Drugs

fatshaft · February 22, 2009

May not go down to well, but we have all done it..........I think.

....you think wrong :party:

barassie_afc · February 22, 2009

ether and mescaline , damn pterodactyls

fatshaft · February 23, 2009

I wouldn't advertise this myself, although I am disqualified from sharing your position of purity. It's not hip to be square, despite what that awful yank f**k singer says.

Explore, man. It's how we learn. Experiment. People might like you more.

Well if you're an example of what drugs do to you, pretty much case closed for the prosecution. Funnily enough I was told the same thing quite a few years back by a young lad at work, who was being lead down the junkie path by one of the "cool" lads, he turned into a right dick as it happened, before that had been a good lad, played off a decent 5 handicap as well, went downhill, tuned into a spot ridden scuzz bag who couldn;t be arsed getting out of bed for a game (never mind work), and got himself sacked eventually. Still, drugs are cool eh? :gay:

There's nothing "square" about not taking drugs, or not thinking they are "cool".

Think for yourself rather than trying to court favour of the cool kids, people might like you more.

Bobby Connor · February 23, 2009

Well if you're an example of what drugs do to you, pretty much case closed for the prosecution. Funnily enough I was told the same thing quite a few years back by a young lad at work, who was being lead down the junkie path by one of the "cool" lads, he turned into a right dick as it happened, before that had been a good lad, played off a decent 5 handicap as well, went downhill, tuned into a spot ridden scuzz bag who couldn;t be arsed getting out of bed for a game (never mind work), and got himself sacked eventually. Still, drugs are cool eh? :thumbs:

There's nothing "square" about not taking drugs, or not thinking they are "cool".

Think for yourself rather than trying to court favour of the cool kids, people might like you more.

Try some drugs. There is no substitute for first hand experience.

Bobby Connor · February 23, 2009

Think how much funnier you'll look after a few drops of acid though.

Oh Deary me! :thumbs:

fatshaft · February 23, 2009

Try some drugs. There is no substitute for first hand experience.

And that's the official view of the site owners? I hope you've now banned all the under 16s from being able to register or view this site!

February 23, 2009

And that's the official view of the site owners? I hope you've now banned all the under 16s from being able to register or view this site!

:thumbs:

Drugs are shit. Most people will try them at some point, but if anyone gets hooked it f@cks their lives up be it social, employment, health, financial or relationship levels.

fatshaft · February 23, 2009

Drugs are sh*t. Most people will try them at some point, but if anyone gets hooked it f@cks their lives up be it social, employment, health, financial or relationship levels.

Well you're obviously not cool then :thumbs:

:bounce:

February 23, 2009

Well you're obviously not cool then :thumbs:

Most people are going to experiment, but somewhere along the line that experimentation could become a serious problem. Looking for that higher high......its only occasional, becomes a regular occurence, leading to a potential situation of not being able to go out without it.

Douchebag · February 23, 2009

Care should always be taken not to speak about things you know absolutely nothing about. An infromed viewpoint is always more respected on any matter.

First, fatshafts blanket coverall approach to drugs, that they are "bad". As in "all drugs are bad", or "drugs are bad". An approach often taken by Politicians and religious figures, to label all drugs as "the same" is comlete folly. In this respect I would place your judgement on drugs alongside that of Anne Widdicombe, or the Archbishop of cantebury, who would come out with similarly blinkered ill-informed viewpoints.

Its obvious to anyone who HAS taken drugs in any amount of any type, will automatially be enlightened as to the fact that all drugs are NOT the same. Indeed our Govornment has attempted to classify this by the ABC ratings. Not that this is perfect. this classification can list drugs like LSD in the higher A group, where tests have proven that this is one of the safest drugs that can be taken, showing no signs of any mental of physical damage even with prolonged long term abuse. Conversely, alcohol, which is the single biggest killer amongst all the drugs, is not even on this list!! Socially acceptable drugs of the housewife, Valium, Prozac, Temazepam, are also brushed over lightly, despite posing a bigger addicion problem than all "illegal" drugs combined. So we find that drugs are used as a political tool, ignore this, highlight that, make some policy about this... Cannabis being a fine example, where policy on this drags 15% of the population between a criminal and non-criminal state with each re-classification. The nation smokes on regardless.

