Kids today ????

[Atilla]

Don't know what your line of work is, cv,

2/6 - Local council hoppa-bus driver
1/7 - Bean counter for the inland revenue
6/66 - Towel boy at Claridges toilets

 

[counter_violent]

Says the man from Delmonte who doesn't stop preaching the virtues of a free market

Yes quite so, in a proper free market only those capable of doing a proper days work would be rewarded and those of working age who didn't contribute wouldn't be rewarded with benefits and other such nonsense that enables them to spend all day doing drugs.

Sharky must know something we don't. He needs to with your credentials. Nudge, nudge, . You know what I'm saying. :cheesy:

Nope, no idea, please explain.

 

[Atilla]

Nope, no idea, please explain.

What if I could afford the drugs and do my work trading whilst under their influence?

I've lost count on number of places I worked in where people often drink at lunch time. Lloyd's underwriting even made a feature out of conducting business over a pint, with traders carrying boxed files with papers to sign. Ahhh they were the good ol days

Wooly liberals you say??? Please explain.

 

[counter_violent]

What if I could afford the drugs and do my work trading whilst under their influence?

I've lost count on number of places I worked in where people often drink at lunch time. Lloyd's underwriting even made a feature out of conducting business over a pint, with traders carrying boxed files with papers to sign. Ahhh they were the good ol days

Wooly liberals you say??? Please explain.

That's easy, all these people and their anti-social issues cost me the tax payer and their behaviour is somehow acceptable depending which stupid govt is in power at the time.

It's not an issue of affordability.

Looks like I have to spell it out for you as usual.

Tell me which jobs fall into which category then and if it's ok for them to do drugs.

A coach driver who's job it is to ferry kids around.
A brain surgeon?
A typist in the office?
A woodwork machinist?
An insurance salesman?
A porter in the hospital?
A street sweeper?

 

[robster970]

Drug use and misuse is widely misunderstood as is demonstrated on this thread. If you use criminalisation for possession/use as your primary key to determine whether a substance is good or bad, you have clearly not thought about it a lot, nor have any direct experience of it.

Next time you have a cigarette or a pint, think about what you are doing to yourself (a) health wise, (b) socially and (c) what message you are promoting to others in doing so. Also consider why these narcotics are legalised. Then think about whether you are actually a 'recreational drug user' or whether you actually have an 'addiction problem' in consuming tobacco and alcohol the way you do.

Then compare yourself to some kid who takes a pill on a weekend whilst out. Then consider who really has the problem and who creates more problems.

If you smoke and cannot give up, you are an addict. You will likely die of something pretty awful and consume a huge amount of health resources in the process. You have also been advertising this behaviour is ok to children.

If you are some middle class person who polishes off a bottle of wine per night, chances are you are borderline addict. Similarly you will probably do irreparable damage to your body as well as your brain and die of something quite unpleasant. Once again you have been advertising to children that substance abuse (although legal) is acceptable behaviour.

If you are kid who takes a pill on a weekend to augment a night you, you are a recreational drug user because pills have no addictive qualities. You have been educated since birth that recreational drug misuse in the form of tobacco and alcohol is an acceptable behaviour from people who smoke and drink. Taking a pill is your choice. As a consequence you stayed up all night with your friends, you were probably passive. You struggled to sleep on Sunday. You eventually got over it and got on with the week. There is no evidence of a causal link to health with this level of consumption. However the narcotic is illegal and you face social stigma from those that do not understand and regurgitate government based social policy. The hypocrisy you see is enormous but these people won't understand that behaviorally you are doing the same thing as them and they taught you it was OK.

The cost of you the addict who cannot give up or moderate consumption of fags or booze has far greater monetary and social cost than the kid taking a pill or a tab of acid on a weekend.

 

[Atilla]

That's easy, all these people and their anti-social issues cost me the tax payer and their behaviour is somehow acceptable depending which stupid govt is in power at the time.

It's not an issue of affordability.

Looks like I have to spell it out for you as usual.

