Should Weed Be Legal?

[Supras]

lol.

I have provided a reason why (addictive and harmful) drugs should remain illegal. At no point did I say the war on drugs is a viable policy. If they were more widely available, more people would have access to them.

Where exactly did I say that drug addicts should be imprisoned? This is what I think:

I think possession should mean a fine at most, but that dealers and importers should be very severely punished, much more so than currently.

More people would have access to them - although a lot less children - but that is not a valid argument against legalisation at all. A policy should minimise harm not use. And, of course, in practice legalisation REDUCES consumption of drugs such as heroin. So not only is the reasoning wrong, the empirical evidence is totally against the idea of legalisation leading to increased use.

Possession should be a fine? Exactly what makes possession a crime? Be specific. What is the justification for this being illegal? The point about dealers and importers is not hugely relevant, although the severe punishment route has been a rampant failure in the US.

You could have found all of this out, and would have realised that I have just a slightly more moderate viewpoint than you on this topic, but that we share many views had you not leapt to a thousand conclusions about what I do and don't believe.

A slightly more moderate one, and one that has clearly changed over the course of this debate. But aspects of it are still illogical, and I don't have any qualms of pointing that out.

I think drug addicts should have access to clean places where they could take drugs (and clean needles etc) but stop short of actually having the government supply the substances or even decriminalising it. I believe that cannabis and ecstacy, amphetemines etc should be legalised, I'd go beyond decriminalisation, these are not particularly harmful substances imo

Um, so the circumstances are safe but the product isn't? What is the point in that? The government could easily, and cheaply, supply safe heroin. Why wouldn't they? Instead you are forcing them to consume an unsafe product, and propping up drug dealers. As a policy it doesn't make any sense.

Oh well, so long as you don't think they are harmful. But as I've discussed in depth, the harmful drugs are arguably the ones that should be legalised first. They cause the most harm, no doubt, but legalising them would alleviate most of that harm. That's why they should be legalised.

EDIT: Re the war on drugs, obviously a total failure and money sink. Much more should be put into educating children about the dangers and benefits of taking certain drugs and allow them to make informed decisions based on this information. Drugs are bad is pointless, because if they were all that bad, why would people take them. ONce they take their first draw of a joint and realise it doesn't kill them, they realise that drugs are bad is a lie, and discount all negatives they have heard about all drugs, which is not a good thing imo

I don't have much to add to this, only that it reminded me of the hilarious "gateway drug" claim of marijuana. Yeah, it's the gateway drug, not alcohol or calpol or anything.

[Supras]

I don't think the government's only responsibility is to protect us, but it is one of them and an important one. It comes down to balancing the responsibilities of government on a case by case basis. Cars for example are dangerous, which counts against their legality, but the importance they have to a very high proportion of people, the fact they allow personal freedoms, how important they are to the economy, how important they are to the day to day running of the country etc all have to be taken into account.

The other big issue is how socially acceptable they are. A minority of people in the UK smoke cannabis regularly, so it being illegal does not make a huge difference to people therefore there is comparably little harm in keeping it illegal. Unlike electrical appliances, which are used by almost everyone and are important in the day to day living of the vast majority of people.

As for tolerating it, imprisoning people for possession does not seem the correct decision, nor does making it completely legal, so I think some sort of compromise is probably the best course of action to take. I'm happy to allow the government to make that decision for me, as that is what I elected them to do on my behalf.

Except in what sense does the war on drugs protect anyone? I disagree with the reasoning of infringing personal liberties, what you consume in your own body, for apparent reasons on security. But even if you do think that, how can you justify the current policy? Who, exactly, does it protect?

Social acceptability shouldn't come into it. Society should readily accept the legalisation of drugs, it is the only empirically valid viewpoint. They don't - and that's a failure of society.

Making it completely legal is the answer, in my opinion. Many other learned people favour decriminalisation. Everyone is, rightly, united in their disgust of the war on drugs. The government is wrong on this subject, absolutely wrong, and citizens have a duty to point this out. You sound dangerously like the kind of person who permits anything the government does, which is a ridiculous stance to take. The government supports the war on drugs, it is the architect of the war on drugs, and this policy is a failure by any metric and unnecessarily harms millions of people.

