Crystal meth

ScumLord

RoverJames wrote: »

The majority of the population don't use illegal drugs,

It's not a huge majority that doesn't use drugs and most are scared to rather than not liking drugs. If they haven't tried it they can't really say they wouldn't prefer weed to drink.

a proportion of the human population steals, murders, rapes. Why is using drugs given a pass?

Because it's not the same thing at all. Drug use doesn't harm people if it's done responsibly the major problem with drugs today is the illegality of them means they're controlled by criminals. Drug use in the past focused on spiritual enlightenment and most where considered sacred.

Serious question, in civilised societies the majority toe the line, why should recreational drug users be any different to the majority?

Because the majority have no valid reason for preventing people from using drugs.

PogMoThoin

PogMoThoin wrote: »

So putting bigger fines and heftier sentences on possession of weed is going to stop people people taking them but yet tobacco and alcohol (gateway drugs) are legal. Look around you, Ireland already has a drugtaking culture. For all you know your neighbours probably tucking into a spliff now after a hard days work

I know loads of people who take drugs, I know far more who don't. One of my friends did a stint in a rehab/clinic type place for drink and drug addiction, I know plenty of folk in and out of court for dealing etc. I'd be fairly certain my immediate neighbours don't enjoy a spliff tbh.

ScumLord wrote: »

..............

Because the majority have no valid reason for preventing people from using drugs.

Well most democratic societies tend to disagree with you there tbh.
Which drugs do you think should me made legal out of interest?

ScumLord

RoverJames wrote: »

Well most democratic societies tend to disagree with you there tbh.

There was no democratic decision to ban certain drugs, there was never a vote. Most the reasons behind banning drugs and more importantly regulating the use of drugs was to stop medical companies making up claims that cocaine would cure your cold and heroin should be given to children for colic. Most people ended up addicted because their doctor prescribed an addictive drug to someone for no good reason.

ScumLord

ScumLord wrote: »

There was no democratic decision to ban certain drugs..............

No, but in democratic societies if you reckon legalising drugs is the way to go, then join a party or start your own and run for government (with like minded folk), you'll then see democracy at work

HavingCrack

RoverJames wrote: »

No, but in democratic societies if you reckon legalising drugs is the way to go, then join a party or start your own and run for government (with like minded folk), you'll then see democracy at work

This is such a stupid argument and I'll explain why. Unfortunately we live in a society based on representitive democracy rather than direct democracy as used in many US states. A significant proportion of people probably favour legalising certain substances but don't particulary want to become a TD in order to do so. Getting a political party elected on a single issue is nigh on impossible in most cases. However a referendum on a single issue has a far more successful chance of passing. Unfortunately an ordinary citizen cannot propose this as they are allowed to do in California for example.

rcaz

RoverJames wrote: »

No, but in democratic societies if you reckon legalising drugs is the way to go, then join a party or start your own and run for government (with like minded folk), you'll then see democracy at work

Oh, the 'if you don't like the government go and do a better job' argument, good one. That's now how it works. We have our own jobs, it's the TDs' jobs to represent us. I wish someone would represent those of us who have some reasonable understanding of the issues with drugs in our society.

ScumLord

RoverJames wrote: »

No, but in democratic societies if you reckon legalising drugs is the way to go, then join a party or start your own and run for government (with like minded folk), you'll then see democracy at work

A cannabis legalisation party won't really be all that effective, it's much to narrow a manifesto to be considered by anyone even supporters.

We really need to convince the current parties to admit prohibition doesn't work. Rational scientific evidence doesn't seem to have worked so stage two is to send in Ming the Merciless.

Pace2008

RoverJames wrote: »

I think if more substantial penalties for use and possession were in place the non scummer, typical recreational user may well think twice about dabbling. I know lots of folk who wouldn't care less if there were increased fines and criminal prosecutions etc as they are well accustomed to a stay in jail and once it's not Christmas or the height of the summer they wouldn't be overly bothered to an extent that it would deter them from using drugs. But I also know many folk in decent jobs etc that would sh1t themselves at the thought of a few nights in jail, substantial fine and/or criminal record for being caught with small amounts of soft drugs for personal use.

In the USA, you get thrown in jail and become toxic in the employment market if you're found in possession of cannabis. In the Netherlands, they have cafés where you can buy and smoke spliff. The rate of cannabis use in The States is twice than that of the Netherlands. Again, you seem to be running some little simulation in your head, which makes sense to you, but which has no actual grounding in real-world scenarios.