Tell me which jobs fall into which category then and if it's ok for them to do drugs.

A coach driver who's job it is to ferry kids around.
A brain surgeon?
A typist in the office?
A woodwork machinist?
An insurance salesman?
A porter in the hospital?
A street sweeper?

My point is an obtuse one CV.

You are for free markets, small government and no regulation in many aspects of life.

Here you are arguing for control and regulation of what / how / where / when what people do.

I'm not saying aye or nay just your sudden turn on liberalism.


However, I do believe in de-criminalising drugs and even giving it out for free on the NHS to addicts or people who can't afford them.

Without going into it much - the whole point is the drug use is then turned from recreational activity into a medical need and immediately less attractive.

There will always be some level of drug use & abuse in society but the secondary crime and extortion will ultimately reduce with it.

Anything that is free is also less valuable than something you pay for.

Mind games...

 

[SlowlyButSurely]

Drugs are everywhere and it's not just 'kids' that are on it. You can meet 45 year old successful solicitors in the City who have a bit of coke on the weekends. Doesn't mean that they are failures or drug addicts etc. Really it is understanding limits - there is a fine line between having the occasional hit and turning it into a regular routine each weekend. I think in essence it comes down to being raised properly in the first place which is were the difficulty lies - If you are too militant then your kids may rebel but if you are too soft you will lose all control soon enough and the kids will in turn not know how to limit themselves and consider consequences.

In this day and age though, anyone who gets into hard drugs deserves anything they get in my opinion. Its not like we don't know the consequences of our actions. It's so well documented you would have to be a hermit to think you could take heroin and not get hooked.

I don't have problems with drug dealers per say - in the end they supply what the market wants. Its like complaining that a casino is evil when you walk in and lose your money. However, I do think those dealers that target people and get them hooked are evil and should be done in as that is creating demand were it wasn't necessary.

NB: Don't dabble myself but living in a metropolis its like meeting someone that owns a bike. Its almost a norm

 

[Splitlink]

Drug use and misuse is widely misunderstood as is demonstrated on this thread. If you use criminalisation for possession/use as your primary key to determine whether a substance is good or bad, you have clearly not thought about it a lot, nor have any direct experience of it.

Next time you have a cigarette or a pint, think about what you are doing to yourself (a) health wise, (b) socially and (c) what message you are promoting to others in doing so. Also consider why these narcotics are legalised. Then think about whether you are actually a 'recreational drug user' or whether you actually have an 'addiction problem' in consuming tobacco and alcohol the way you do.

Then compare yourself to some kid who takes a pill on a weekend whilst out. Then consider who really has the problem and who creates more problems.

If you smoke and cannot give up, you are an addict. You will likely die of something pretty awful and consume a huge amount of health resources in the process. You have also been advertising this behaviour is ok to children.

If you are some middle class person who polishes off a bottle of wine per night, chances are you are borderline addict. Similarly you will probably do irreparable damage to your body as well as your brain and die of something quite unpleasant. Once again you have been advertising to children that substance abuse (although legal) is acceptable behaviour.

If you are kid who takes a pill on a weekend to augment a night you, you are a recreational drug user because pills have no addictive qualities. You have been educated since birth that recreational drug misuse in the form of tobacco and alcohol is an acceptable behaviour from people who smoke and drink. Taking a pill is your choice. As a consequence you stayed up all night with your friends, you were probably passive. You struggled to sleep on Sunday. You eventually got over it and got on with the week. There is no evidence of a causal link to health with this level of consumption. However the narcotic is illegal and you face social stigma from those that do not understand and regurgitate government based social policy. The hypocrisy you see is enormous but these people won't understand that behaviorally you are doing the same thing as them and they taught you it was OK.

The cost of you the addict who cannot give up or moderate consumption of fags or booze has far greater monetary and social cost than the kid taking a pill or a tab of acid on a weekend.

Ok, I can't convince you and thhis is my last word on the subject but its no good comparing this with smoking and drinking. It does not make it right. In another few decades this will not have gone away, you'll see. It will be worse than ever. It is decadent.

