me.

My views on 'drugs' does not just cover the illegal drugs of 2006 within the UK.

Lol Warren, while you're were 'butting in' here, I seem to have 'butted in' between you and Brando's conversation. !blush!

You will see in that post that I actually do think most smokers are ignorant, and their ignorance -whilst being concious of their ignorance- makes them immoral.

See above !