we love heroin

Degsy

Deleted User wrote: »

Life imprisonment for class A drug use?

Are you for real?

Seriously?

Something wrong up in the aul' noggin' there?

Ah go on, admit it, you're taking the piss, aren't you?

Irish 'Tough on Crime' and Mammies Association
Ruling your own body and mind since evolution's last great failure (whenever that was)

Dont forget the Death Sentence for growing dope.

The method of execution? Lethal injection or Deaadddly Injection as it would soon come to be known.

Capt'n Midnight

Augmerson wrote: »

Some states in the US have very harsh sentences for drug related offences and it is still no deterrent.

There's something like over 1 million people in jail in the US at the moment - now obviously not all of those people are in there for "drug crimes" but a huge number would be. Imagine if we imposed the same sentences here, our prison population would explode and even then you'd still be able to get Heroin in prison ffs.

harsh sentences ?

In asia they use the death penalty and guess what ?
it don't work there

Lemsiper

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

For Class A drugs;

Automatic life sentences for drug users unless they reveal their supplier and testify against them. If they do this, then the sentence should be reduced to treatment and weekly drug tests afterwards, with a prison sentence for re-using.

Automatic life sentences for suppliers, reduced to 5 years if they reveal their supplier and testify against them (if possible).

Death penalty for manufacturers/growers/importers.

For other illegal drugs, treatment and random testing. Re-using = significant fine. Re-using again = prison sentence.

That'll put a stop to it.

Just so you're aware of the Class A/Schedule I drugs in Ireland. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_Drugs_Act_%28Ireland%29#Schedule_1

SuperInfinity

SuperInfinity wrote:

the people I really hate are the people who feel they have been "enlightened" (mainly young people) and say that they should be legalized.... ANY of those drugs.

It just so happens that some of us are enlightened. It's hardly my fault that so many are still living in the Christian Dark Ages. :pac:

Science is slowly uncovering more and more about certain illegal drugs, which until recently was very much a game of speculation for many substances.

SuperInfinity wrote:

I would consider it a crime against humankind if you put people in danger because of it, but alcohol is a bit like a food in some respects so taken in moderation I wouldn't say so.

You have just revealed your complete lack of knowledge of pharmacology and pharmacodynamics. Congratulations, because everyone here can now dismiss absolutely everything you say on the basis that you're willing to ignore objective evidence and embrace the Moral Mammy Mentality. Maybe if you write to Santa this year, you'll get what you want.

Problem?

strobe

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

It's not about tougher sentences. If anything it would greatly reduce the number of people in prisons. It's about giving one hell of an incentive for drug users and suppliers to give up their sources and cooperate fully. The only way to remove these drugs is to cut off the source.

Listen man, just take a second to think through what you are suggesting and what it could hope to accomplish.

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

For Class A drugs;

Automatic life sentences for drug users unless they reveal their supplier and testify against them. If they do this, then the sentence should be reduced to treatment and weekly drug tests afterwards, with a prison sentence for re-using.


Automatic life sentences for suppliers, reduced to 5 years if they reveal their supplier and testify against them (if possible).

Death penalty for manufacturers/growers/importers.

For other illegal drugs, treatment and random testing. Re-using = significant fine. Re-using again = prison sentence.

That'll put a stop to it.

So Johnny get's arrested walking down the street with an eight ounce of cocaine in his pocket. The Gardai say "here's the deal with the law now. You tell us who you got it off and testify against them and all you need do is go to drug treatment and get tested once a week. Don't do this and you get a life sentence."

So Johnny says, "No problem boss. It was Billy Murphy, he lives at 123 Fake Street, go arrest him and I'll testify when it get's to the court case"

So next thing the cops go raid Billy's house. They find nothing but they have Johnny's word. They interview Billy and he denies everything.

It comes to the court case and you have the word of Johnny vs the word of Billy and the Judge bursts his bollox laughing then tears into the Gardai and the DPP for wasting the courts time. Billy goes home to cook himself some dinner and Johnny signs into drug treatment and weekly drug tests. Johnny times his drug use to give clear tests and get's coked out of his mind as much as he always did.

Now was Billy even his supplier? Or did Billy just ride his bird this one time a couple of years ago? Really doesn't matter in the slightest.