And do you not have any moral qualms with damning good, productive people to a stint in prison and a life without a decent job just because they like a smoke? It seems to me that you'd be ruining more lives that way than the drug itself ever could.

Oh dear God, I've just realised this has become yet another full-blown thread on weed. We'll have to come up with a snappy name for this phenomenon, a la Godwin's Law...

Pace2008

Pace2008 wrote: »

....

And do you not have any moral qualms with damning good, productive people to a stint in prison and a life without a decent job just because they like a smoke? It seems to me that you'd be ruining more lives that way than the drug itself ever could.
................

So no wasters enjoy a smoke? No folks drive when stoned?

Oh right.

I hope ye have more up the sleeve than sending Ming in lads

What polices do Sweden and the other countries have regarding Cannabis? Why single out the Netherlands? Mmmmmmm food for thought their lads.

mikom

RoverJames wrote: »

So no wasters enjoy a smoke? No folks drive when stoned?

Abracadabra.

RoverJames wrote: »

So no wasters enjoy a drink? No folks drive when drunk?

If you drive stoned and are caught you will be dealt with in the exact same way as if you were driving under the influence of alcohol.

Shite argument TBH.

RoverJames wrote: »

What polices do Sweden and the other countries have regarding Cannabis? Why single out the Netherlands? Mmmmmmm food for thought their lads.

You mean policies?
Try Denmark, a close neighbor......

Marijuana could soon be legalised in Copenhagen, after the city voted overwhelmingly in favour of a scheme that would see the drug sold through a network of state-run shops and cafes.

The scheme, if approved by the Danish parliament at the start of next year, could make the city the first to fully legalise, rather than simply tolerate, marijuana consumption.

The drug is already sold openly on the streets of Christiania, a self-proclaimed 'free town' in the city centre, despite the closure of the neighbourhood's Amsterdam-style coffee shops in 2004.

But marijuana has never been officially decriminalised and those caught in possession of even small amounts face fines of up to £450.

"We are thinking of perhaps 30 to 40 public sales houses, where the people aren't interested in selling you more, they're interested in you," said Mikkel Warming, the Mayor in charge of Social Affairs at Copenhagen City Council. "Who is it better for youngsters to buy marijuana from? A drug pusher, who wants them to use more, who wants them to buy hard drugs, or a civil servant?"

The City Council voted on Thursday night, by a margin of 39 votes to nine, to empower Mr Warming's Social Affairs committee to draw up a detailed outline of how the plan would work.

The proposal will then be sent to to the Danish Parliament for approval early next year.

"We want to make it a little bit more concrete what kind of decriminalisation we want: should it be a public buying system, should there be an age limit?" Mr Warming explained.

He said he was opposed to instituting cannabis cafés, where marijuana use is tolerated, despite it remaining illegal to grow and import the drug.

This, he argued, would leave the revenues, which are estimated at £200m, in the control of the city's notorious biker gangs.

"We don't want an Amsterdam model. We want a way to make it legal to import or grow marijuana." he said.

http://www.cannabisni.com/world-wide-cannabis-news/2105-copenhagen-votes-to-legalise-marijuana-

Times are changin' pops.

44leto

I think it is natural for people and mainly young people to experiment with their conciousness. We have always done it, every civilisation in everytime.

I myself smoked one joint and that was it, I never did dope again or any other illegal drug.

But I do drink and I have smoked, I am not opposed to illegal drug use, its just not for me.

mikom

mikom wrote: »

Abracadabra.



If you drive stoned and are caught you will be dealt with in the exact same way as if you were driving under the influence of alcohol.

Shite argument TBH.



You mean policies?
Try Denmark, a close neighbor......



Times are changin' pops.

I specifically asked about Sweden due to the data on the link
PLease excuse my spelling error, I'll go through your recent posts critically when I'm not on the mobile looking for spelling and grammar errors :rolleyes: unless you're a yank you spelt neighbour wrong, I suspect you may be a yank though, you have one of the common traits.

mikom

RoverJames wrote: »

I specifically asked about Sweden due to the data on the link

Possession of up to 50 g usually results in a fine, 50 to 2500 g usually leads to 2 weeks to 1 year imprisonment, more than 2.5 kg generally results in 2 years - 10 years imprisonment.