In the end, as with alcohol prohibition in the USA, the authorities are pissing against the wind, fighting a battle they cannot win. Drugs are endemic in humankind, from the first to the last, humans (and other animals) are getting out of their tits. All they can do is use the situation to their own advantage, drawing support from ill-informed, one eyed ignorants, who always like to use their non-use of drugs as some kind of moral high-ground, in the way that a religeous person tends to feel that non-believers are ignorant and simply are "too thick to understand" whereas in fact the opposite is true, that those who believe in religeon are the ignorant, dogmatic and ill informed.

Core · February 23, 2009

Care should always be taken not to speak about things you know absolutely nothing about. An infromed viewpoint is always more respected on any matter.

First, fatshafts blanket coverall approach to drugs, that they are "bad". As in "all drugs are bad", or "drugs are bad". An approach often taken by Politicians and religious figures, to label all drugs as "the same" is comlete folly. In this respect I would place your judgement on drugs alongside that of Anne Widdicombe, or the Archbishop of cantebury, who would come out with similarly blinkered ill-informed viewpoints.

Its obvious to anyone who HAS taken drugs in any amount of any type, will automatially be enlightened as to the fact that all drugs are NOT the same. Indeed our Govornment has attempted to classify this by the ABC ratings. Not that this is perfect. this classification can list drugs like LSD in the higher A group, where tests have proven that this is one of the safest drugs that can be taken, showing no signs of any mental of physical damage even with prolonged long term abuse. Conversely, alcohol, which is the single biggest killer amongst all the drugs, is not even on this list!! Socially acceptable drugs of the housewife, Valium, Prozac, Temazepam, are also brushed over lightly, despite posing a bigger addicion problem than all "illegal" drugs combined. So we find that drugs are used as a political tool, ignore this, highlight that, make some policy about this... Cannabis being a fine example, where policy on this drags 15% of the population between a criminal and non-criminal state with each re-classification. The nation smokes on regardless.

In the end, as with alcohol prohibition in the USA, the authorities are pissing against the wind, fighting a battle they cannot win. Drugs are endemic in humankind, from the first to the last, humans (and other animals) are getting out of their tits. All they can do is use the situation to their own advantage, drawing support from ill-informed, one eyed ignorants, who always like to use their non-use of drugs as some kind of moral high-ground, in the way that a religeous person tends to feel that non-believers are ignorant and simply are "too thick to understand" whereas in fact the opposite is true, that those who believe in religeon are the ignorant, dogmatic and ill informed.

Good post mate.

I have to defend part of Fatshafts argument though. He is entitled to his blanket view of "drugs are bad I have never touched them." Fair enough and good for you. I hope you aren't being a hypochrit and are carrying on abusing the legal drugs instead then - if you drink, and possibly smoke - if you don't then

you may polish your halo.

Moving on.......I could speak about my experiences and social background ad naseaum but I won;t bore you!

My take is this - if you are gainfully employed and not a menace to society and you want to get high at the weekends or rave on |E's or even shoot up in your spare time then as far as I'm concerned knock yourself out. However if you end up stealing and robbing to pay for your habit as you are a wee junkie f~ck then I have a problem with you. Non drug users may find that hypocritical but I don;t believe the 'dabblers' amongst you will.

Those with addictive personalities or the weak willed are at risk of spoilign the social drug taking experience and endign up hooked. Unfortunately some can't stop, and yesy on that count fat shaft is right, don;t start and then you can't end up a junkie waste of space. Tough one to call on some counts.

Personally i caned E's for 3 years then as the bad effects of the drug rose and the highs fell, I called it a day, and I had to do it cold turkey, as althgoh I woudln;t say E's are physically addictive, they are pyschologically and socially addictive. SO I got out of the context of the Hoochi Coochi club and raves and staretd gettign pissed with my old mates instead, and got into trouble with fighting when drunk - good move eh!!!

Spread the love!!

fatshaft · February 23, 2009

Care should always be taken not to speak about things you know absolutely nothing about. An infromed viewpoint is always more respected on any matter.