 

[SlowlyButSurely]

its no good comparing this with smoking and drinking.

The only 'drug' I consume is alcohol but I would disagree with you here. I think that alcohol is an extremely dangerous drug, much more than weed or ecstasy. Just head out to a UK city centre on a fri/sat night and you will see what I mean.

If consumed in excess it can lead to violence,vandalism and all sorts of detrimental acts. Alcoholism is also a real threat and could be seen as being just as bad as any other hard drug that you can get hooked to. But because its legal we don't frown upon it as much. Anyway just my 2cents

 

[robster970]

Ok, I can't convince you and thhis is my last word on the subject but its no good comparing this with smoking and drinking. It does not make it right. In another few decades this will not have gone away, you'll see. It will be worse than ever. It is decadent.

I think we will just have to agree to disagree here Split. The fact that you cannot see past the point that both nicotine and alcohol are legallised and heavily taxed narcotics with serious health risks associated with their consumption and ingestion indicates we will always be on different planes on this one.

 

[Splitlink]

The only 'drug' I consume is alcohol but I would disagree with you here. I think that alcohol is an extremely dangerous drug, much more than weed or ecstasy. Just head out to a UK city centre on a fri/sat night and you will see what I mean.

If consumed in excess it can lead to violence,vandalism and all sorts of detrimental acts. Alcoholism is also a real threat and could be seen as being just as bad as any other hard drug that you can get hooked to. But because its legal we don't frown upon it as much. Anyway just my 2cents

Yes, I have to agree with you but the difference, a big one, is that drug addicts will kill and rob anyone to get the money for a fix. Drinking---maybe but it is less likely, although it does often lead to drunken fights. I have not come across anyone who would kill for a drink or a smoke.

 

[Atilla]

Yes, I have to agree with you but the difference, a big one, is that drug addicts will kill and rob anyone to get the money for a fix. Drinking---maybe but it is less likely, although it does often lead to drunken fights. I have not come across anyone who would kill for a drink or a smoke.

I think far more suffering is inflicted by alcohol then drugs. In aggregate that is.

A&E departments throughout the year are full of of them. Not to mention daily weekly violence, accidents, wife beatings, rape and of course falling down the stairs and crippling ones self. List is endless with suffering and pain inflicted through socially acceptable drugs.

You are more likely to be killed by a drunk driver then by a druggie after some money to feed a habit.

Put the numbers in perspective me amigo.

 

[Shakone]

Drug use and misuse is widely misunderstood as is demonstrated on this thread. If you use criminalisation for possession/use as your primary key to determine whether a substance is good or bad, you have clearly not thought about it a lot, nor have any direct experience of it.

Next time you have a cigarette or a pint, think about what you are doing to yourself (a) health wise, (b) socially and (c) what message you are promoting to others in doing so. Also consider why these narcotics are legalised. Then think about whether you are actually a 'recreational drug user' or whether you actually have an 'addiction problem' in consuming tobacco and alcohol the way you do.

Then compare yourself to some kid who takes a pill on a weekend whilst out. Then consider who really has the problem and who creates more problems.

If you smoke and cannot give up, you are an addict. You will likely die of something pretty awful and consume a huge amount of health resources in the process. You have also been advertising this behaviour is ok to children.

If you are some middle class person who polishes off a bottle of wine per night, chances are you are borderline addict. Similarly you will probably do irreparable damage to your body as well as your brain and die of something quite unpleasant. Once again you have been advertising to children that substance abuse (although legal) is acceptable behaviour.

If you are kid who takes a pill on a weekend to augment a night you, you are a recreational drug user because pills have no addictive qualities. You have been educated since birth that recreational drug misuse in the form of tobacco and alcohol is an acceptable behaviour from people who smoke and drink. Taking a pill is your choice. As a consequence you stayed up all night with your friends, you were probably passive. You struggled to sleep on Sunday. You eventually got over it and got on with the week. There is no evidence of a causal link to health with this level of consumption. However the narcotic is illegal and you face social stigma from those that do not understand and regurgitate government based social policy. The hypocrisy you see is enormous but these people won't understand that behaviorally you are doing the same thing as them and they taught you it was OK.

