teenage son crashed into electricity pole

RichyRich

THIS GUY?!?!?!?!!?no, that's not me!!!

Happychappy

Richy

You know how every village has one, I think you must represent an entire city :T

RichyRich

Happychappy wrote: »

Richy

You know how every village has one, I think you must represent an entire city :T

I have never denied being an idiot. However, if I am one, at least I am one that has come to conclusions based on his own research rather than blindly following what others have told him.

Unfortunately, thinking for oneself went out of fashion along with flared trousers and beehives

jeannieblue

Richyrich is good isn't he?

You've got to admit it. He could be a politician...... a leader of a revolution..... he has the gift of the gab..

Richyrich - I respect your views. And you have made good points. But i do not think legalising this stuff is morally right.

But I do not respect the drug abuse or the drugs. The damage that has been done to peoples heads/brains/lives etc. is not good. I've seen the mess that is left when such a nice young person is reduced to dreadful states, where they have institutionalised or quite frankly, are just plain dead.

Too many young people are screwed up with 'just smoking pot'. Its not the pot that it used to be - it is quite lethal now.

Having a ciggie doesn't screw with your head nor does having a couple of pints up the pub.

Happychappy

Explain how the average smackhead who doesnt work and burgles, thieves and commits crime to fund his/her habit, how does this scum get enough drugs to feed their habit, do they go to a free vending machine? does the GP give them as much as they want? what happens when they want more and the GP says "No" do they now enter peoples houses to take what they want and sell as this is another law you have given plenty of thought over and decided everyone is equal so nobody ownes anything.

How does the kid bring thrown up by the scum currently smacked off her t*ts not get taken into care coz mam's a smackhead?

Good thinking, well thought through.

My research is based on 30 years as a cop feeling very very sorry for the people left destroyed and broken by the effects of drugs, including the poor kids taken into custody because the low life called mum and dad feed their habit before the child, and dont anyone stand in their way, because they are on a mission and Nothing will stop them getting the next fix....free or not !

RichyRich

jeannieblue wrote: »

You've got to admit it. He could be a politician...... a leader of a revolution..... he has the gift of the gab..

...but I'd earn more as a salesman

We're all entitled to our opinions, and I accept yours. However there is little evidence to prove that long term alcohol use is any less damaging than other drugs...there is a big difference between the odd pint down the local pub and ten pints of Stella every nigth. Similarly, there are differences in patterns of drug usage.

The government have a vested interest in keeping alcohol and tobacco legal - they are a major source of revenue. That does not translate as them being better for you than other drugs.

And, finally, thank you for your comments. I may be looking for a career change shortly, and while I am sure politics won't be the way I go, I'll bear your "gift of the gab" comment in mind.

Cheers,
Rich

RichyRich

Happychappy wrote: »

Explain how the average smackhead who doesnt work and burgles, thieves and commits crime to fund his/her habit, how does this scum get enough drugs to feed their habit, do they go to a free vending machine? does the GP give them as much as they want? what happens when they want more and the GP says "No" do they now enter peoples houses to take what they want and sell as this is another law you have given plenty of thought over and decided everyone is equal so nobody ownes anything.

How does the kid bring thrown up by the scum currently smacked off her t*ts not get taken into care coz mam's a smackhead?

Good thinking, well thought through.

My research is based on 30 years as a cop feeling very very sorry for the people left destroyed and broken by the effects of drugs, including the poor kids taken into custody because the low life called mum and dad feed their habit before the child, and dont anyone stand in their way, because they are on a mission and Nothing will stop them getting the next fix....free or not !

I have already done so. The negative externalities of drugs that you describe are caused by the ILLEGALITY of drugs, rather than the drugs themselves.

Which drug users do the police see? The cash-strapped council tenants who have no money - they are the ones badly affected and who have these problems. I know a barrister who's a heroin user. Would you think it to see him? NO. Why? Because most of the effects of illegality (mainly cost) don't affect him: he can afford his fix so doesn't have to put it before other, more important things. There is no reason that a regulated drug market could not bring the same level of recreational lack of harm to all users.

Some people will never be convinced. "Drugs are illegal. They must be bad."

That attitude and viewpoint = impossible to argue with. So I won't bother.

Happychappy

Oh dear, ummm sounds like you could or should be a politician in not having answers but a lot to say.

What sort of response is that ? we are now in your huggy care bear world where drugs are free and legal ? so explain how you regulate them or not, and how does the druggie get their fix ? and who looks after their responsibilities while their smacked off their heads. Your eutopia, not mine.

RichyRich

Happychappy wrote: »

Oh dear, ummm sounds like you could or should be a politician in not having answers but a lot to say.

What sort of response is that ? we are now in your huggy care bear world where drugs are free and legal ? so explain how you regulate them or not, and how does the druggie get their fix ? and who looks after their responsibilities while their smacked off their heads. Your eutopia, not mine.

Let us assume that I accept your argument that drugs will do untold and irreversible damage to anyone who uses them (which, for the record is tosh).

We can still assume the following is true:-

1. There is a percentage of the population who will take drugs regardless of whether they are legal or not.
2. Those drugs will do a certain amount of harm to those people.

Given they'll do them anyway, is it not better that they take safer, more consistent versions of those drugs, which are less likely to cause an overdose or contamination, rather than illegal, back-street, black-market versions which nobody knows the purity of?

nd who looks after their responsibilities while their smacked off their heads.

Who looks after the responsibilities of the p!ssheads leaving the nightclubs at 2am? People still remain responsible for their own actions, just as they do when under the influence of drink.

My theory's thought through. Just because it isn't regurgitated nonsense from the field full of sheep that this country seems to have become, doesn't mean it's not thought through.

Imagine a box. Now think outside it.

jeannieblue

Richyrich - you are fast losing credibility here.

You cannot justify using drugs or legalising them by saying 'its ok to have alcohol' etc. Must legalise drugs cos alcohol is legal. That just does not make sense - and I think deep down you know that.