First, fatshafts blanket coverall approach to drugs, that they are "bad". As in "all drugs are bad", or "drugs are bad". An approach often taken by Politicians and religious figures, to label all drugs as "the same" is comlete folly. In this respect I would place your judgement on drugs alongside that of Anne Widdicombe, or the Archbishop of cantebury, who would come out with similarly blinkered ill-informed viewpoints.

Its obvious to anyone who HAS taken drugs in any amount of any type, will automatially be enlightened as to the fact that all drugs are NOT the same. Indeed our Govornment has attempted to classify this by the ABC ratings. Not that this is perfect. this classification can list drugs like LSD in the higher A group, where tests have proven that this is one of the safest drugs that can be taken, showing no signs of any mental of physical damage even with prolonged long term abuse. Conversely, alcohol, which is the single biggest killer amongst all the drugs, is not even on this list!! Socially acceptable drugs of the housewife, Valium, Prozac, Temazepam, are also brushed over lightly, despite posing a bigger addicion problem than all "illegal" drugs combined. So we find that drugs are used as a political tool, ignore this, highlight that, make some policy about this... Cannabis being a fine example, where policy on this drags 15% of the population between a criminal and non-criminal state with each re-classification. The nation smokes on regardless.

In the end, as with alcohol prohibition in the USA, the authorities are pissing against the wind, fighting a battle they cannot win. Drugs are endemic in humankind, from the first to the last, humans (and other animals) are getting out of their tits. All they can do is use the situation to their own advantage, drawing support from ill-informed, one eyed ignorants, who always like to use their non-use of drugs as some kind of moral high-ground, in the way that a religeous person tends to feel that non-believers are ignorant and simply are "too thick to understand" whereas in fact the opposite is true, that those who believe in religeon are the ignorant, dogmatic and ill informed.

Interesting use of quotes I didn't make, and your use of those non-quotes to extrapolate what I must have meant. I think you'll find I objected to the "drugs are cool" line, and "we've all taken drugs" line.

Douchebag · February 23, 2009

Most of the Junkies I know, activley WANTED to become junkies. As in, they liked the lifestyle and the whole "shebang" appealed to them, so they sought it out actively. Most were junkies within months of taking smack. All fell into the same lifestyle, the track suit, the pitbull, the "junkie voice"... its a lifestyle choice. You dont get hooked on heroin after one hit, you have to work at it, like alcoholism, you have to develop and addiction. I also know of extremely well heeled people in top management positions who are junkies. Thing is you cant tell who is and who isnt. I know a guy who worked in an oil company who got into acid in his 40's and used to take it EVERY DAY going into work out of his nut, and nobody suspected a thing. He wasnt sacked or found out. People can, and do, lead double lives. Its easy to look at a homeless, and call him a junkie. Probably wrong, whereas the guy in a suit standing next to you on a bus probably has a wrap or a dimebag in his pocket for his nightly fix.

Point im making is that some people can go through their entire lives taking drugs with no ttangible ill-effects. whereas some poeple do not even need drugs to become a junkie, being attracted to the Junkie lifestyle and its apparell, as much as the drugs themselves...

Extasy? Its stronger than you think. Long term abuse dangerous, hell yes. Cannabis, place it with alcohol, as a dangerous drug when used long term in an addictive situation, yse it will inhibit your progress and development. Heroin? can be taken long term without any ill-effect, dependant on purity. Has very little toxic effect on the mind or body. Addictive yes, harmful, debateable. Certaily less harmful than amphetamines or any other laboratory produced drug.

The acid test comes when you compare to "legal taxable" drugs or those that are prescribed by doctors, to illegal drugs, and this is where the logic falls apart. It seems that drugs can be classified according to "convenience", as in, taxable drugs are ok, while non-taxable drugs are evil and the pushers need to be jailed etc. It stinks of hipocracy, and is fueled by ignorance.

Suspect Device · February 23, 2009

I would argue that there is no-one on here who has never taken drugs. Some may have never taken illegal drugs.

I take drugs alll the time.

Morning aspirin, Atenelol, Ramipril, possibly paracetemol if i've got sore head. Definitely caffeine at work. i could not get through the mind numbing boredom without it.

Lunch possibly alcohol - lager, possibly not. (I'm not an addict!)

Dinner more alcohol - wine. Possibly a beer or 2 if I'm watching the football. maybe finish off with more alcohol - whisky

Time for bed and I'll finish my drug consumption with Simvastatin.

