i found hidden drugs

Tiddlywinks

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

What a ridiculous statement...

That is why they are called 'controlled substances'... the clue is in the name.



P.S. Having cared for someone through terminal illness I understand about pain management and I can assure you that people build tolerances and doses need to be increased. Also, it IS addictive... there is no argument against that. Of course, that isn't your main worry when dying BUT should be of concern to a 'recreational' user.

TopQuark wrote: »

It's the same chemical; in one scenario where it is used to help it's a controlled substance and called morphine, in another it's called heroin and is illegal. Compare that to tobacco, where no such dual representation occurs, because it it harmful in all circumstances. Yet, it is legal.

I think it's pretty clear from my comments that I knew the that... why the need to tell me again?

Just because tobacco is legal, does not make it right to advocate drug use and declare it to be safe.

MrsDrink

TopQuark wrote: »

Why don't you ask yourself the same question??

I haven't told anyone their opinions are wrong. I have stated my own opinion (with regards to the drug taking when the thread had reached this point). You then said I was on my high horse, inferring my opinions are wrong.

TopQuark wrote: »

The purpose of my posts was to highlight the fact that, putting the issue of legality to one side for one moment, the OP's husband taking recreational drugs need not be the end of the world and that in fact the legal substances he probably also takes are more likely to do him and his family greater harm. The infidelity would be a much more serious issue for me.

So why not just say that? Your posts don't seem to have been putting the issue of legality to one side (with all the comparisons to drinking and smoking). FWIW in my world drug taking combined with infidelity would have probably have seen him out on his ear on the first occasion. He certainly would not have been the man I married.

TopQuark wrote: »

The graph is not mine, it's Professor Nutt's.

Petty argument. It was obvious I was referring to 'the graph you posted' by the phrase 'your graph'.

MrsDrink

TopQuark wrote: »

<<<<<< This. Absolutely every activity carries some degree of risk, but people need to realise that the legality of a substance not a measure of how harmful it is. As we can see from the science, the most dangerous substance is at the current time, perfectly legal.

You're also assuming that all of us who are anti-drugs are such because of the perceived harm... not simply because it is illegal.

TopQuark

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

Just because tobacco is legal, does not make it right to advocate drug use and declare it to be safe.

Who declared it safe? Certainly not me. We have established that it carries a certain degree of risk, like everything does.

TopQuark

MrsDrink wrote: »

You're also assuming that all of us who are anti-drugs are such because of the perceived harm... not simply because it is illegal.

This reminds me of my parents' stance on illegal drugs. They'd never take any precisely because they are illegal. Yet they are happy to get addicted to the substances that the government deem legal, despite the fact that those very substances are and will kill them. At the same time, they look down on occasional users of ecstasy and magic mushrooms (much 'safer' than tobacco and alcohol) as idiotic, risk-taking lowlifes on the edge of society.

thorsoak

So, TopQuark and 19lottie82,, you would be totally relaxed if or when you become parents, for your children to indulge in recreational drug taking?

TopQuark

thorsoak wrote: »

So, TopQuark and 19lottie82,, you would be totally relaxed if or when you become parents, for your children to indulge in recreational drug taking?

I'd rather that they took a periodic ecstasy pill at a party than became smokers. Of course, I'd not want them to become heroin addicts just like I'd not want them to become alcoholics. I'd be more worried about the risk of the latter becoming reality however.

Dimey

TopQuark wrote: »

This reminds me of my parents' stance on illegal drugs. They'd never take any precisely because they are illegal. Yet they are happy to get addicted to the substances that the government deem legal, despite the fact that those very substances are and will kill them. At the same time, they look down on occasional users of ecstasy and magic mushrooms (much 'safer' than tobacco and alcohol) as idiotic, risk-taking lowlifes on the edge of society.

Law abiding citizens will chose to obey the law and not buy, hold or take illegal drugs.

This doesn't mean they conversely will chose to be addicted to other legal substances.

Is there a hierarchy of addicts where addicts of a certain substance have higher status than addicts of other substances? I wonder what the ranking is? Is there a graph? (only joking)

thorsoak

TopQuark wrote: »

I'd rather that they took a periodic ecstasy pill at a party than became smokers. Of course, I'd not want them to become heroin addicts just like I'd not want them to become alcoholics. I'd be more worried about the risk of the latter becoming reality however.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/feb/02/deputy-head-drug-culture-son-death-ecstasy

Enough said.

TopQuark

Dimey wrote: »

Is there a hierarchy of addicts where addicts of a certain substance have higher status than addicts of other substances? I wonder what the ranking is? Is there a graph? (only joking)

In my own experience, addicts and regular users of harmful legal substances tend to believe that they have 'higher status' /are above (whatever that might mean) non-addicts and occasional users of far less harmful illegal substances.