[maskofsanity]

(Original post by DaveSmith99)
I can assure you I am much more knowledgeable than you on the subject, but this thread has been done many times and it always ends the same way, so I have no desire to debate any more.

I can assure you otherwise. And yes it has and I agree, but then surely it would be wiser to ignore the thread if you do not wish to debate.

Oh, and I was waiting for you to use the neg rep. Always a sign of defeat.

[n00]

(Original post by maskofsanity)
But to answer you; financial costs of fighting drugs are not as important as the numerous financial and non-financial costs of drug abuse.

Really? What makes you believe that? There are non-financial costs to fighting the drugs war as well.

[DaveSmith99]

(Original post by maskofsanity)
I can assure you otherwise. And yes it has and I agree, but then surely it would be wiser to ignore the thread if you do not wish to debate.

Oh, and I was waiting for you to use the neg rep. Always a sign of defeat.

I still enjoy reading these threads, I just found some of the replies laughable.

[Elipsis]

(Original post by geetar)
Tea (caffeine) is the only drug I need. One day, I'm going to write a Trainspotting/Fear and Loathing style book, with tea as the drug of choice for the characters.

Someone already beat you to it but with milk

[maskofsanity]

(Original post by n00)
Really? What makes you believe that? There are non-financial costs to fighting the drugs war as well.

Because I value society over money. Of course, but nowhere near the extent of drug abuse.

[maskofsanity]

(Original post by DaveSmith99)
I still enjoy reading these threads, I just found some of the replies laughable.

You and me both. Which is why I argued against them, rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks and neg repping.

[n00]

(Original post by maskofsanity)
Of course, but nowhere near the extent of drug abuse.

Nowhere near?

Clearly you haven't given the issue much thought.

[Pitt1988]

(Original post by maskofsanity)
Your sentence was ambiguous - do you mean the costs of fighting drugs outweighing the abuse of drugs? I interpreted 'use' as beneficial uses of the drug, e.g. medical. Your sentence does not follow on from mine. But to answer you; financial costs of fighting drugs are not as important as the numerous financial and non-financial costs of drug abuse. You've basically just outlined the current war on drugs.

Correct, we would certainly be more free without certain drugs. It is possible if everyone was rational and forward-thinking enough, but they are not, so I agree that in reality it is not possible to have a truly free society because the average person will unknowingly work against that by abusing drugs and demanding choice in everything.



Why have you not done crack or heroin out of curiosity? What I hear a lot on TSR is people claiming that alcohol is just as bad as these hard drugs, yet no one seems to actually use them? Surely, if you enjoy experiencing drugs, and you have used alcohol, which is equally as bad, you would do the rest, no?

I definitely agree people need to be better educated, as that is one of the roots of the problem. If you think mugging would not increase then you have grossly overestimated the morality of the general public. It would most certainly increase, at an alarming rate. The same goes for drugs - it would become normal to try Class A drugs, the average age of drug users would decrease. Just look at how young kids are who smoke and drink nowadays - it's getting ridiculous. They would absolutely jump on the chance to get readily and easily available harder drugs. I wish I could have as much faith in society as you do, but I think history repeats itself, and MCAT was a perfect example.

Thank you for sharing that - I lost my father too so I can empathise with your friend. have had a very similar experience simply dreaming while asleep. You don't need a drug to use your imagination (and remember, it is just imagination, your friend just thought that up in his head - it's as good as someone drawing a cartoon of the dad saying that and him watching it) and more importantly, this is really not a good enough incentive to use drugs!



Then leave, and there will be one less.

That's an interesting question really. I could answer by saying that I have just never felt the urge to try it, but then again at 18 when the majority of mates had tried ecstacy I never had the urge to try that for a couple of years.

I guess it is the widely negative image that's generated by them drugs but also how truly debilitating a drug they are when compared to weed, LSD, mushrooms and ecstacy/MDMA. There was a period in my 20s when I was taking ecstacy 2-3 times a week, for over half a year, to, in my opinion, no long term effects. Of course there were times during when I wasn't all there, a bit withdrawn, but that was my own fault for overdoing it and I adjusted accordingly.

Maybe I do have a greater expectation of the morality of society, but is a society not an organic entity the share the same values and morals? I think, if we were to use the example of mugging becoming legal, then with the withdrawal of legislation and law regarding it, society would still challenge the individual doing it, they would still shame them, alienate them, because it is not the shared moral of that society.

If you look at the figures for young people in Holland, as an example, then you will find that they have fewer teenagers using cannabis and other substances regularly then their British counterparts (apologies for lack of sources, but you will find them).