I don't think people should be imprisoned for possession of cannabis. Neither do I think it should be legal. I do think the government have a right to put us in prison for it, if, in their wisdom, they think that is the correct route to take. I disagree with them on it though.

The right to imprison people for voluntarily possessing a substance? They have absolutely no right to do it. Cannabis absolutely should be legal, all drugs should be, and you have yet to provide a single reason why they shouldn't be. So far you have discussed security, except both the justification for it, and the execution of it, protects no one.

Edited May 16, 2013 by Supras

[madwullie]

Cannabis is a gateway drug though. But only in the sense that the person selling it will have other drugs they will sell. If cannabis was out the hands of the dealers, they wouldn't be able to punt othet stuff on.

I'm not really seeing where my opinions have changed over the course of the argument btw. Yes there are times I could have expressed myself better but changed, I don't agree

Edit and they couldn't make heroin erc "safe", safer maybe, but not safe

Edited May 16, 2013 by madwullie

[Supras]

It is the classic debating style of gaining the 'upper hand' and continuing to be a patronising and condescending pr*ck to anyone who doesn't share his opinion. What he fails to understand is that although he provides a good argument for the legalisation of drugs (although if i read 'safe administration' once more today I might tear my face off) not everyone has to agree with that.

It is like a devout Christian trying to convince you of their belief in God. I may be able to 'spectacularly beat' them in a debate concerning their beliefs, but I certainly wouldn't stoop to insulting their intelligence and try to bring them to my line of thinking - they are allowed to think that!

Supras seems to be the kind of guy who can't stand the idea of someone not agreeing with him, and likes to spend his day congratulating himself on beating everyone in debates. Not only do some people not agree with you Supras, but some people also find you a tedious intolerable bore.

It should be, I'm an excellent debater And yes, everyone should agree with this viewpoint. There is no reason to not agree with it. And far from shirking the opposite side, I have read countless books on this debate, from both sides. I fully understand the argument for drug prohibition, and its inherent flaws. I have educated myself on this topic, and can anticipate every opposite side proposed so far - apart from the one about legalization granting more access to children, I really didn't see that coming.

The difference between this and any god debate, is that I'm right - factually - and they're not.

I don't mind people disagreeing with me, and they do so on many issues. It's why I've joined this forum, to listen to opposing viewpoints. I think it's invaluable to educate yourself on opposing viewpoints. I don't mind, or shirk from, being right when I am. I have been getting mud slinging from Dee Man throughout, why are you criticising me but not him? It's a staple of P&B.

Nevertheless, if you find me a tedious bore here's an idea for you - stop reading. It's remarkably easy. You're amateur psycho analysis and insults won't be missed.

As I said - he gained the upper hand very quickly and provides a good argument. The was he goes about doing so is what I am getting at. Personal experiences with drugs are just that - personal. He has no idea what the chap has been through whether he is playing the sob story card or not. Traumatic experiences can dramatically change views, and if someone has had death, serious illness or suchlike in their family through drugs, then they are perfectly entitled to argue against legalisation. That is whether they are right or wrong.

They aren't perfectly entitled to be against legalisation. Just because someone dies in a car accident, doesn't mean the family can legitimately want to make cars illegal. They are supporting a viewpoint that harms millions of people, it is wrong regardless of their personal experiences.

Whilst I disagree with Supras on many threads in Misc Football, he's bang on the money here. It's not a case of disagreeing with the opposite side of the argument, it's about proving it completely wrong, which he has done so here.

...and the countless other times it has come up.

I also agree with most (if not all) that he says, but you are correct, he bullies his way to victory rather than articulately putting his point across with a touch of humility. Self-promoted voice of the people - Supras.

Being right is hard. Maybe some day you'll understand.

[Supras]

Cannabis is a gateway drug though. But only in the sense that the person selling it will have other drugs they will sell. If cannabis was out the hands of the dealers, they wouldn't be able to punt othet stuff on.