Similar, if slacker to here.
Which doesn't really tie with your "theories".

RoverJames wrote: »

PLease excuse my spelling error, I'll go through your recent posts critically when I'm not on the mobile looking for spelling and grammar errors :rolleyes:

Do that, g'lad.

While you are at it don't forget to note on this link how low below Ireland are Portugal and Belgium, two of the decriminalized countries.

mikom

mikom wrote: »

Possession of up to 50 g usually results in a fine, 50 to 2500 g usually leads to 2 weeks to 1 year imprisonment, more than 2.5 kg generally results in 2 years - 10 years imprisonment.

Similar, if slacker to here.
Which doesn't really tie with your "theories".



Do that, g'lad.

While you are at it don't forget to note on this link how low below Ireland are Portugal and Belgium, two of the decriminalized countries.

Possession here usually results in nothing, are you on about decriminalisation again? Same old same old...

mikom

RoverJames wrote: »

Same old same old...

Now you said it.



Possession here usually results in nothing, really.
Tell that to the folks trying to get visas to OZ.

mikom

mikom wrote: »

....
Possession here usually results in nothing, really.
Tell that to the folks trying to get visas to OZ.

Take that up with Australia if you reckon it's unfair.

mikom

RoverJames wrote: »

Take that up with Australia if you reckon it's unfair.

You're happy enough with it so.

Tis fairly harsh, common knowledge though, in saying that coming to the attention of the AGS does take some doing, lots of smokers don't ever encounter any legal issues despite breaking kid law on an almost daily basis for years.

mikom

RoverJames wrote: »

lots of smokers don't ever encounter any legal issues despite breaking kid law on an almost daily basis for years.

Then one night at electric picnic.....

BooShank

De Gange makes you mental!

FACT!

Pace2008

RoverJames wrote: »

So no wasters enjoy a smoke? No folks drive when stoned?

I hope for your sake this was a last-ditch attempt for Strawman of the Month because i don't think there's any beating it at this stage.

Plenty of wasters enjoy a smoke, as do plenty of wasters abstain.

People do drive when they're stoned, and I disagree with it. I don't think it's on the same level as drink driving but I do think it causes a degree of impairment, certainly in some individuals. I also take a dim view of people who drive when they're drunk, which is not to say I think they should be criminalised for having a six-pack or a bottle of wine in their home.

What polices do Sweden and the other countries have regarding Cannabis? Why single out the Netherlands? Mmmmmmm food for thought their lads.

Sweden criminalises cannabis possession, and it has a lower rate of use than the Netherlands. I think the key factor in this is Sweden's high standard of living. I don't believe for one second that everyone, or even most people, who use drugs are doing it to escape from their failures of lives - the party I was at last weekend, where everyone was consuming copious amounts of MDMA and weed, consisted of doctors, teachers, pharmacists, engineers, scientists - but there is no denying drugs often act as a damaging fallback or crutch when things go wrong. This, I believe, is why the USA has such a high rate of drug use, and this is why I think your proposed heavy-handed measures are ill-thought-out. When you end up with a criminal record for a minor offence, and are denied employment and educational funding as a result, what's the easiest way to make some decent sort of cash? Selling the **** that got you in trouble in the first place.

Some countries with strict drug laws have lower rates of drug use than those with liberal ones, and some have higher rates. The law itself does not seem to explain the pattern in any meaningful way.

RoverJames wrote: »

Possession here usually results in nothing, are you on about decriminalisation again? Same old same old...

A €600 fine is hardly "nothing" to someone who can barely cover their €400/month rant.

Oh, um, on topic...meth is bad.

whitesands

RoverJames, you come across as being very naive. Lots of posters here have pointed out your wrong yet you still continue :rolleyes:

Meth has been here a few years, it's mostly eastern europeans selling it to each other.

whitesands

whitesands wrote: »

RoverJames, you come across as being very naive. Lots of posters here have pointed out your wrong yet you still continue :rolleyes:

Meth has been here a few years, it's mostly eastern europeans selling it to each other.

Lots of posters here are blowing on about the positive effect of decriminalisation, my comment was about making supply and sale legal.

To me, folks are coming across as semi illiterate or else simply thick.