What a junkie.

Douchebag · February 23, 2009

the cannabis farce is one of the best. Firstly we had a bunch of Oxbridge hippes who smoked a bit of Rocky at uni. they decide it is safe, and it is reclassified as a C class drug. Great, now then that 15% of the population who take a smoke are no longer in fear of having their lives destroyed by the law.

The anti-drug brigade are uneasy, as they sup their pint down the pub, washing down their valium the doc gave them, they feel that "crime will rise" and "the streets will be awash with evil dealers" and other such nonsense.

The politicians get uneasy, and decide to backtrack, realising it would be a vote winner with the 85% of non-smokers out there.

So they come up with a few "facts" like how "super strong skunk" makes you go paranoid and develp schizophrenia. So they work out that "5% of smokers go on to develop mental health problems". Now what is the base fogure for mental ill-health in the general non-smoking population... well you guessed it, its 5%.

so in reality you are no more likely to develop schizophrenia if you are a smoker or a non smoker.

Dont let the facts get in the way of a good story huh?

Bobby Connor · February 23, 2009

I have to defend part of Fatshafts argument though. He is entitled to his blanket view of "drugs are bad I have never touched them." Fair enough and good for you. I hope you aren't being a hypochrit and are carrying on abusing the legal drugs instead then - if you drink, and possibly smoke - if you don't then
you may polish your halo.

Spread the love!!

Excellent post. I have to agree and if FS has indeed never touched legal drugs then he is welcome to the moral high ground.

It would make for a boring existence in my view and I cannot think of a single culture in the world, and throughout time that doesn't indulge.

fatshaft · February 23, 2009

Excellent post. I have to agree and if FS has indeed never touched legal drugs then he is welcome to the moral high ground.

It would make for a boring existence in my view and I cannot think of a single culture in the world, and throughout time that doesn't indulge.

Think you missed a rather large part of the debate there BC. There's a world of difference between legal and illegal. You can twist alcohol to fit your arguments of "drugs" all you like, but you know full well what we are arguing about, so stop being a rocket.

FWIW, even if those cool, snappily titled drugs in the poll were legal, I wouldn't touch them with a barge pole, so I guess I have the moral high ground whichever way you look at it :checkit:

Sonoftherock · February 23, 2009

FWIW, even if those cool, snappily titled drugs in the poll were legal, I wouldn't touch them with a barge pole, so I guess I have the moral high ground whichever way you look at it

Do you use Alcohol Fatshaft?

Bobby Connor · February 23, 2009

Think you missed a rather large part of the debate there BC. There's a world of difference between legal and illegal. You can twist alcohol to fit your arguments of "drugs" all you like, but you know full well what we are arguing about, so stop being a rocket.

FWIW, even if those cool, snappily titled drugs in the poll were legal, I wouldn't touch them with a barge pole, so I guess I have the moral high ground whichever way you look at it

I haven't touched any illegal drugs in many a year, what I do know is that seperating drugs according to their legality is foolhardy. Cigarettes and alcohol are among the most deadly.

Friends of mine smoke dope but do not smoke cigs - for example. That is actually a far healthier lifestyle than a 20 a day smoker who has never smoked weed.

Politicians need to be completely ignored in this debate - and you sound like one.

Douchebag · February 23, 2009

The whole argument about prohibition is an utter nonsense. What it is based around is an ideology that drugs are forced upon people, and that really, everyone wants to be drug free. that is obviously a falsehood. Classifying alcohol as a drug would probably make around 80% of the population a drug user. This holds true whether you have or have not taken drugs, and has to be recognised for serious debate to continue. Any kind of "I dont take drugs and those who do are idiots" approach is just stifling the argument.

Take an analogy with tobacco. It is produced by mostly large and established companies, with a smaller domestic/euro/american cottage industry associated (cigars, pipes gadgets etc), however, all under the control and regulation of govornment health and financial controls. In the case of a new development, ie nicotine free or tobacco with less health risk, this could be imposed on companies to adhere to the new law. On top of all of this, huge amounts of tax revenues are drawn, as well as the thousands of jobs created by the industry.