I'm not really seeing where my opinions have changed over the course of the argument btw. Yes there are times I could have expressed myself better but changed, I don't agree

Edit and they couldn't make heroin erc "safe", safer maybe, but not safe

So Cannabis is only a gateway drug because it's illegal? Yeah, that's my point. And it's not an argument for it to continue to be illegal.

That's just semantics though, at the moment heroin causes a huge amount of unnecessary distress for millions of people. It can be administered with greatly reduced harm to society. It can never be fully safe, but neither can water. It's not a valid argument.

And if you haven't changed your mind you are dogmatic, impervious to change regardless of evidence, and people like you are why we are saddled with such an ineffective policy. Even the alternative you propose props up drug dealers and forces heroin addicts to consume unsafe products. It's a halfway house, and not a very effective one.

There are two points:

Firstly I'm a teacher so I'm wary of posting too much about controversial topics on the internet. Secondly, I know someone who died of a heroin overdose. It wasn't the fact that it was illegal that killed him, it was simply that he took too much of it. I'm not at all affected by it and we weren't particularly close (although a lot of people I also know were) but it did make me rethink my opinions on "harder" drugs. He wasn't some silly wee laddie led astray or anything he knew exactly what he was getting into.

I would preder if more people weren't able to be in a position where they try it enough times they become addicted. I totally agree that people will do it, and if that's their choice fair dos to them and that if they are goong to make this choice it should be an educated one.

Most of all though, I actually agree with almost everything he says (I just think it would be better if certain of the more harmful drugs remained illegal). It was impossible to get this piint across though as he was so desperate to be proven right and to win that he resorted to making things up about my opinions (I support the war on drugs, I want addicts to be locked up etc) which is pretty poor form imo.

Heroin addicts die all the time, which makes your championing of them continuing to consume unsafe products even more unusual. In Canada where the drugs are consumed in controlled circumstances, currently utilising their own heroin, there has been no deaths. The best solution is the government selling the heroin (creating optimal purity and dose, bringing in taxation revenue and crushing organised crime) and then monitoring use. It would stop deaths like this, so why are you against it?

You didn't articulate your viewpoint, at all, and had to be pressed to provide an alternative. Being against legalisation, and proposing no alternative, means support of the status quo. Which is locking up addicts, other people in this thread still think this is the correct policy. I have went into significant depth as to the various pitfalls of your proposal, please refer to them.

The best way for users to make an educated choice is to go to a government facility, get a psychiatric evaluation, be informed of the risks of use and addiction, have a waiting period and then choosing to consume a safe dose of heroin. It would cut out impulse buying and, I contend, will reduce use over the long term. But even in the short term, heroin addicts have a choice of living as normal members of society - one very few have now.

You have failed to provide a reason to keep more harmful drugs illegal - the case for their legalisation is strongest because they are at the most harmful whilst they illegal.

To those advocating blanket legalisation / decriminalisation of all drugs, what about the drug Krokodil - popular in Russia?

I'd post images of the aftermath, but not one of them is remotely SFW. It makes crystal meth look like Parma Violets.

I know nothing about it, does making it illegal help users?

Lets face it, Supras is an absolute arsehole in every section of this forum. Doesn't mean he hasn't been 100% right on pretty much every level of this discussion of course.

100% right on pretty much every discussion, to be honest.

But again, I'm always amused when I'm criticised for being patronising, nobody seems to mind when it's directed at me. Nobody, I must stress, including me.

Thats the point I was making! Much more concise!

Again, if you don't like it, please stop reading and commenting on it.

[Shtuggie]

It should be, I'm an excellent debater And yes, everyone should agree with this viewpoint. There is no reason to not agree with it. And far from shirking the opposite side, I have read countless books on this debate, from both sides. I fully understand the argument for drug prohibition, and its inherent flaws. I have educated myself on this topic, and can anticipate every opposite side proposed so far - apart from the one about legalization granting more access to children, I really didn't see that coming.

The difference between this and any god debate, is that I'm right - factually - and they're not.

