Discussion
Lost soul said:
tenohfive said:
I've not seen alcohol alone (in any quantity) display the same sort of erratic and unpredictable behaviour that coke does.
You appear not to know what you are talking about , coke does not make you see things or freak you out in any way all it does do is give you a buzz and makes your brian work at 200 mph , no scarey monsters chasing you The fact that your experiences of cocaine have been positive does not mean that all such experiences are, nor that all persons under the influence of cocaine are happy smiling excited people. Enough people react badly to it to make me wary when I see the signs in their behaviour of cocaine use - and dealing with such people is (in my experience) more difficult than dealing with someone who is just drunk.
tenohfive said:
Lost soul said:
tenohfive said:
I've not seen alcohol alone (in any quantity) display the same sort of erratic and unpredictable behaviour that coke does.
You appear not to know what you are talking about , coke does not make you see things or freak you out in any way all it does do is give you a buzz and makes your brian work at 200 mph , no scarey monsters chasing you 
1. It is not the substance, it is the abuse of the substance that is the problem
2. Quality of the substance makes a huge difference in the effects of the substance on the human body
3. Different substances cause different behavioural patterns in different individuals
4. Legalisation of certain substances will create a choice in strength of the substance for measured consumption.
Substance abuse and weak personality is what causes the substances to take over the human mind. It is the same with smoking, drinking, snorting, gambling or prostitution.
Unfortunately, in our society...we would rather outlaw everything than allow the individual to take responsibility. This is what makes us weak and the drug gangs strong. the drug war can be won in an instant if we the population take control!!!
Legalisation if at all, should apply to very few substances that are most commonly used by a very very large proportion of the population. Its variations and method of use should be clearly communicated and quality strictly controlled.
2. Quality of the substance makes a huge difference in the effects of the substance on the human body
3. Different substances cause different behavioural patterns in different individuals
4. Legalisation of certain substances will create a choice in strength of the substance for measured consumption.
Substance abuse and weak personality is what causes the substances to take over the human mind. It is the same with smoking, drinking, snorting, gambling or prostitution.
Unfortunately, in our society...we would rather outlaw everything than allow the individual to take responsibility. This is what makes us weak and the drug gangs strong. the drug war can be won in an instant if we the population take control!!!
Legalisation if at all, should apply to very few substances that are most commonly used by a very very large proportion of the population. Its variations and method of use should be clearly communicated and quality strictly controlled.
There are some interesting developments taking place in Californing - proposition 19, due to be voted on in November, regarding legalising weed.
Also, Portugal has a very interesting angle on this, and I hope that other countries follow suit. About 9 years ago they "officially abolish[ed] (my change) all criminal penalties for personal possession of drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine.
At the recommendation of a national commission charged with addressing Portugal's drug problem, jail time was replaced with the offer of therapy. The argument was that the fear of prison drives addicts underground and that incarceration is more expensive than treatment — so why not give drug addicts health services instead? Under Portugal's new regime, people found guilty of possessing small amounts of drugs are sent to a panel consisting of a psychologist, social worker and legal adviser for appropriate treatment (which may be refused without criminal punishment), instead of jail."
[http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html]
In April 2009, author Glenn Greewald examined the policy and it's results in the country for the Cato Institute. Greenwald had this to say, ""Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success. It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does."
You have to have admiration for the government for taking the bull by the horns and sticking through the resulting hue and cry (idiom-tastic!
). In fact, "There is now a widespread consensus in Portugal that decriminalization has been a success. The debate in Portugal has shifted rather dramatically to minor adjustments in the existing arrangement. There is no real debate about whether drugs should once again be criminalized."
[http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=5887]
So. There you have it. A clear way forward for government with the cojones to face down the Daily Mail (despite some of the hacks blatantly having generous habits themselves) to drive down costs and help folk who need it.
Add to this the spectre of Andrew Nutt (which no doubt the gov't thought they'd thoroughly quashed) who has proved that you can't keep a good man down. Freed from the shackles of governmental rhetoric, he had some interesting things to say to Angus Macqueen in the recent Channel 4 show 'Our Drugs War'.
[http://www.channel4.com/programmes/our-drugs-war/episode-guide]
Who knows - with the austerity measures really pinching, the irrelevant obsession with classifying and banning of drugs, more vocal highly experienced scientists, it may only take a bit of effort for the treasury to back the plan. Here's hoping.
Also, Portugal has a very interesting angle on this, and I hope that other countries follow suit. About 9 years ago they "officially abolish[ed] (my change) all criminal penalties for personal possession of drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine.