You think I'm naive, I don't think so, I have had friends who were addicted to hard drugs, acquaintances who dabble more than they should, I know one or two folk who have lost their lives due to dealing. I'm entitled to air my opinion and I'm also entitled to not reckon I'm wrong simply because a few randomers on the internet (one of whom was consuming copious amount of weed and MDMA) at the weekend reckon I am. That's life really, you think we should all agree with folks because they think someone else is wrong? Unreal.

Pace2008

Pace2008 wrote: »

...................- the party I was at last weekend, where everyone was consuming copious amounts of MDMA and weed, consisted of doctors, teachers, pharmacists, engineers, scientists ......................

Would a stint in jail for use of copious amounts of MDMA and weed at a party not deter these folk a tad?

sbsquarepants

RoverJames wrote: »

Would a stint in jail for use of copious amounts of MDMA and weed at a party not deter these folk a tad?

Apparently it didn't. A point you seem unwilling to, or else incapable of admiting. Look at the world around you man, prohibition is not working, it has never worked anywhere in the world and it never will.
A certain percentage of people WANT to take various drugs, you may well think they shouldn't but they do.
I personally never once considered the legality to be an issue, i was going to take it and i wasn't going to be told not to. It's my body and i will do whatever i fúcking well please to it. I never hurt anyone else - except indirectly as in poor coca farmers being exploited, or drug gangs shooting each other and so on, but that's hardly my fault! You never hear of the ceo of diageo pipe bombing the ceo of heinekens house do you?
If diageo or heineken sold cocaine or speed or whatever, i'd buy it off them rather than some shady pablo escobar type fúcker -so would most people i know, we dont have that choice!
You're not naive as some people have stated - you're selectively blind!

sbsquarepants

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Apparently it didn't. ................

I think it's well worth trying here in Ireland. The doctors, pharmacists, engineers etc mentioned earlier would be scared sh1tless of a stint in Mountjoy or Portlaoise, a €600 fine wouldn't really bother them. They might laugh off the suggestion and refer to Portugal etc but they'd be terrified at the thought of a fortnight in jail. Prison spaces are a tad in short supply though admittedly.

sbsquarepants

I honestly don't know if you actually can't see the point, or you just refuse to.
People who are going to take class a drugs, are going to take them regardless. People who are going to sell them, are going to sell them regardless. People traffic heroin through bangkok knowing they'll see 20 years in a thai prison or even execution if they're caught. It's an inate desire in a certain section of the population. The penalties and obstacles don't stop people, they never have and they never will. You can't legislate against human nature, even against mother nature in the case of weed, mushrooms etc.
Come on now, who the fúck is enda kenny to say he knows better than mother nature! (or even mother goose in his case:D)

ScumLord

RoverJames wrote: »

I think it's well worth trying here in Ireland. The doctors, pharmacists, engineers etc mentioned earlier would be scared sh1tless of a stint in Mountjoy or Portlaoise, a €600 fine wouldn't really bother them.

Why would it magically work here when it's never worked once anywhere? Your still banging the same drum expecting to hear violins, it will never happen.

What will happen is they'll go from a once in a while recreational user and productive member of society to a criminal and sponge on society if they where arrested. It hurts everybody in the long run, we ruin a productive life for no valid reason, we as a whole lose out on a skilled citizen.

Your not giving any valid reasons why these people should be locked up either your just arguing they should be locked up more.

kylith

RoverJames wrote: »

Prison spaces are a tad in short supply though admittedly.

Exactly why we should be focussing on filling them with murderers, rapists and theives. Not with people in possession of a small amount of a drug for recreational purposes who aren't hurting anyone except, maybe, themselves.

invinciblePRSTV

RoverJames wrote: »

Pace2008 wrote: »

...................- the party I was at last weekend, where everyone was consuming copious amounts of MDMA and weed, consisted of doctors, teachers, pharmacists, engineers, scientists ......................

Would a stint in jail for use of copious amounts of MDMA and weed at a party not deter these folk a tad?

Lol send people to prison for smoking a spliff? you're either trolling or rather dense, i hope it's the former but suspect it's the latter....

invinciblePRSTV

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Lol send people to prison for smoking a spliff? you're either trolling or rather dense, i hope it's the former but suspect it's the latter....

Neither actually
I suspect you are trolling too by the way, you have contributed nothing to this thread.