As it stands, drug production and distribution is performed by criminal organisations, such as the mafias of Europe and russia, criminal cartels in south america, mafias and triads worldwide. Indeed our own enemies in the middle east profit off the west's dependance on heroin. they sell us crap drugs and then buy weapons made by us to kill our soldiers with. In this drugs trade, the manufacturer, or farmer, gets virtually nothing, subsidence wages. All manner of shortcuts are made in order to increase profit. the vast chunk of revenue goes to the mafias. People die from poorly regulated or cut supplies. Those at the bottom of the chain, the user and the street dealer, infest our jails, with a never ending cycle of meaningless prosecutions, while the drug overlords and wholesalers, while always on the hide, roam free.

another analogy, you buy your honey from the farm in the country. Maybe you buy from the supermarket, a well known brand, where you know what your getting. Then again maybe you would rather by honey made from donkey piss and sh*t and made in Djibouti by a suicide bomber who wants to blow up your flight to Tenerife...

so imagine the govornment made you buy the donkey sh*t honey, and made all the domestic and known brands illegal.

fatshaft · February 23, 2009

Do you use Alcohol Fatshaft?

Think you missed a rather large part of the debate there BC. There's a world of difference between legal and illegal. You can twist alcohol to fit your arguments of "drugs" all you like, but you know full well what we are arguing about, so stop being a rocket.

FWIW, even if those cool, snappily titled drugs in the poll were legal, I wouldn't touch them with a barge pole, so I guess I have the moral high ground whichever way you look at it

fatshaft · February 23, 2009

I haven't touched any illegal drugs in many a year, what I do know is that seperating drugs according to their legality is foolhardy. Cigarettes and alcohol are among the most deadly.

Friends of mine smoke dope but do not smoke cigs - for example. That is actually a far healthier lifestyle than a 20 a day smoker who has never smoked weed.

Politicians need to be completely ignored in this debate - and you sound like one.

I'd ban fags as well if I had my way. :banghead:

Bobby Connor · February 23, 2009

I'd ban fags as well if I had my way.

I agree. The worst and most addictive drug ever. Get it banned. As a smoker I would be quite happy for it to be made illegal.

Core · February 23, 2009

I'd ban fags as well if I had my way.

So as well as being morally beyond repraoch, you are a homophobic.

Interesting combination ;-)

Suspect Device · February 23, 2009

I'll add ganj on to my list of drugs because this debate has made me need to reach for the bong.

fatshaft · February 24, 2009

I wouldn't advertise this myself, although I am disqualified from sharing your position of purity. It's not hip to be square, despite what that awful yank f**k singer says.

Explore, man. It's how we learn. Experiment. People might like you more.

I believe in personal choice. As for "being cool", this argument is stuck at persons aged no more than 15, and is irrelevant to people capabale of free thought and free choice.

The concept of peer pressure applies only to the weak.

Pretty confused now rocket? So should I pretend to be cool like a 15 year old so that everyone likes me, or do what I like as succumbing to peer pressure is for poofs? I am the latter, but you said I was square, now you're saying I was right all along?

:thumbup1:

fatshaft · February 24, 2009

I didn't say you were square, I was having a dig at that god awful song. The concept of square, like peer pressure is stuck at age 15 max.

You go too personal on an impersonal fourm. I never said you were right or wrong. We're sharing views.

I gave my view. I don't advocate the legalisation of any of them, bar coffee and alcohol.

You gave your view. You choose not to experiment. I can not share your position of purity, as I also exercise personal choice and have not always said no.

If you really want to get personal, the more pertinent line was the one that the abstainers know not of what they speak.

Ach, it's a' oor muckle for a pier loon like me, I dinna ken fit yer spikken aboot most o' the time min.

carol-anne · February 24, 2009

rocket scientist, if you belive in personal choice then why do you think the drugs you named should be kept illegal ?

carol-anne · February 25, 2009

I think its addiction thats the problem...... everything in moderation :banghead:

February 25, 2009

I think its addiction thats the problem...... everything in moderation

Don't most people start "in moderation"? Moderation is nevr too far from the slippery slope.

Drugs

Drugs 104 members have voted

1. Whats Your Drug Of choice

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

tup

tup

CrazyBullSheep

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Guest LondonScottish

Link to comment

Link to comment

Guest LondonScottish

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Guest LondonScottish

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Drugs
104 members have voted