Now you might be thinking. "Ahhh but if it was Billy that was his supplier, now the cops know and they can stick him under surveillance and catch him down the line." Well that is of no use to anyone. The local drug squads are professionals. As are the NDU. They identify the drug dealers in their area for a living. They already know who the main drug dealers in the area are. But our legal system works on the presumption that you are innocent untill proven guilty. It is not enough for them to know that someone is a drug dealer, they have to catch them dealing (or at least in possession of) drugs. Now of course some mid to minor level dealers skirt under the radar but very few of the mid level ones and the minor ones are barely even worth the investment.

So back to Johnny, say he messes up on timing his drug tests or he just get's greedy and lazy and fills himself up with drugs right up until the day of one of his tests. Well tests aren't 100%, there are hundreds of things that can cause false positives. Amoxicillin for cocaine. Ibuprofen, Naproxen, Ketoprofen, Promethazine, Pantoprazole Riboflavin, Vitamin B2, Kidney infection (Kidney disease, diabetes), Liver Disease etc etc etc for Cannabis.

Lawyer: "Reasonable doubt your honour"
Judge: "Hey DPP dickhead, are you fukking serious!?!? Bringing this sh1t in here after I basically threatened to smash your face in with my gavel after that whole ridiculous Billy/Johnny debacle last month!?!?!? I see you in my court room again and I'll de-ball you boi!"

=========================================================

.....and all that is before we even start talking about the cost in money (which in case you haven't noticed we have none of) and Garda manpower and resources, the cost in adding further more backlog to the courts with pointless fantasy attempts at getting prosecutions (but sure all those murder and rape and assault cases can wait 3 or 4 years to be heard, what's the harm?), the cost of running these many thousands of drug tests, and the cost to basic civil liberties in terms of imprisoning a drug addict because of one single slip up in their recovery.....


I could really go on here all day......

It is a horrible, impracticle, counter-productive, pointless, fantasy land idea.

But at least you are trying I guess.

SuperInfinity

Deleted User wrote: »

You have just revealed your complete lack of knowledge of pharmacology and pharmacodynamics. Congratulations, because everyone here can now dismiss absolutely everything you say on the basis that you're willing to ignore objective evidence and embrace the Moral Mammy Mentality. Maybe if you write to Santa this year, you'll get what you want.

Problem?

You dont speak for "everyone here" you deluded little man.

fwiw, I consider all pharmacology and pharmacodynamics to be close to pseudocscience, so I have no opinion on that nonsense. I hate all drugs, whether big daddy pharmaceutical man says they're okay or not.

It's you who are so naive and have a Moral Mammy mentality when these guys are only trying to extricate as much money from you as possible. These drugs irreversibly destroy you and your brain whether you like it or not, and they hurt other people as well.

Capt'n Midnight

Lemsiper wrote: »

Just so you're aware of the Class A/Schedule I drugs in Ireland. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_Drugs_Act_%28Ireland%29#Schedule_1

How many people received the 'mandatory' 10 year sentence ?

strobe

SuperInfinity wrote: »

You dont speak for "everyone here" you deluded little man.

fwiw, I consider all pharmacology and pharmacodynamics to be close to pseudocscience, so I have no opinion on that nonsense. I hate all drugs, whether big daddy pharmaceutical man says they're okay or not.

It's you who are so naive and have a Moral Mammy mentality when these guys are only trying to extricate as much money from you as possible. These drugs irreversibly destroy you and your brain whether you like it or not, and they hurt other people as well.

What now?

CrazyRabbit

Pace2008 wrote: »

Do you honestly think someone who knocks out a few pills or shrooms deserves life for their sins?

Under our current system there is no distinction between mushrooms, MDMA and heroin.

Deleted User wrote: »

Life imprisonment for class A drug use?

Are you for real?

Seriously?

Something wrong up in the aul' noggin' there?

Ah go on, admit it, you're taking the piss, aren't you?

Irish 'Tough on Crime' and Mammies Association
Ruling your own body and mind since evolution's last great failure (whenever that was)

I'm waiting on your suggestions. It's clear we have to do something radically different.

Lemsiper wrote: »

Just so you're aware of the Class A/Schedule I drugs in Ireland. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_Drugs_Act_%28Ireland%29#Schedule_1

I never mentioned the current system for drug classification or its faults.

CrazyRabbit

strobe wrote: »

Listen man, just take a second to think through what you are suggesting and what it could hope to accomplish.



So Johnny get's arrested walking down the street with an eight ounce of cocaine in his pocket. The Gardai say "here's the deal with the law now. You tell us who you got it off and testify against them and all you need do is go to drug treatment and get tested once a week. Don't do this and you get a life sentence."

