chomp my root

Not quite how it went though was it ? Froggratt was self medicating and you'd think with his knowledge and experience he'd know what your mythical ''safe dose would be. He didn't stick to it though did he, the drugs took over and he started faking prescriptions to get more. This doesn't fit in with your 'clinics' where everyone is happy with their 'safe dose' and pops off again. When it became public that he was basically stealing from his employer yes, that did have a negative effect on his career, his dishonesty led to his downfall and the cause of his dishonesty was drugs. Its also understandable that people may not want to go to (or especially take their kids to) a known drug addict for treatment (or alcoholic for that matter) as there would be suspicion about their judgement. You're either incredibly naive or so arrogant that you're unwilling to even see the other side of the argument but we know this anyway.

He lied and cheated to get a fix, get over it, bad example of a 'functioning addict'. He was renowned professional until he started to fall apart and degenerate into drug addiction. He had better access to 'good' drugs and he could have as much as he could steal from the NHS. He still didn't have the moral character to keep his habit in check, despite the fact he was a doctor of medicine and an advisor to the government on drugs. I don't care how 'high functioning' he is, he's an addict and it bit him in the arse. I'll try to learn to live with my 'catastrophic failure', as BradHorse points out, try blogging, you're not really a natural debater (I'm sure there's a joke in there somewhere).

I worked on the principle it was a debate not a defeat but I think your right, your meltdown does indicate a defeat, sorry dude, I don't take any pleasure in your humiliation. Are you really sticking with Clive Frogratt as your example of 'self medicating' working ? Hmm, I guess you're never wrong, ever. edited cos I can't speel

1. For starters, I reckon you'll 'bother' with any further posts I contribute, you can't help yourself. A prime example being the post I've quoted which was my response to The Moonster. You can't help yourself you strange little man. 2. For clarity, you're using these reports to say that if we legalise drugs for any user, old or new that drug dealers would be put out of business. A couple of small scale programmes that are used to specifically get long term addicts who want to get off heroin (but still commit crimes to get 'top up' fixes from dealers) gives the green light to your proposals ? I enjoy that you pull a few reports off the internet that are sympathetic to your argument and call them facts. There's no mention of how the participants are selected or any of that kind of stuff. Doesn't matter though, not really I'm sticking with naive (at best) 3. As for Dr Froggratt, seriously, are you using him as your poster boy for legalising drugs, he was faking prescriptions to feed his habit, that doesn't exactly scream 'living a normal life'. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/COCAINE+SHAME+OF+TOP+TORY+DOCTOR%3B+EXCLUSIVE%3A+NHS+reform+adviser...-a061160679 4. Stop the press....someone disagrees with you and despite your 'charm offensive', ready wit and 'facts' still doesn't agree with you. My spider senses tell me that the argument is more important than the subject with you, I suppose I'll never find out seeing as how you're not going to 'bother' with my posts................

Education is one thing and it should be 'pushed' from an early age but the government having a program whether intentional or not implies acceptance and ultimately responsibility. The examples given earlier in the thread of turning up at the 'special' drug clinic and the expert dishing out the government recommended dose is laughable. Drug addicts are renowned for their clear thinking and patience when it comes to their fixes ! So we're still left with the current situation where they'll be going to dealers and committing crimes to pay them. So we're exactly where we are now (maybe crimes a bit less) but we still the crime being committed for drugs and we have state sponsored drug clinics which bave to be paid for. If you can come up with a better solution then I'm all ears but I'm sorry that I don't but I reserve the right to have an opinion on any put forward.

I still don't see that just because you disagree with something that you automatically have to offer up a better/different solution. Palestine being an example, I may deplore the situation but that doesn't mean I have a working alternative that would suit all involved. I'm not involved with drugs in any real way directly, maybe if I were I'd have more of an answer for you. I'm absolutely certain that,A. The Utopian NHS drop in centres would be unworkable for the reasons already stated and B. Politicians and the vast majority of the population (for right or wrong) wouldn't be persuaded that its a good idea so basically a non starter. I would love to see the criminals involved removed from drug culture and as I've said, I don't have an issue with the softer ones being legalised. I'm not daft enough to think that people for what ever reason won't take hard drugs, I just don't think the government would/should condone it. The alcohol comparison is a fair one to a point but the 'masses' would not vote for a party who said they were going to ban booze, its to ingrained, you're dealing with people who, like your football fan don't have to justify their reasons or prejudices.

Definitely too much 'product' ! Sorry, I couldn't resist

just noticed this one, what a strange thing for a person to claim, I doubt anything I've posted could be construed this way. Please prove it and..........be specific

Ooft, you're having an off night, maybe too much 'product'. As for you avoiding the company of blah blah blah, to paraphrase you, its deflection and as for your final paragraph, I've posted earlier that I don't have a massive issue with E. Nice try but my only problem is with 'hard' drugs'.

Um, you are, you've said in an earlier post that you go round places campaigning on the subject which does make you kind of a 'salesman'. Even if you weren't ,calling people idiotic for disagreeing with you is unlikely to win them over. Personally I'm not looking to be buttered up but I'm guessing you see my point and are deliberately being provocative to try and provoke a reaction.

Yes mate, its just a pity that for some reason you just can't quite convince all of us that you're right. If you were genuine about your 'crusade' you'd improve your people skills because your 'facts' aren't doing it despite an earlier post by you that you didn't really need to be nice to people as the 'facts' would carry your argument. Again I'll say you're naive because you don't seem to accept that you need to convince PEOPLE who don't require logic or facts to form an opinion, we're a fickle bunch, some just require a bit of 'buttering up' but you don't seem willing to do that. It looks like just an excuse to have a rant to be honest.