Sorry to hear about your dad. I understand that dreaming is a very important thing with regards to the loss of a relative and also that the mind-altering qualities of some drugs are another form of imagination. It is just different, very hard to explain though..... Dreams can very often be hazy, misremembered or not remembered at all, while certain drugs just give you an incredibly lucid experience that seems to hit more senses in a way, it gives you much more clarity and understanding. I don't know, hard to explain.

[The Troll Toll]

(Original post by Redheaded_Dancer)
I just think drugs are silly, I don't understand why a person would take them when they know the risks (I've had so many lessons in secondary school, at least two a year, about it).
I understand that people would take them because of the obvious benefits of being relaxing, but what most people don't think about is afterwards you get the most horrible withdrawal and you're cranky for so long afterwards until you get your next fix. My boyfriend used to do cocaine and he's described to me many times how it feels awesome when you're high, but as soon as you're back to normal you're craving more

This is actually exactly why a lot of people take drugs. Or at least the reason "gateway" drugs exist. Most people will try weed at some point in their life, then realise that everything they learnt in school about it was a lie. If they're intelligent, it will occur to them that the propaganda about other drugs was a lie too, and they'll try those. "Horrible withdrawal and being cranky until your next fix" is probably an alien concept to most casual drug users. I've spoken to people who have realised that most of what they learnt was a lie via the easy comedowns of MDMA and the non-comedowns of weed, and have seriously thought "you know what, maybe heroin isn't as bad as I was told." Drugs evidently have their downsides and any strategy to reduce their use needs to take into account that some people are actually intelligent and approach things with a skeptical eye. I've heard that some specialist drug education services are now doing this, but PSHE lessons taught by some German teacher reading off a piece of paper about how you will drink too much water and die on MDMA are not the way forward.

[joeclarke3]

(Original post by maskofsanity)
I definitely agree people need to be better educated, as that is one of the roots of the problem. If you think mugging would not increase then you have grossly overestimated the morality of the general public. It would most certainly increase, at an alarming rate. The same goes for drugs - it would become normal to try Class A drugs, the average age of drug users would decrease. Just look at how young kids are who smoke and drink nowadays - it's getting ridiculous. They would absolutely jump on the chance to get readily and easily available harder drugs. I wish I could have as much faith in society as you do, but I think history repeats itself, and MCAT was a perfect example.

About 10 posts previous, you had denounced somebody's argument for using anecdotal evidence... What is the part above (that I've put in bold) based upon? You're arguing that his opinion has too much faith in humanity, when clearly yours is simply the oppposite. It's not really fair in this sort of debate to be questioning somebody's opinions in that way because it can easily be turned back on you.

[Pitt1988]

(Original post by joeclarke3)
About 10 posts previous, you had denounced somebody's argument for using anecdotal evidence... What is the part above (that I've put in bold) based upon? You're arguing that his opinion has too much faith in humanity, when clearly yours is simply the oppposite. It's not really fair in this sort of debate to be questioning somebody's opinions in that way because it can easily be turned back on you.

I raised this as a point first lol! He didn't just come into it with that, he was just responding with the anecdote I came forward with.

[maskofsanity]

(Original post by Pitt1988)
That's an interesting question really. I could answer by saying that I have just never felt the urge to try it, but then again at 18 when the majority of mates had tried ecstacy I never had the urge to try that for a couple of years.

I guess it is the widely negative image that's generated by them drugs but also how truly debilitating a drug they are when compared to weed, LSD, mushrooms and ecstacy/MDMA. There was a period in my 20s when I was taking ecstacy 2-3 times a week, for over half a year, to, in my opinion, no long term effects. Of course there were times during when I wasn't all there, a bit withdrawn, but that was my own fault for overdoing it and I adjusted accordingly.

Maybe I do have a greater expectation of the morality of society, but is a society not an organic entity the share the same values and morals? I think, if we were to use the example of mugging becoming legal, then with the withdrawal of legislation and law regarding it, society would still challenge the individual doing it, they would still shame them, alienate them, because it is not the shared moral of that society.

If you look at the figures for young people in Holland, as an example, then you will find that they have fewer teenagers using cannabis and other substances regularly then their British counterparts (apologies for lack of sources, but you will find them).

Sorry to hear about your dad. I understand that dreaming is a very important thing with regards to the loss of a relative and also that the mind-altering qualities of some drugs are another form of imagination. It is just different, very hard to explain though..... Dreams can very often be hazy, misremembered or not remembered at all, while certain drugs just give you an incredibly lucid experience that seems to hit more senses in a way, it gives you much more clarity and understanding. I don't know, hard to explain.