ScumLord

ScumLord wrote: »

Why would it magically work here when it's never worked once anywhere? Your still banging the same drum expecting to hear violins, it will never happen...............

I don't expect any one here to agree, especially those who were on copious amounts of weed and MDMA at the party over the weekend, despite not expecting ye to agree I can still make my point and disagree with ye, it's neither trolling, naivity or being thick

RoverJames

RoverJames wrote: »

I'm entitled to air my opinion and I'm also entitled to not reckon I'm wrong simply because a few randomers on the internet (one of whom was consuming copious amount of weed and MDMA) at the weekend reckon I am.

1. Offers opinion.
2. Complains when people contradict said opinions.

You're entitled to air your opinion, but once you do so, your opinions are fair game for all the criticism in the world.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

1. Offers opinion.
2. Complains when people contradict said opinions.

You're entitled to air your opinion, but once you do so, your opinions are fair game for all the criticism in the world.

Sorry? You accuse me of complaining, people have called me thick, a troll and naive, another "contributor" threw in a few wise cracks about go fetch rover and one or two about rover cars. Brilliant, hardly criticism really is it

Great lads behind the keyboards alright.

Wolf Club

RoverJames wrote: »

Would a stint in jail for use of copious amounts of MDMA and weed at a party not deter these folk a tad?

Do you think it's morally wrong to take illegal drugs? Is that why you're suggesting that someone who works hard all week and wants to let loose at the weekend should be locked up or scared straight? Is your philosophy "I don't agree with this, that means no one else should be allowed to do it either"?

invinciblePRSTV

RoverJames wrote: »

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Lol send people to prison for smoking a spliff? you're either trolling or rather dense, i hope it's the former but suspect it's the latter....

Neither actually
I suspect you are trolling too by the way, you have contributed nothing to this thread.

So you're not trolling? you actually hold this opinion. I'm embarrassed for you old timer.

You've contributed nothing but ultra draconian suggestions belonging to the nutty far right fringe.

Maybe you should move to somewhere like Iran or Saudi Arabia? They have morality police there who clamp down harshly on people in the manner you've described and wished for.

invinciblePRSTV

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

So you're not trolling? you actually hold this opinion. I'm embarrassed for you old timer.

..............

Can you not make a point without resorting to childish insults?
Would you speak like that to my face?

If you think I'm trolling report the posts and let a mod decide.

At this stage you have stated I'm either trolling or dense and an old timer, excellent posting.

I Heart Internet

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

RoverJames wrote: »

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Lol send people to prison for smoking a spliff? you're either trolling or rather dense, i hope it's the former but suspect it's the latter....

Neither actually
I suspect you are trolling too by the way, you have contributed nothing to this thread.

So you're not trolling? you actually hold this opinion. I'm embarrassed for you old timer.

You've contributed nothing but ultra draconian suggestions belonging to the nutty far right fringe.

Maybe you should move to somewhere like Iran or Saudi Arabia? They have morality police there who clamp down harshly on people in the manner you've described and wished for.

You sound like a spoilt teenager - he agrees with something being illegal and wants stricter enforcement of existing laws and he's from the "nutty far right". Ridiculous "argument" at the prospect of not getting their way.

Wolf Club

Wolf Club wrote: »

Do you think it's morally wrong to take illegal drugs? Is that why you're suggesting that someone who works hard all week and wants to let loose at the weekend should be locked up or scared straight? Is your philosophy "I don't agree with this, that means no one else should be allowed to do it either"?

It's illegal, end of in my book.

Wolf Club

RoverJames wrote: »

It's illegal, end of in my book.

So if something is illegal, society should completely abstain from/ignore it or face persecution? Do you believe this just in the case of drugs or other social issues as well?

Logical Fallacy

I Heart Internet wrote: »

You sound like a spoilt teenager - he agrees with something being illegal and wants stricter enforcement of existing laws and he's from the "nutty far right". Ridiculous "argument" at the prospect of not getting their way.

Well ideally the first port of call should be to look at why something is illegal and if it's status is justified, so i completely agree with you on that one.

Wolf Club

Wolf Club wrote: »

So if something is illegal, society should completely abstain from/ignore it or face persecution? Do you believe this just in the case of drugs or other social issues as well?

Persecution? A spell in jail isn't persecution, do you think folks are persecuted in jail?

Wolf Club

RoverJames wrote: »

Persecution? A spell in jail isn't persecution, do you think folks are persecuted in jail?