You're slipping dude, very selective response but I'm not surprised.

In reply to your first point, I'm not saying we shouldn't look for ways to improve the way we deal with things now. In any aspect of life we should be looking at ways to improve things. What I am saying is that legalising 'hard' drugs doesn't need to be the only change to be looked at. Other options can be looked at which leads me on to your second point. It doesn't necessarily follow that just because I don't like one proposal that I would have a well thought out alternative. In this case, I'm more reactive (not reactionary) due to not being directly affected by any drug issues. Thats not to say I'm unsympathetic. Sorry if this comes across as fence sitting but like I say, if someone throws something open to debate like this I can surely pick holes with it and in this debate I've given reasons why I think its unworkable. Its pub logic to make it a choice A or B scenario, can you really see that happening ? Surely the legalisation of weed would be a step towards any (incredibly unlikely) change to the way we deal with harder drugs.

I think you're being silly now, a public flogging would probably be sufficient

The argument that the current system is flawed so we must change it to another system (which hasn't exactly been proven to work either) is really no argument for change. Any change to the way the nation deals with drugs would cost a fortune to set up and administer and what would we do if it didn't work ? (this would have to be before all the money rolled in from the end of supras's war on drugs, which is contentious anyway) Would we re-criminalise drugs ? The government would already have accepted that people use drugs and may indeed have 'gotten into them' through the NHS. How would these people be 'treated' ? They maybe wouldn't want to be which leaves even more of a mess to be sorted (and paid for). Its not a 'keep things exactly as they are' or 'legalise drugs and have special clinics' argument. That kind of argument is great for the internet or the pub but when theres consequences to be dealt with by politicians and civil servants etc can you really see them going "och , we'll give it a shot and see how it goes" ?

I can't speak for the others but in the poll at the start of the thread (way back when it was just a debate about legalising weed) I voted yes. I'm not sure about E, coke etc but I know guys who do and seem fine, I could probably be swayed on these but my reticence is more to do with the length of time that they've been 'around' like I say, I could probably be persuaded. Stuff like Heroin, I just can't see being legalised, for all the reasons I've stated and also because the 'masses' and the MP's won't go for it. It would take a huge change in the publics attitude and frankly of the reasons to go down the legalised root, the only one that has any merit is the argument about (trying) to take drugs out of the hands of criminals but as I've said, it comes across to me as incredibly naive (or hopeful). I've never been bothered (never even tried weed) and its unlikely if I will, whether its legal or not but I know plenty who have/do and I think its about how addictive a person you are, I'm surprised nobodies mentioned gambling to be honest, that can be harmful to a lot of people, some who have financial responsibilities but then, thats not as 'sexy' as drugs.

I thought 99% supported the war on drugs because if we didn't understand then we were pro war on drugs. I'm using your figures here so I would have thought they/we/me (not too sure, definitely the 99% then) wouldn't be 'so difficult to find'.

Valid points, the one you've missed is that they now have to convince us 'doubters' that we're wrong, thats us, the vast majority of the population that think allowing the state to sell heroin might be a bit 'iffy'. Apparently its all about education and we're missing the point but as we're 'idiotic' (copyright supras) we'd probably not get it anyway Oh and its not just the small chance of someone OD'ing on the 'good' stuff, if some poor wee soul who was in a government sponsored program OD'd on the 'naughty' stuff, it would still be the governments fault for 'allowing' them to get into drugs in the first place. As you've pointed out but the 'pro' campaign refuse to accept (due to a staggering amount of naivity in my opinion) that what the drug user wants and what the government would consider the mythical safe dose might vary hugely. None of the pro's have even attempted to deal with this point. The amount of 'seethe' generated about something that just isn't going to happen is laughable. edited for bad speeling

My point was that even if the drugs can be manufactured cheaply, the infrastructure of staffing these establishments will have to be met too. There'll have to be medical and security people who the users would have to effectively pay for to make the service more or less cost neutral. On the issue of cost, nobody seems keen to stick their neck out and guestimate a cost, which makes sense, theres so many things to consider apart from staffing, there's tax, the secure storage and transportation of the drugs and of course the cost of the drugs themselves (which I suspect will be more than people think, purely because the government (in this case the NHS I would imagine) couldn't be seen to be buying crap and the companies who produce it will rip the government off, as companies do across government contracts generally).

Fair one bruv. ETA: should have said harsh...............but fair

Linking someones views on drugs to the independence vote and then saying anyone who doesn't agree with you shows a lack of intelligence is stretching things a tad. I'm sorry but thats poor on a number of different levels.

I'm guessing that on a thread entitled 'Should Weed Be Legal ?' and we're talking about 'hard' drugs you've read the last couple of pages at least and seen how the debate has moved. Which bit don't you understand ?

These state drug emporiums will no doubt be built and staffed round the clock by good samaritans only too happy to provide a service for the sterling hard working user. They'll be more than happy to meet all expectations, more smack Sir, suit you Sir.

Sorry, had to come back for a second pop. Surely the cessation of the 'war on drugs' will pay for it, never mind the cost, even if you don't know what it would be and if all the hard working 9 to 5 working drug users play by the rules.

Hmmm so you're speculating like tbe rest of us. The prosecution rests its case !