I don't mind people disagreeing with me, and they do so on many issues. It's why I've joined this forum, to listen to opposing viewpoints. I think it's invaluable to educate yourself on opposing viewpoints. I don't mind, or shirk from, being right when I am. I have been getting mud slinging from Dee Man throughout, why are you criticising me but not him? It's a staple of P&B.

Nevertheless, if you find me a tedious bore here's an idea for you - stop reading. It's remarkably easy. You're amateur psycho analysis and insults won't be missed.

OK - lets take this example. I believe that all facts and scientific evidence indicate christianity and other such religions are false, but people are still allowed to believe what they want. Everyone doesn't have to agree on that.

You can take a camel to water and all that...

Although I agree with you on legalisation, if I were to play devils advocate and point out that although evidence from Portugal was to point towards a dip in usage, how do you know exactly what the result will be in another demographic? Is it just a straight colleration between the UK and all nations that have tried and suceeded? Is it playing the numbers game in terms of, well it worked for them? I would be interested to know if you have any evidence (and will be interested to read) from your research that suggests it will be just as succesfull in the UK.

They aren't perfectly entitled to be against legalisation. Just because someone dies in a car accident, doesn't mean the family can legitimately want to make cars illegal. They are supporting a viewpoint that harms millions of people, it is wrong regardless of their personal experiences.

...and the countless other times it has come up.

Being right is hard. Maybe some day you'll understand.

I also come on here to gauge viewpoints on all manner of topics. As I said, I agree with you on this.

Why am I not 'telling' on Dee Man? I am sorry, but I thought you had 'humiliated' and had 'spectacularly' beaten him - why would you care?

Amatuer Psycho analysis? Its not even that good...

However, anyone could read and see that you are here for much more than interesting debate and to read other peoples view points; you are here to justify yourself to the world and seek to gratification from everyone. Being right is hard... Jesus Christ. Bear with me while I get my violin out...

Edited May 16, 2013 by Shtuggie

[Supras]

OK - lets take this example. I believe that all facts and scientific evidence indicate christianity and other such religions are false, but people are still allowed to believe what they want. Everyone doesn't have to agree on that.

Although I agree with you on legalisation, if I were to play devils advocate and point out that although evidence from Portugal was to point towards a dip in usage, how do you know exactly what the result will be in another demographic? Is it just a straight colleration between the UK and all nations that have tried and suceeded? Is it playing the numbers game in terms of, well it worked for them? I would be interested to know if you have any evidence (and will be interested to read) from your research that suggests it will be just as succesfull in the UK.

So, just to clarify, you find my posts tedious and boring but still read and comment on them? Um, why? I don't have to justify myself, read it or don't, just be assured I won't care either way.

People can absolutely believe what they want, but their beliefs can be wrong, and other people absolutely can point that out. I don't tend to bother because I find the discussion a bit boring, but given the harm the war on drugs does to users, I feel compelled to make a positive difference to policy. And I do, as well as debating it on here.

How do I know exactly that the same results will be replicated in here as in Portugal? I don't, obviously. It wouldn't matter to me if they didn't. Use could skyrocket and I'd still support legalisation. However, the evidence suggests it will actually fall. And this evidence contradicts the popular viewpoint that legalisation leads to increased usage. That's why I cited it.

Why am I not 'telling' on Dee Man? I am sorry, but I thought you had 'humiliated' and had 'spectacularly' beaten him - why would you care?

Amatuer Psycho analysis? Its not even that good...

However, anyone could read and see that you are here for much more than interesting debate and to read other peoples view points; you are here to justify yourself to the world and seek to gratification from everyone. Being right is hard... Jesus Christ. Bear with me while I get my violin out...

I don't care, at all. I similarly don't care that both you and Dom Dom have called me an arsehole. Why would I care? All I'm pointing out is your hypocrisy, apparently I can't be "patronising" when responding to stupid points, but it's totally okay to post personal insults if they are directed at me. Why, exactly, is that?

I don't care that I am being criticised, and I wouldn't care that if I came on here and said something stupid, and demonstrably false, that I'd patronised. It's par for the course.