Sorry, poor wording on my part. If a person makes a moral decision regarding breaking a law that they feel is unjust, do you think they should end up in jail because of it?

Logical Fallacy

Wolf Club wrote: »

Sorry, poor wording on my part. If a person makes a moral decision regarding breaking a law that they feel is unjust, do you think they should end up in jail because of it?

Well yeah, they broke the law. Don't get me wrong, i am all for the legalisation of weed but people need to accept that it is currently illegal and they are breaking the law by indulging in it.

Oh_Noes

RoverJames wrote: »

It's illegal, end of in my book.

Where do you think the laws come from? They're made by men and women and are regularly changed by men and women. We live in a democracy and to blindly accept laws as morally sound because they've been brought into law is indeed extremely naive and dangerous.

If drugs were legal would you also accept that as "end of?" Are you debating the issue of drugs or is that just a by-product of a wider argument against democracy?

Wolf Club

Wolf Club wrote: »

Sorry, poor wording on my part. If a person makes a moral decision regarding breaking a law that they feel is unjust, do you think they should end up in jail because of it?

Most definitely, many burglers have a Robin Hood type idea that robbing from wealthy folk is fine, morally they reckon insurance compensation makes theft a victimless crime. I know a lad (drug user too actually) who robbed the local ladbrokes, he saw nothing wrong with it.

Oh_Noes

Oh_Noes wrote: »

...............

If drugs were legal would you also accept that as "end of?" Are you debating the issue of drugs or is that just a by-product of a wider argument against democracy?

If they were legal I wouldn't expect folk to serve time for using them, so it would be end of, yes, I don't see it happening though
Laws are laws, until they are changed abide by them or live by the results, ie not getting into Oz, fines etc and ideally a week or so in jail.

Personally I am all for the current laws, I think they should be more strictly enforced though.

I'm all for democracy, I'm also all for playing by the rules.

invinciblePRSTV

I Heart Internet wrote: »

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

RoverJames wrote: »

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Lol send people to prison for smoking a spliff? you're either trolling or rather dense, i hope it's the former but suspect it's the latter....

Neither actually
I suspect you are trolling too by the way, you have contributed nothing to this thread.

So you're not trolling? you actually hold this opinion. I'm embarrassed for you old timer.

You've contributed nothing but ultra draconian suggestions belonging to the nutty far right fringe.

Maybe you should move to somewhere like Iran or Saudi Arabia? They have morality police there who clamp down harshly on people in the manner you've described and wished for.

You sound like a spoilt teenager - he agrees with something being illegal and wants stricter enforcement of existing laws and he's from the "nutty far right". Ridiculous "argument" at the prospect of not getting their way.

If im a spolit teenager then you're a baby throwing his toys out of the pram screaming "wah wah wah".

Btw everything i said is backed up by cold, hard fact. Jamesy here wants people thrown into jail for smoking weed. The only equivalent i can think of is the religious police in some countries who are exactly what jamesy proposes.

Prohibition and draconian drug laws have failec as you can't change human nature. The sooner you and jamesy get that into your tiny little brains the better.

Of course these nonsense laws - whether its 25 year sentances in Yankland or your hand being chopped off in SA - it doesn't make a blind bit of difference, it doesn't stop people using drugs. Deal with it.

Wolf Club

RoverJames wrote: »

Most definitely, many burglers have a Robin Hood type idea that robbing from wealthy folk is fine, morally they reckon insurance compensation makes theft a victimless crime. I know a lad (drug user too actually) who robbed the local ladbrokes, he saw nothing wrong with it.

How does that relate to a law that they fell is unjust? What I'm trying to fathom is, going by your logic, do you think everyone should just accept the laws set out by the society they live in and not try to change anything, even if it impedes on their own personal liberties?

invinciblePRSTV

RoverJames wrote: »

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

So you're not trolling? you actually hold this opinion. I'm embarrassed for you old timer.

..............

Can you not make a point without resorting to childish insults?
Would you speak like that to my face?

If you think I'm trolling report the posts and let a mod decide.

At this stage you have stated I'm either trolling or dense and an old timer, excellent posting.

Going by what you've posted, only people from a more naive, simpler generation could believe the gibberish you've come out with. It sounds like you got your opinions on drug use from the christian brothers in the 1970s ffs.