So Johnny says, "No problem boss. It was Billy Murphy, he lives at 123 Fake Street, go arrest him and I'll testify when it get's to the court case"

So next thing the cops go raid Billy's house. They find nothing but they have Johnny's word. They interview Billy and he denies everything.

It comes to the court case and you have the word of Johnny vs the word of Billy and the Judge bursts his bollox laughing then tears into the Gardai and the DPP for wasting the courts time. Billy goes home to cook himself some dinner and Johnny signs into drug treatment and weekly drug tests. Johnny times his drug use to give clear tests and get's coked out of his mind as much as he always did.

Now was Billy even his supplier? Or did Billy just ride his bird this one time a couple of years ago? Really doesn't matter in the slightest.

Now you might be thinking. "Ahhh but if it was Billy that was his supplier, now the cops know and they can stick him under surveillance and catch him down the line." Well that is of no use to anyone. The local drug squads are professionals. As are the NDU. They identify the drug dealers in their area for a living. They already know who the main drug dealers in the area are. But our legal system works on the presumption that you are innocent untill proven guilty. It is not enough for them to know that someone is a drug dealer, they have to catch them dealing (or at least in possession of) drugs. Now of course some mid to minor level dealers skirt under the radar but very few of the mid level ones and the minor ones are barely even worth the investment.

So back to Johnny, say he messes up on timing his drug tests or he just get's greedy and lazy and fills himself up with drugs right up until the day of one of his tests. Well tests aren't 100%, there are hundreds of things that can cause false positives. Amoxicillin for cocaine. Ibuprofen, Naproxen, Ketoprofen, Promethazine, Pantoprazole Riboflavin, Vitamin B2, Kidney infection (Kidney disease, diabetes), Liver Disease etc etc etc for Cannabis.

Lawyer: "Reasonable doubt your honour"
Judge: "Hey DPP dickhead, are you fukking serious!?!? Bringing this sh1t in here after I basically threatened to smash your face in with my gavel after that whole ridiculous Billy/Johnny debacle last month!?!?!? I see you in my court room again and I'll de-ball you boi!"

=========================================================

.....and all that is before we even start talking about the cost in money (which in case you haven't noticed we have none of) and Garda manpower and resources, the cost in adding further more backlog to the courts with pointless fantasy attempts at getting prosecutions (but sure all those murder and rape and assault cases can wait 3 or 4 years to be heard, what's the harm?), the cost of running these many thousands of drug tests, and the cost to basic civil liberties in terms of imprisoning a drug addict because of one single slip up in their recovery.....


I could really go on here all day......

It is a horrible, impracticle, counter-productive, pointless, fantasy land idea.

But at least you are trying I guess.

Wow...I feel I should thank you just for actually writing all that.

Of course more is needed that just a junkies testimony. It would need to be backed up with hard evidence. Junkie claims Billy is the supplier. Billy is put under surveillance as Johnny is sent to buy more drugs from him. Or a search warrant is obtained for his house....etc.

The idea here is to turn the users on their suppliers. Every supplier then knows that their 'customers' will turn on them in a heartbeat and testify against them.

My original post was quite brief. I'd no intention of covering every aspect of a law change. It was just a quick summary of a general approach that I feel should be taken. The current system of giving junkies a slap on the wrist, putting them into revolving-door prisons and letting suppliers/importers practically act with impunity just isn't working. It never has...anywhere.

30txsbzmcu2k9w

SuperInfinity wrote: »

The people I hate aren't the dealers, aren't the users, aren't the police... the people I really hate are the people who feel they have been "enlightened" (mainly young people) and say that they should be legalized.... ANY of those drugs.

The people who say it should be legalized would be responsible for horrendous problems in the future and an unbelievable amount of pain and human suffering. Those people are a disgrace.

As far as I'm concerned, taking heroin, marajuana or any drugs like that will always be a crime to me. A crime against human kind, never mind what those fools who tell us they're our authority and know what's best say.

Sweet jesus. So alcohol is a bit like food (okay in moderation as you have stated on the last page) and all other drugs aren't because they're illegal? You haven't a notion what you're talking about.

ebixa82

SuperInfinity wrote: »

You dont speak for "everyone here" you deluded little man.

fwiw, I consider all pharmacology and pharmacodynamics to be close to pseudocscience, so I have no opinion on that nonsense. .