Your last paragraph doesn't make any sense. Come back if/when you have something relevant to say. Or, and here's a novel idea, if you hate reading my posts then stop doing it. Simple really.

[NotThePars]

Do people think attitudes will change, and if so, when? We do appear to be in a weird no-man's lands where even members of the police regard the War on Drugs as a failure, they're pretty easy to get a hold of yet there isn't any popular support for weed or anything stronger to be legalised or decriminalised.

[Supras]

Do people think attitudes will change, and if so, when? We do appear to be in a weird no-man's lands where even members of the police regard the War on Drugs as a failure, they're pretty easy to get a hold of yet there isn't any popular support for weed or anything stronger to be legalised or decriminalised.

It's simple, any rational and educated member of society thinks the war on drugs is a failure.

Most are apathetic.

Those who support the war on drugs are either lunatics, or liars.

Edited May 16, 2013 by Supras

[Shtuggie]

So, just to clarify, you find my posts tedious and boring but still read and comment on them? Um, why? I don't have to justify myself, read it or don't, just be assured I won't care either way.

People can absolutely believe what they want, but their beliefs can be wrong, and other people absolutely can point that out. I don't tend to bother because I find the discussion a bit boring, but given the harm the war on drugs does to users, I feel compelled to make a positive difference to policy. And I do, as well as debating it on here.

How do I know exactly that the same results will be replicated in here as in Portugal? I don't, obviously. It wouldn't matter to me if they didn't. Use could skyrocket and I'd still support legalisation. However, the evidence suggests it will actually fall. And this evidence contradicts the popular viewpoint that legalisation leads to increased usage. That's why I cited it.

Just as you feel the need to comment and read other posts, I am allowed to as well.

What I have highlights in bold is contradictory to what you have said. You have claimed that people who don't agree with legalisation should look at the figures and agree. You clearly state above that if there were to be figures to suggest that usage would go up with legalisation, then you would still support legalisation? Your hypocrasy if there for everyone to see...so you like figures and facts until they diasagree with your viewpoint?

It was a valid citation, but you have just collapsed on yourself...

I don't care, at all. I similarly don't care that both you and Dom Dom have called me an arsehole. Why would I care? All I'm pointing out is your hypocrisy, apparently I can't be "patronising" when responding to stupid points, but it's totally okay to post personal insults if they are directed at me. Why, exactly, is that?

I don't care that I am being criticised, and I wouldn't care that if I came on here and said something stupid, and demonstrably false, that I'd patronised. It's par for the course.

Your last paragraph doesn't make any sense. Come back if/when you have something relevant to say. Or, and here's a novel idea, if you hate reading my posts then stop doing it. Simple really.

I apologise for calling you a pr*ck, and I did agree when Dom Dom called you an Arsehole, so I apologise for that.

[Supras]

Just as you feel the need to comment and read other posts, I am allowed to as well.

What I have highlights in bold is contradictory to what you have said. You have claimed that people who don't agree with legalisation should look at the figures and agree. You clearly state above that if there were to be figures to suggest that usage would go up with legalisation, then you would still support legalisation? Your hypocrasy if there for everyone to see...so you like figures and facts until they diasagree with your viewpoint?

It was a valid citation, but you have just collapsed on yourself...

You are allowed to, obviously, it just seems counter intuitive if you hate reading them.

No, it doesn't contradict any of my views. I've maintained throughout a policy shouldn't aim to minimise usage but rather should seek to minimise harm. Increased usage would not be an issue to me if overall harm was reduced. Simple, really. But, of course, the evidence says that both usage and harm falls. So it's a slam dunk for either.

The facts and the figures never disagree with my viewpoint, they are strongly in favour of my viewpoint, and there is no hpyocrasy (sic) and I've outlined exactly why above.

Wait, do you really think you've exposed something here? Wut? I've posted numerous times that policy should reduce harm, not usage...

I apologise for calling you a pr*ck, and I did agree when Dom Dom called you an Arsehole, so I apologise for that.

I'd like an apology for this post too. If not now, then at least soon.

Edited May 16, 2013 by Supras

[hazzi]

Funnily enough I was. I did have to go to hospital since like I said my kidneys were near enough fucking up.

God knows why anyone would want to spike someone with an eccie.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Pie & Bovril mobile app

What tests were you given? What did the doctor say? Why were your kidneys fucked up?

Yeah I know, why would they waste a tenner spiking you of all people? Is someone out to get you?

[Shtuggie]

You are allowed to, obviously, it just seems counter intuitive if you hate reading them.

No, it doesn't contradict any of my views. I've maintained throughout a policy shouldn't aim to minimise usage but rather should seek to minimise harm. Increased usage would not be an issue to me if overall harm was reduced. Simple, really. But, of course, the evidence says that both usage and harm falls. So it's a slam dunk for either.

The facts and the figures never disagree with my viewpoint, they are strongly in favour of my viewpoint, and there is no hpyocrasy (sic) and I've outlined exactly why above.

Wait, do you really think you've exposed something here? Wut? I've posted numerous times that policy should reduce harm, not usage...

I'd like an apology for this post too. If not now, then at least soon.

I am aware of what you have maintained throughout - as you have said you mentioned it a few times.

My point, however muddled, was that although usage has gone down in Portugal for example:

a) would that directly relate to the demographic here?

b) would we regulate the purity/volume/price of the drugs to exactly the same criteria as they did?

I am also asking:

Did the ratio of harm:to:usage go down in these countries?

My point being that I am also quite happy to have more people using the drug if fatalities go down. However, if usage goes up dramaticallty, the ratio of harm:to:usage would have to reduce dramatically for the actual number of people being negatively affected by drugs to go down.

Any increase in use is a huge risk unless there is an overwhelming reduction in the number of people being harmed versus the number of people who are using.

Can you provide evidence for this?

I will not apologise for a valid point - however muddled.

Edited May 16, 2013 by Shtuggie

[Supras]

I am aware of what you have maintained throughout - as you have said you mentioned it a few times.

My point, however muddled, was that although usage has gone down in Portugal for example:

a) would that directly relate to the demographic here?

b) would we regulate the purity/volume/price of the drugs to exactly the same criteria as they did?

I am also asking:

Did the ratio of harm:to:usage go down in these countries?

A) No, not necessarily. But it's relevant evidence we have available, and that's why it's being cited. There have been trials in the UK with the same results, would you prefer if we used them? They are on a smaller scale, but reduced the heroin dependency of users.

B) Maybe, maybe not. Why would it matter? It would regulated to a dosage and purity that was safest.

Harm has been dramatically reduced in Portugal and Canada, yes.

My point being that I am also quite happy to have more people using the drug if fatalities go down. However, if usage goes up dramaticallty, the ratio of harm:to:usage would have to reduce dramatically for the actual number of people being negatively affected by drugs to go down.

Any increase in use is a huge risk unless there is an overwhelming reduction in the number of people being harmed versus the number of people who are using.

Can you provide evidence for this?

I will not apologise for a valid point - however muddled.

...except the evidence shows both harm and usage decrease. So this is just a complete hypothetical with no basis in reality? But, anyway, yes, harm can be greatly reduced for heroin users in legalisation. So it would still be worth it, as I theorised earlier. Heroin could be an expensive hobby, but under legalisation it would absolutely permit the user to lead a normal, productive life. A choice that isn't available to most people now.

Evidence for what? Can you provide evidence that drug usage would dramatically increase in the case of heroin usage? I've stated my position quite clearly, even if a lot more people used heroin were it to be legalised, the benefits for all users compared to the current system would still make it a worthwhile policy. However, the evidence shows that both harm AND usage decrease, so the discussion I'm having is purely a personal view. Either way, the evidence strongly supports legalisation. So what are you arguing again?

And your viewpoint wasn't valid, you claimed to expose hypocrisy, even when you quite clearly didn't.

Some classic comments on this thread. We need the government to save us from ourselves

On the drink spiking thing, in my experience the people who claim this had a bit too much to drink. Simple. For some reason, they would rather claim they were spiked than admit they blacked out/made an arse of themselves.