I agree - heroin and crack are far more debilitating and, most importantly, they get to a dangerous level of addiction extremely quickly. Alcohol can be moderated by yourself incredibly easily. You can go to the pub and have three pints and go home. Is it even possible to have the equivalent amount of heroin as three pints of lager? And would anyone do that? The minimum is still huge compared to the average consumption of someone in a pub. The reason no one has done heroin on this forum is because it is far more harmful in your life than alcohol.

Mugging is 8% higher than last year. That is with a punishment. Now if this rate included not only all those who wanted/needed to mug someone for whatever reason but were deterred by the law, but also all those who will see the legalising of mugging as the green light to mug, i.e. that mugging isn't so bad after all, it will certainly increase. Those people you describe as shaming and alienating the muggers would be more likely to mug themselves if their situation was worsened, e.g. losing their job. Not to mention, the shame and alienation from committing a mugging would be diluted because if the government thinks it's okay to be legal, surely it can't be that bad? All of that applies to drugs. Legalising drugs is like saying to a 15 year-old, 'you know what, shooting up heroin isn't as bad as they say, give it a go, you can't get in any trouble'. Even at my age now, I would have no idea where to get some heroin - that would all change if it was legal. And age limits would not help that problem, as evidenced by alcohol.

If I remember rightly, the rates were very similar (about 1% difference) and this could be explained in a number of ways, e.g. the Dutch don't have as big of a binge drinking problem as the UK; the results of legalising cannabis could be (and in my opinion, would be) equally different as they are for alcohol. Lastly, that's a pretty soft drug, I have been directing most of my posts to the hard drugs that cause bigger problems, and do so quicker.

Thank you. Yeah I can appreciate that. My dream was definitely hazy and did not feel like reality, despite it helping me slightly in bereavement. I do think, however, that this is not a benefit that makes legalising drugs justifiable.

[maskofsanity]

(Original post by joeclarke3)
About 10 posts previous, you had denounced somebody's argument for using anecdotal evidence... What is the part above (that I've put in bold) based upon? You're arguing that his opinion has too much faith in humanity, when clearly yours is simply the oppposite. It's not really fair in this sort of debate to be questioning somebody's opinions in that way because it can easily be turned back on you.

I'm not quite sure how that is evidence at all? It is my prediction of what would happen based on the history of drugs in society, e.g. with MCAT. There is no anecdotal evidence there - I clearly stated that the general public are not forward-thinking or rational enough to legalise drugs as evidenced by alcohol, tobacco and MCAT, i.e. history.

[joeclarke3]

(Original post by maskofsanity)
I'm not quite sure how that is evidence at all? It is my prediction of what would happen based on the history of drugs in society, e.g. with MCAT. There is no anecdotal evidence there - I clearly stated that the general public are not forward-thinking or rational enough to legalise drugs as evidenced by alcohol, tobacco and MCAT, i.e. history.

My general qualm with it was that you were telling people their points were weakened by the fact they didn't provide any evidence, when you didn't do so yourself. Granted, you have in your last few posts referenced some facts and figures or whatever, but the point remains.

You may be forming an idea based on History, but I could just as likely say that Germany are going to start a global conflict in the next however-many-years because they did so twice in the last century and were the only country to do so. It's very easy to use presumption as evidence when under the guise of 'history' and 'what has happened before'.

[Pitt1988]

(Original post by maskofsanity)
I agree - heroin and crack are far more debilitating and, most importantly, they get to a dangerous level of addiction extremely quickly. Alcohol can be moderated by yourself incredibly easily. You can go to the pub and have three pints and go home. Is it even possible to have the equivalent amount of heroin as three pints of lager? And would anyone do that? The minimum is still huge compared to the average consumption of someone in a pub. The reason no one has done heroin on this forum is because it is far more harmful in your life than alcohol.

Mugging is 8% higher than last year. That is with a punishment. Now if this rate included not only all those who wanted/needed to mug someone for whatever reason but were deterred by the law, but also all those who will see the legalising of mugging as the green light to mug, i.e. that mugging isn't so bad after all, it will certainly increase. Those people you describe as shaming and alienating the muggers would be more likely to mug themselves if their situation was worsened, e.g. losing their job. Not to mention, the shame and alienation from committing a mugging would be diluted because if the government thinks it's okay to be legal, surely it can't be that bad? All of that applies to drugs. Legalising drugs is like saying to a 15 year-old, 'you know what, shooting up heroin isn't as bad as they say, give it a go, you can't get in any trouble'. Even at my age now, I would have no idea where to get some heroin - that would all change if it was legal. And age limits would not help that problem, as evidenced by alcohol.

If I remember rightly, the rates were very similar (about 1% difference) and this could be explained in a number of ways, e.g. the Dutch don't have as big of a binge drinking problem as the UK; the results of legalising cannabis could be (and in my opinion, would be) equally different as they are for alcohol. Lastly, that's a pretty soft drug, I have been directing most of my posts to the hard drugs that cause bigger problems, and do so quicker.