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

Most retarded post ever. Whatever you think about the ethics and morality of drug companies, dismissing scientific subjects like pharmacology and pharmacodynamics as "close to pseudoscience" and "nonsense" is similiar to dismisssing physics and chemistry as pseudosciences. In the same vain do you dismiss English and French as pseudolanguages? lol

Priceless post. If I'm ever feeling down I'm gonna think of this retarded post of yours and laugh uncontrollably!

Such stupidity and ignorance is comical....Please, Please keep them coming.
It's posts like this that make AH worthwhile! You should probably spend less time on this and more in school kiddo..

THANK YOU SUPERINFINITY!

imarugbyball1

strobe wrote: »

Listen man, just take a second to think through what you are suggesting and what it could hope to accomplish.



So Johnny get's arrested walking down the street with an eight ounce of cocaine in his pocket. The Gardai say "here's the deal with the law now. You tell us who you got it off and testify against them and all you need do is go to drug treatment and get tested once a week. Don't do this and you get a life sentence."

So Johnny says, "No problem boss. It was Billy Murphy, he lives at 123 Fake Street, go arrest him and I'll testify when it get's to the court case"

So next thing the cops go raid Billy's house. They find nothing but they have Johnny's word. They interview Billy and he denies everything.

It comes to the court case and you have the word of Johnny vs the word of Billy and the Judge bursts his bollox laughing then tears into the Gardai and the DPP for wasting the courts time. Billy goes home to cook himself some dinner and Johnny signs into drug treatment and weekly drug tests. Johnny times his drug use to give clear tests and get's coked out of his mind as much as he always did.

Now was Billy even his supplier? Or did Billy just ride his bird this one time a couple of years ago? Really doesn't matter in the slightest.

Now you might be thinking. "Ahhh but if it was Billy that was his supplier, now the cops know and they can stick him under surveillance and catch him down the line." Well that is of no use to anyone. The local drug squads are professionals. As are the NDU. They identify the drug dealers in their area for a living. They already know who the main drug dealers in the area are. But our legal system works on the presumption that you are innocent untill proven guilty. It is not enough for them to know that someone is a drug dealer, they have to catch them dealing (or at least in possession of) drugs. Now of course some mid to minor level dealers skirt under the radar but very few of the mid level ones and the minor ones are barely even worth the investment.

So back to Johnny, say he messes up on timing his drug tests or he just get's greedy and lazy and fills himself up with drugs right up until the day of one of his tests. Well tests aren't 100%, there are hundreds of things that can cause false positives. Amoxicillin for cocaine. Ibuprofen, Naproxen, Ketoprofen, Promethazine, Pantoprazole Riboflavin, Vitamin B2, Kidney infection (Kidney disease, diabetes), Liver Disease etc etc etc for Cannabis.

Lawyer: "Reasonable doubt your honour"
Judge: "Hey DPP dickhead, are you fukking serious!?!? Bringing this sh1t in here after I basically threatened to smash your face in with my gavel after that whole ridiculous Billy/Johnny debacle last month!?!?!? I see you in my court room again and I'll de-ball you boi!"

=========================================================

.....and all that is before we even start talking about the cost in money (which in case you haven't noticed we have none of) and Garda manpower and resources, the cost in adding further more backlog to the courts with pointless fantasy attempts at getting prosecutions (but sure all those murder and rape and assault cases can wait 3 or 4 years to be heard, what's the harm?), the cost of running these many thousands of drug tests, and the cost to basic civil liberties in terms of imprisoning a drug addict because of one single slip up in their recovery.....


I could really go on here all day......

It is a horrible, impracticle, counter-productive, pointless, fantasy land idea.

But at least you are trying I guess.

1) The way they do it in the states, (from watching that police show DEA raids and reading up on it) Is they catch the guy and hold him in custody until he can arrange a "buy" from the guy who he buys it off. Then the cops bust the chap then and there and only release the guy done for posession after the 2nd guy has been sucessfully caught. If they don't catch the dealer the guy donr for posession gets his sentance. They then repeat this process up the food chain as far as they can go. I saw one show where they caught college kids with a 50 bag of weed and ended up busting some guy with like a kilo of coke. Obviously once they get high enough up the dealers aren't gong to "flip" on their suppliers because they will definatly be killed but it's somewhat effective.