The cost of you the addict who cannot give up or moderate consumption of fags or booze has far greater monetary and social cost than the kid taking a pill or a tab of acid on a weekend.

I agree with most of that. I do think it is missing some things though. For example, if you intend to judge these things on damage to health and what message it presents to others (and perhaps the cost in health resources to others), then obesity seems like a bigger a problem than most drugs. So why is it ok to be fat? Shouldn't that be illegal? There are all kinds of ways that people live unhealthy lives that will likely have an eventual cost to others as well as themselves. So where do you draw the line? If you don't draw any line, then you have the problem of what image you are presenting to others.

Another thing to consider, is what would the situation be if you did ban alcohol and nicotine. Would people turn to worse drugs in that scenario?

 

[Splitlink]

Yes, perhaps I have been beating my own drum a bit on drugs nnd the other vices are just as bad. The whole subject, including Shakone's opinion on obesity, is part of a greater sickness due to the permissive society that we have been creating. The fact that everyone has rights to the detriment of others.

 

[robster970]

It's about choice isn't it.

Some people want to consume food and make themselves overweight in the process
The majority of people want to consume government endorsed and taxed narcotics
Some people want to consume non-government endorsed narcotics

Is government the best arbiter of line drawing?

A thought experiment, along the lines of Shakone's ban. Instead roll back in time as if none of this had happened.

Do you think people were overweight when they had to find and kill their own food?
Would people discover the tobacco plant and start chewing it?
Would people discover the coca plant and start chewing that too?
Would people discover the peyota cactus and enjoy it's hallucinogenic qualities?
Would people discover that fermented brews had an interesting effect?

My problem is not your position Split on the qualities of various narcotics - it's that Government policy on narcotics and for that matter lifestyle choices is woefully, woefully fncked in the Western hemisphere.

 

[Splitlink]

It's about choice isn't it.

Some people want to consume food and make themselves overweight in the process
The majority of people want to consume government endorsed and taxed narcotics
Some people want to consume non-government endorsed narcotics

Is government the best arbiter of line drawing?

A thought experiment, along the lines of Shakone's ban. Instead roll back in time as if none of this had happened.

Do you think people were overweight when they had to find and kill their own food?
Would people discover the tobacco plant and start chewing it?
Would people discover the coca plant and start chewing that too?
Would people discover the peyota cactus and enjoy it's hallucinogenic qualities?
Would people discover that fermented brews had an interesting effect?

My problem is not your position Split on the qualities of various narcotics - it's that Government policy on narcotics and for that matter lifestyle choices is woefully, woefully fncked in the Western hemisphere.

If you like novels, try "The Power of the Dog" by Don Winslow. He paints a grim picture of how the US sold arms for drugs, to the detriment of the American public.

American foreign policy towards its South and Central American neighbours has made this problem worldwide.

 

[Pat494]

I agree with most of that. I do think it is missing some things though. For example, if you intend to judge these things on damage to health and what message it presents to others (and perhaps the cost in health resources to others), then obesity seems like a bigger a problem than most drugs. So why is it ok to be fat? Shouldn't that be illegal? There are all kinds of ways that people live unhealthy lives that will likely have an eventual cost to others as well as themselves. So where do you draw the line? If you don't draw any line, then you have the problem of what image you are presenting to others.

Another thing to consider, is what would the situation be if you did ban alcohol and nicotine. Would people turn to worse drugs in that scenario?

The politicos and do-gooders just can't learn the lessons of Prohibition can they. The lovely ladies ( mainly ) of The Temperence Union made Prohibition and thus enriched people like the Mafia and organised criminals. The same with drugs.
If the silly fools tried to ban alchohol, tobacco etc. the general public just wouldn't stand for it.
Let them freak out if they want to. Gets rid of a lot of crappy people too. imho