La Colombe

"It's Time To End The War On Drugs"..

144 posts in this topic

2 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Because..

Public health innit?  Government can stick its oar in when people do things that might kill them.  I'm not saying the reasoning is correct with E or any other happy pill, but that is the logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Boo Gay'n said:

Public health innit?  Government can stick its oar in when people do things that might kill them.  I'm not saying the reasoning is correct with E or any other happy pill, but that is the logic.

WTF is a happy pill ?

We all now people that have died taking "happy pills".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Haha so she goes around promoting its benefits to her friends? Anyway, I'm trying to find that documentary, which was broadcast shortly after her conversation with me, I think it was a Channel 4 production. It looked at both sides of the argument. 

Wonderful....Channel 4, the last bastion of accurate and informative reporting

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, dilligaf said:

WTF is a happy pill ?

We all now people that have died taking "happy pills".

Yes, relatively few in comparison to alcohol related deaths mind you but had the use of them been regulated, many of those people may well not have died. Not accepting that young people will always be enticed into looking for kicks and are vulnerable is mindless. Just saying that something is illegal will not stop those who want to do it so legislation is totally flawed. 

Putting something in your mouth which has been manufactured in an unregulated environment by god knows who and with god knows what is bound to lead to a bad reaction in some people. It doesn't stop people any more than legislation does. If MDMA is not available for ecstacy production, people find much more dangerous alternatives.   

ETA. I don't think that we all know people who have died taking ecstacy, it is a relatively rare occurrence, we all know people who have died from alcohol abuse.   

Edited by Max Power
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry to be harsh and ßimplißtic, but isn't the whole drink drugs thing jußt darwinism at work. with a bit of russian roulette thrown in for fun.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Barlow Strada said:

sorry to be harsh and ßimplißtic, but isn't the whole drink drugs thing jußt darwinism at work. with a bit of russian roulette thrown in for fun.

 

alcohol usually kills people later in life, when they have already reproduced, but it also can affect those who do not drink due to those who do drink killing or injuring them either by driving or violence.  So not really Darwinism at work.

unlicenced drugs usually kill people younger in life, but mostly because those drugs are not licenced, and therefore likely to be more dangerous than they would otherwise be.  You could argue that drugs are bad, or you could argue that not licencing their production is bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Bellefield said:

 You could argue that drugs are bad, or you could argue that not licencing their production is bad.

Or you could argue that because drugs are bad, not licencing their production is bad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bellefield said:

alcohol usually kills people later in life, when they have already reproduced, but it also can affect those who do not drink due to those who do drink killing or injuring them either by driving or violence.  So not really Darwinism at work.

unlicenced drugs usually kill people younger in life, but mostly because those drugs are not licenced, and therefore likely to be more dangerous than they would otherwise be.  You could argue that drugs are bad, or you could argue that not licencing their production is bad.

That's a good observation. I suppose with alcohol at least it's production is controlled and the way the companies operate (meeting the health and safety sign offfs of the big chains like Tesco's or Sainsburys etc) means that it's less likely that people will die sooner from poor quality product. There has been a huge problem in the last 10 years though with bootleg booze and cigarettes being shipped in for Eastern Europe where people have died just form drinking one bottle as their kidneys have packed up as there was no proper control over the manufacturing process. I agree that legalizing and licensing makes sense. I've followed the debate on drugs since the 1970s and the situation has just got constantly worse over that time. Criminalizing hasn't worked and there are probably more drugs and drug users around than there ever was so continuing criminalizing seems pointless. 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.