2) I think that mandatory drug treatment offers a good alternative to a custodial sentance. Obviously casual users of cocaine, pills etc can easily time their use to get past the tests but if they were truly addicted (which is the level of use that presents the actual problems to society) This would be very hard week in week out. Heroin addicts would find it quite hard to come up clean on a regular basis and could be informed about what would cause false positives. Also tying these services to methadone programmes and addiction councelling may help them get off the stuff which is the important thing.

3) I completly agree that trying to fill prisons up with users and low level dealers (usually addicts themselves) is totally stupid. The justice system can't take the weight of it and a havy sentance for posession is morally and logistically stupid. Murderers get off after 7-12 years in this country. Life sentences for dealing weed or pills is beyond thick.

imarugbyball1

SuperInfinity wrote: »

You dont speak for "everyone here" you deluded little man.

fwiw, I consider all pharmacology and pharmacodynamics to be close to pseudocscience, so I have no opinion on that nonsense. I hate all drugs, whether big daddy pharmaceutical man says they're okay or not.

It's you who are so naive and have a Moral Mammy mentality when these guys are only trying to extricate as much money from you as possible. These drugs irreversibly destroy you and your brain whether you like it or not, and they hurt other people as well.

Stupidest thing i've read on the internet.

CiaranC

SuperInfinity wrote: »

I hate all drugs, whether big daddy pharmaceutical man says they're okay or not.

Do you hate penicillin too? Gob****e. What depresses me is that people like you get to vote in a democracy.

FatherLen

superinfinity, your ignorance towards this subject astounds me.

Yakult

I know this thread is about heroin but was anyone watching that customs show last night?

Well, in Dublin airport they found a parcel that contained weed. So the guy who found it brought it into the room to open it.

What he said that moment summed up the worlds idiotic view on the drug.

"Well in my personal opinion cannabis is a gateway drug. Alot of people say cannabis on its own is relatively harmless, maybe it is. Im not competent to say but like I said its a gateway drug and its what it leads to or potentially leads to. I dont know I have never taking drugs and thats interpretation of what may happen."

He has never tried it, but he's happy to comment on it like 95% of people who havent tried it. Gateway drug my arse.
I know alot of people who smoke it, but they despise hard drugs and have never taking them.


As for heroin. A dirty dirty drug. Thankfully no one I know does it. If they did I would smack them silly.

Didnt think it was a problem here tho, coke is more popular than heroin and weed nearly.

Odysseus

R_H_C_P wrote: »

I know this thread is about heroin but was anyone watching that customs show last night?

Well, in Dublin airport they found a parcel that contained weed. So the guy who found it brought it into the room to open it.

What he said that moment summed up the worlds idiotic view on the drug.

"Well in my personal opinion cannabis is a gateway drug. Alot of people say cannabis on its own is relatively harmless, maybe it is. Im not competent to say but like I said its a gateway drug and its what it leads to or potentially leads to. I dont know I have never taking drugs and thats interpretation of what may happen."

He has never tried it, but he's happy to comment on it like 95% of people who havent tried it. Gateway drug my arse.
I know alot of people who smoke it, but they despise hard drugs and have never taking them.


As for heroin. A dirty dirty drug. Thankfully no one I know does it. If they did I would smack them silly.

Didnt think it was a problem here tho, coke is more popular than heroin and weed nearly.

I'm not saying it is, but I have taken 1,000s of drug histories in my clinical position, it is the first one named in 90%+ cases, of those who move on to gear. That is why some people take that view point

Pace2008

R_H_C_P wrote: »

Didnt think it was a problem here tho, coke is more popular than heroin and weed nearly.

Have you never been in Dublin city centre, specifically along the quays or further down Talbot Street?

FatherLen

Odysseus wrote: »

I'm not saying it is, but I have taken 1,000s of drug histories in my clinical position, it is the first one named in 90%+ cases, of those who move on to gear. That is why some people take that view point

i am not suprise by this but it only proves the people who are willing to do heroin are also willing to smoke weed. if you take the amount of people in the country on heroin against the amount who only smoke weed, there will be a massive difference.

Odysseus

FatherLen wrote: »

i am not suprise by this but it only proves the people who are willing to do heroin are also willing to smoke weed. if you take the amount of people in the country on heroin against the amount who only smoke weed, there will be a massive difference.

Yes of course, I do treat people for cannabis only addiction, but only a few cases a year, my case load is in a busy methadone clinic. I'm only saying why some people developed that theory

CrazyRabbit

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

I'm waiting on your suggestions. It's clear we have to do something radically different.