Thank you. Yeah I can appreciate that. My dream was definitely hazy and did not feel like reality, despite it helping me slightly in bereavement. I do think, however, that this is not a benefit that makes legalising drugs justifiable.

It's an argument that could go back and forward for a long time lol!

Obviously if the government were to just say 'right, all drugs are legal' then it would be beyond ridiculous with people getting messy. I just think people should be better educated and informed from a younger age and the criminalisation of users should be taken away to enable an all encompassing drugs policy.

Oh, I wasn't trying to use it as a reason for legalising, just trying to highlight some positive that my friend experienced is all.

[n00]

(Original post by maskofsanity)
Alcohol can be moderated by yourself incredibly easily.

(Original post by maskofsanity)
You can go to the pub and have three pints and go home. Is it even possible to have the equivalent amount of heroin as three pints of lager? And would
anyone do that?

Yes people can and do use heroin without abusing it, infact the majority of users do not become addicts.

(Original post by maskofsanity)
The minimum is still huge compared to the average consumption of someone in a pub.

Totally meaningless.

(Original post by maskofsanity)
The reason no one has done heroin on this forum is because it is far more harmful in your life than alcohol.

If heroin were pure and cheap then it would have very little impact on anyones lives compared to an alcohol addiction.

[Palatial Veranda]

What annoys me a little is when people get an absolute throbbing boner about the issue and vehemently but unfoundedly certify and support their widespread illegality. When the reality is that many of these people know nothing more about drugs other than 'drugs are bad'.

[maskofsanity]

(Original post by joeclarke3)
My general qualm with it was that you were telling people their points were weakened by the fact they didn't provide any evidence, when you didn't do so yourself. Granted, you have in your last few posts referenced some facts and figures or whatever, but the point remains.

You may be forming an idea based on History, but I could just as likely say that Germany are going to start a global conflict in the next however-many-years because they did so twice in the last century and were the only country to do so. It's very easy to use presumption as evidence when under the guise of 'history' and 'what has happened before'.

No, I think you've confused the situation. Pitt used the example that he thought mugging would not increase, alluding to the idea that drug usage wouldn't increase if legalised. I simply said that it's illogical to give society the benefit of the doubt with our track record, i.e. alcohol/tobacco/MCAT are all abused to a silly extent. How can I give evidence for using history to argue against his prediction? I mean, I could if you wanted post evidence of just how bad our binge drinking is (here and here, for example) or how we utterly abused MCAT and caused it to become illegal, but why would I bother when everyone is in agreement with that?

(Original post by Pitt1988)
It's an argument that could go back and forward for a long time lol!

Obviously if the government were to just say 'right, all drugs are legal' then it would be beyond ridiculous with people getting messy. I just think people should be better educated and informed from a younger age and the criminalisation of users should be taken away to enable an all encompassing drugs policy.

Oh, I wasn't trying to use it as a reason for legalising, just trying to highlight some positive that my friend experienced is all.

That's true, and it does on TSR! I just don't think it's a coincidence that few, if any, people use heroin and crack on this forum.

To be honest, it would be very interesting to see exactly what would happen if drugs were legalised, but I don't think we'll ever witness it, mainly because it's political suicide to announce something like that.

Fair enough, there certainly are some positives, I was just referring back to my original argument, that the negatives outweigh any positives.

[maskofsanity]

(Original post by n00)
Yes people can and do use heroin without abusing it, infact the majority of users do not become addicts.

Wrong, try again

(Original post by n00)
Totally meaningless.

Of course it isn't. I'm highlighting the reason why throughout history we have chosen to drink alcohol together and not inject ourselves with heroin. Here's a clue: one is more sociable and more controllable.

(Original post by n00)
If heroin were pure and cheap then it would have very little impact on anyones lives compared to an alcohol addiction.

It won't ever be cheap, so that is meaningless. But if I were to humour the idea, I'd still disagree.

[n00]

(Original post by maskofsanity)
Wrong, try again

Well, im not going to bother go looking for other sources but yours still only states 57% so as i said it is possible.

(Original post by maskofsanity)
Of course it isn't. I'm highlighting the reason why throughout history we have chosen to drink alcohol together and not inject ourselves with heroin. Here's a clue: one is more sociable and more controllable.

Well heroin hasn't exactly had a long history but certain cultures have used opium to a greater extent than alcohol. But that wasn't the point i was claiming to be meaningless.

(Original post by maskofsanity)
It won't ever be cheap, so that is meaningless. But if I were to humour the idea, I'd still disagree.

Why can't it be cheap? Its not expensive to produce. The Dutch health care system seems to get it pretty cheap.