At the recommendation of a national commission charged with addressing Portugal's drug problem, jail time was replaced with the offer of therapy. The argument was that the fear of prison drives addicts underground and that incarceration is more expensive than treatment — so why not give drug addicts health services instead? Under Portugal's new regime, people found guilty of possessing small amounts of drugs are sent to a panel consisting of a psychologist, social worker and legal adviser for appropriate treatment (which may be refused without criminal punishment), instead of jail."
[http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html]
In April 2009, author Glenn Greewald examined the policy and it's results in the country for the Cato Institute. Greenwald had this to say, ""Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success. It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does."
You have to have admiration for the government for taking the bull by the horns and sticking through the resulting hue and cry (idiom-tastic!
). In fact, "There is now a widespread consensus in Portugal that decriminalization has been a success. The debate in Portugal has shifted rather dramatically to minor adjustments in the existing arrangement. There is no real debate about whether drugs should once again be criminalized."[http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=5887]
So. There you have it. A clear way forward for government with the cojones to face down the Daily Mail (despite some of the hacks blatantly having generous habits themselves) to drive down costs and help folk who need it.
Add to this the spectre of Andrew Nutt (which no doubt the gov't thought they'd thoroughly quashed) who has proved that you can't keep a good man down. Freed from the shackles of governmental rhetoric, he had some interesting things to say to Angus Macqueen in the recent Channel 4 show 'Our Drugs War'.
[http://www.channel4.com/programmes/our-drugs-war/episode-guide]
Who knows - with the austerity measures really pinching, the irrelevant obsession with classifying and banning of drugs, more vocal highly experienced scientists, it may only take a bit of effort for the treasury to back the plan. Here's hoping.
Edited by Tonsko on Wednesday 11th August 12:24
tenohfive said:
noodleman said:
BDZ said:
a wrap of coke will only set you back a tenner and will make you feel like you can fight the world, which you will often try to do.
Are you confusing Cocaine with PCP?
monthefish said:
tenohfive said:
noodleman said:
BDZ said:
a wrap of coke will only set you back a tenner and will make you feel like you can fight the world, which you will often try to do.
Are you confusing Cocaine with PCP?monthefish said:
tenohfive said:
noodleman said:
BDZ said:
a wrap of coke will only set you back a tenner and will make you feel like you can fight the world, which you will often try to do.
Are you confusing Cocaine with PCP?andy_s said:
monthefish said:
tenohfive said:
noodleman said:
BDZ said:
a wrap of coke will only set you back a tenner and will make you feel like you can fight the world, which you will often try to do.
Are you confusing Cocaine with PCP?- changed the 'bold' text (as I meant to do in my original post) to highlight the relevance of the clip*
Tonsko said:
Seen the look on his face?
The look on his face (wide eyed but not quite 'there') is the same look before and after the incident, and that, coupled with the behaviour, suggests he is clearly under the influence of more than just alchohol.monthefish said:
andy_s said:
monthefish said:
tenohfive said:
noodleman said:
BDZ said:
a wrap of coke will only set you back a tenner and will make you feel like you can fight the world, which you will often try to do.
Are you confusing Cocaine with PCP?- changed the 'bold' text (as I meant to do in my original post) to highlight the relevance of the clip*
Tonsko said:
Seen the look on his face?
The look on his face (wide eyed but not quite 'there') is the same look before and after the incident, and that, coupled with the behaviour, suggests he is clearly under the influence of more than just alchohol.That and being plied with free expensive strong drinks from the TV station making that dross.
Newsflash: Coke makes some people d
heads, mainly the ones that are already dheads. Edited by Rusty Arches on Wednesday 11th August 15:07
monthefish said:
The look on his face (wide eyed but not quite 'there') is the same look before and after the incident, and that, coupled with the behaviour, suggests he is clearly under the influence of more than just alchohol.
You can tell all of that from a 3 second clip? All you can really see is that caught her with a pretty good punch. thetrash said:
monthefish said:
The look on his face (wide eyed but not quite 'there') is the same look before and after the incident, and that, coupled with the behaviour, suggests he is clearly under the influence of more than just alchohol.
You can tell all of that from a 3 second clip? All you can really see is that caught her with a pretty good punch. From the 1 hour programme that the clip was taken from, yes.
monthefish said:
thetrash said:
monthefish said:
The look on his face (wide eyed but not quite 'there') is the same look before and after the incident, and that, coupled with the behaviour, suggests he is clearly under the influence of more than just alchohol.
You can tell all of that from a 3 second clip? All you can really see is that caught her with a pretty good punch. From the 1 hour programme that the clip was taken from, yes.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff