D
Deleted member 65149
Guest
Let me start my bit by saying that I've never tried any of the substances under the general classification of drugs. Quite frankly I've never seen the point. The same goes for smoking. I do drink alcohol, but because I like the taste when I’m thirsty or to accompany a meal, not to get drunk. However, I do appreciate that very many people are drawn into these activities for a multitude of reasons, mainly because “everyone else does it”. That’s their choice. I’ll admit that I know very little about drugs, but that doesn’t stop me having an opinion.
To talk of certain drugs being harmless sounds irresponsible to me. It’s not long ago that we all thought of smoking as harmless and cool, but it’s clearly not. And denying that taking lower class drugs can lead to heavier drug-taking also seems illogical to me. Anyone who feels a need to take mild drugs in order to enhance their lives can’t have the self-control to avoid trying stronger, more harmful drugs. Not everyone will take this route, but just a few is too many.
The earlier suggestions of legalising some (or all?) drugs frightens me. It’s ridiculous to claim that this would remove the criminal element and therefore significantly reduce its impact. Perhaps we should legalise car theft as well so criminals are no longer interested and it stops being a problem! And on another suggestion, why should we as taxpayers provide all the drugs for the addicts to continue on their chosen course? I get a massive buzz from performing aerobatics but can't afford it much; would you be happy to pay for my adrenaline kicks?
Yes, there are large numbers of people who need to be helped out of the situation they find themselves in. Provide them with support and medication to recover from their illness, because drug addiction is an illness. But don’t pander to their every needs, and of those who blindly follow on behind them, instead we have to eliminate the desire for what is clearly wrong. Having people like the very aptly named Professor Nutt spouting on about how “recreational drugs are relatively harmless” does absolutely nothing to help the situation. When people are told, “It’s OK, it won’t harm you” they won’t hesitate to try first one thing and then another .... and another .... until it gets out of control. But when they know that they risk a heavy fine or imprisonment they’ll think twice, just as I do when wanting to drive at high speed on a deserted road.
Spike talked earlier about administering drugs to addicts so they could carry on with their lives without having to fund their addiction through crime. He said “you'd likely not spot a junkie at all if the habit was within their means”. But then he told us of his GP who was self-administering and accidently overdosed, thereby killing himself. If he wasn’t fit to administer his own drugs then surely he wasn’t fit to administer anyone else's. He wasn’t capable of doing his job because he was an addict! How many people suffered unnecessarily because of his addiction? I’ve worked with people who have been perfectly able to fund their low class drugs, but their performances the next day have been well below par. Of course it affects them, and meanwhile the rest of us suffer. I dread to think how many people are driving on our roads whilst still in the grip of their drug use.
I've just read Bellow's remark that "illegal parking affects others, drug use does not"!!! I can only assume he's so much under the influence that his mind is totally confused. If someone parks illegally, at worst it may cause a minor inconvenience. Thousands of lives have been ruined by drug use: the addicts and their familes are immediately affected, whilst countless others have been killed because of them.
The law is the only deterrent to the whole drug problem getting out of hand. It’s not working very well, but it’s better than nothing. It’s morally irresponsible to sanction drug use in any form. Making it legal won’t deter the criminal element, just as it hasn’t with smoking and alcohol. Fake substitutes will proliferate even more than now, so that the drugs become even more harmful. I totally disagree with some of the earlier comments; we do have to say NO. We have to educate our children from an early age, not just at school but also at home by setting good examples. We owe it to them and we owe it to all our futures.
To talk of certain drugs being harmless sounds irresponsible to me. It’s not long ago that we all thought of smoking as harmless and cool, but it’s clearly not. And denying that taking lower class drugs can lead to heavier drug-taking also seems illogical to me. Anyone who feels a need to take mild drugs in order to enhance their lives can’t have the self-control to avoid trying stronger, more harmful drugs. Not everyone will take this route, but just a few is too many.
The earlier suggestions of legalising some (or all?) drugs frightens me. It’s ridiculous to claim that this would remove the criminal element and therefore significantly reduce its impact. Perhaps we should legalise car theft as well so criminals are no longer interested and it stops being a problem! And on another suggestion, why should we as taxpayers provide all the drugs for the addicts to continue on their chosen course? I get a massive buzz from performing aerobatics but can't afford it much; would you be happy to pay for my adrenaline kicks?
Yes, there are large numbers of people who need to be helped out of the situation they find themselves in. Provide them with support and medication to recover from their illness, because drug addiction is an illness. But don’t pander to their every needs, and of those who blindly follow on behind them, instead we have to eliminate the desire for what is clearly wrong. Having people like the very aptly named Professor Nutt spouting on about how “recreational drugs are relatively harmless” does absolutely nothing to help the situation. When people are told, “It’s OK, it won’t harm you” they won’t hesitate to try first one thing and then another .... and another .... until it gets out of control. But when they know that they risk a heavy fine or imprisonment they’ll think twice, just as I do when wanting to drive at high speed on a deserted road.
Spike talked earlier about administering drugs to addicts so they could carry on with their lives without having to fund their addiction through crime. He said “you'd likely not spot a junkie at all if the habit was within their means”. But then he told us of his GP who was self-administering and accidently overdosed, thereby killing himself. If he wasn’t fit to administer his own drugs then surely he wasn’t fit to administer anyone else's. He wasn’t capable of doing his job because he was an addict! How many people suffered unnecessarily because of his addiction? I’ve worked with people who have been perfectly able to fund their low class drugs, but their performances the next day have been well below par. Of course it affects them, and meanwhile the rest of us suffer. I dread to think how many people are driving on our roads whilst still in the grip of their drug use.
I've just read Bellow's remark that "illegal parking affects others, drug use does not"!!! I can only assume he's so much under the influence that his mind is totally confused. If someone parks illegally, at worst it may cause a minor inconvenience. Thousands of lives have been ruined by drug use: the addicts and their familes are immediately affected, whilst countless others have been killed because of them.
The law is the only deterrent to the whole drug problem getting out of hand. It’s not working very well, but it’s better than nothing. It’s morally irresponsible to sanction drug use in any form. Making it legal won’t deter the criminal element, just as it hasn’t with smoking and alcohol. Fake substitutes will proliferate even more than now, so that the drugs become even more harmful. I totally disagree with some of the earlier comments; we do have to say NO. We have to educate our children from an early age, not just at school but also at home by setting good examples. We owe it to them and we owe it to all our futures.