Not saying it didn't happen to the Dundee fan of course, but I always come back to the same question in this situation. Why would anyone waste their time and money spiking a random guy they presumably don't know?

Yeah, it's a strange one. Was Sweeper Dee a missed target or something? Who'd want to spike a male anyway?

[Shtuggie]

A) No, not necessarily. But it's relevant evidence we have available, and that's why it's being cited. There have been trials in the UK with the same results, would you prefer if we used them? They are on a smaller scale, but reduced the heroin dependency of users.

B) Maybe, maybe not. Why would it matter? It would regulated to a dosage and purity that was safest.

Harm has been dramatically reduced in Portugal and Canada, yes.

...except the evidence shows both harm and usage decrease. So this is just a complete hypothetical with no basis in reality? But, anyway, yes, harm can be greatly reduced for heroin users in legalisation. So it would still be worth it, as I theorised earlier. Heroin could be an expensive hobby, but under legalisation it would absolutely permit the user to lead a normal, productive life. A choice that isn't available to most people now.

Evidence for what? Can you provide evidence that drug usage would dramatically increase in the case of heroin usage? I've stated my position quite clearly, even if a lot more people used heroin were it to be legalised, the benefits for all users compared to the current system would still make it a worthwhile policy. However, the evidence shows that both harm AND usage decrease, so the discussion I'm having is purely a personal view. Either way, the evidence strongly supports legalisation. So what are you arguing again?

And your viewpoint wasn't valid, you claimed to expose hypocrisy, even when you quite clearly didn't.

Yeah, it's a strange one. Was Sweeper Dee a missed target or something? Who'd want to spike a male anyway?

OK - you have almost answered my question, but not quite. Numbers can be bent for both sides of many arguments so lets take a hypothetical example.

using simple numbers for ease:

say 1 in 10 heroin users are harmed under current laws.

Like you, I am all increasing the number of users as long as fatalities decrease. However, if the number of users increase by a factor of 3 (you stated even if number of users were to increase dramatically you would support legislation), then we would also need the number of heroin users harmed ratio to decrease by a factor of three.

Does regulating a substance such as heroin reduce the harm factor from 1 in 10, to 1 in 30. I.E. does the reduction in harm match up if there was to be a significant number of users?

When you say there is well documented evidence to support a fall in harm, is it the actual number of people harmed or just a decrease in the ratio of people being harmed? If it was the latter, then any marked increase in use would invariably result in more people being harmed.

That is where I have exposed hypocrasy. If indeed it is the ratio that has reduced, not the actualy numebr of fatalities/people harmed.

Which is it? Or do you not know?

Edited May 16, 2013 by Shtuggie

[Reynard]

Some classic comments on this thread. We need the government to save us from ourselves

On the drink spiking thing, in my experience the people who claim this had a bit too much to drink. Simple. For some reason, they would rather claim they were spiked than admit they blacked out/made an arse of themselves.

Not saying it didn't happen to the Dundee fan of course, but I always come back to the same question in this situation. Why would anyone waste their time and money spiking a random guy they presumably don't know?

It's fucking pathetic isn't it?

[Bert Raccoon]

Not saying it didn't happen to the Dundee fan of course, but I always come back to the same question in this situation. Why would anyone waste their time and money spiking a random guy they presumably don't know?

True. Everyone know's if you're going to spike a random person you do it with acid, not ecstasy.

[DomDom]

To answer that question actually, you'd simply say "some people are just c***s". Which they are. And that would be reason enough to spike someone's drink. You can't underestimate just how dickish some people are.

I've been spiked before. Was a really long time ago now. I think it was the second last time I ever went out in Greenock.

[madwullie]

I used to think spiking was a mytg or an excuse but I've definitely seen at least one person spiked. I've also seen one of my mates smoke something thar was passed to them only to be told afterwards that it had a crumbled pill in it.

[Reynard]

It's frightening that people think that way.

It's to be expected. They have been conditioned to think the state will be there for them from the cradle to the grave. Why take responsibility for yourself, or think for yourself when you dont really need to? Some fucking trumpet vessel of the state will be along to wipe your arse for you when you need it.