I really don't care if someone wants to take heroin or MDMA or psilocin. This debate has been had before so I can't present my entire manifesto on legalisation, but it's something I don't have a problem with, so long as they don't hurt anyone else.

And, might I add, there are thousands of people in Ireland who do take illegal drugs who are not otherwise criminals.

PeakOutput

Odysseus wrote: »

I'm not saying it is, but I have taken 1,000s of drug histories in my clinical position, it is the first one named in 90%+ cases, of those who move on to gear. That is why some people take that view point

most drug users started on milk

they probably then had a bit of calpol (god that stuff is good)

by 6 they had probably had half tablets of paracetomol

by 12 im sure they had tasted alcohol at one stage or another

by 14-16 they have been drunk at least once

MILK IS A GATEWAY

i know you gave the caveat that you werent saying it is

if we keep lieing to our kids about the affects of drugs then once they realise we have lied about one of them they are going to wonder what else we lied about

Yakult

Odysseus wrote: »

I'm not saying it is, but I have taken 1,000s of drug histories in my clinical position, it is the first one named in 90%+ cases, of those who move on to gear. That is why some people take that view point

I would believe it. but thats because its the most accessable drug out there. Hard drug users start there, but most stop at that.

From my personal experience of hard drug users, when you make a few contacts connected with drugs it puts you in the position of being offered harder stuff. I didnt take that route, nor do alot of people.
But some people do. They dont know the facts on these drugs and are naive about it.

Have a little read of this and tell me what you think!

http://scienceblog.com/12116/study-says-marijuana-no-gateway-drug/

R_H_C_P

R_H_C_P wrote: »

http://scienceblog.com/12116/study-says-marijuana-no-gateway-drug/

Hahaha! Just because science does a study on it, doesn't mean it's true! You shouldn't believe science, they don't know what they're talking about!

FatherLen

Deleted User wrote: »

Hahaha! Just because science does a study on it, doesn't mean it's true! You shouldn't believe science, they don't know what they're talking about!

eh what? do you still believe the earth is flat too then.

Yakult

Deleted User wrote: »

Hahaha! Just because science does a study on it, doesn't mean it's true! You shouldn't believe science, they don't know what they're talking about!

How about you read my post and tell me where I even said it was true?

And did you even read it? Probably not. :rolleyes:

Pace2008

I’m sure the relationship is largely correlationary rather than causal. Someone with such a destructive predisposition to try heroin is likely to try most illegal substances that come their way, and this will generally start with the most widely available and socially acceptable prohibited psychoactive, cannabis.

It reminds me of a study I read a while ago that concluded that cannabis consumption was conducive to antisocial behaviour. The rationale was that a fair percentage of youths arrested for antisocial activities had cannabis in their possession, ergo the drug was leading them to commit acts of petty theft and vandalism.

This is complete horse****, obviously. We all know a lot of young scumbags smoke weed (and any drugs they can get their hands on), but they would still be acting like scumbags if instead of taking cannabis they were drinking, huffing glue or sharing a bag of fresh fruit.

But of course, these studies are not commissioned to expand our knowledge in the field of drugs. They are carried out with the conclusions drawn up from the start, and exist only to reinforce a misled public perception.

Odysseus

PeakOutput wrote: »

most drug users started on milk

they probably then had a bit of calpol (god that stuff is good)

by 6 they had probably had half tablets of paracetomol

by 12 im sure they had tasted alcohol at one stage or another

by 14-16 they have been drunk at least once

MILK IS A GATEWAY

i know you gave the caveat that you werent saying it is

if we keep lieing to our kids about the affects of drugs then once they realise we have lied about one of them they are going to wonder what else we lied about

Look I'm off sick here, so I'm not to full debate, but I spoke of drug histories,
which means psychoactive drugs not paracetamol. Have you ever go stoned on paracetamol?

I am not allow to enter alcohol as a first drug of use.

Odysseus

R_H_C_P wrote: »

I would believe it. but thats because its the most accessable drug out there. Hard drug users start there, but most stop at that.

From my personal experience of hard drug users, when you make a few contacts connected with drugs it puts you in the position of being offered harder stuff. I didnt take that route, nor do alot of people.
But some people do. They dont know the facts on these drugs and are naive about it.

Have a little read of this and tell me what you think!

http://scienceblog.com/12116/study-says-marijuana-no-gateway-drug/

Spot on, I'm not well at the but unless it 100s of page I get back to you. I teach the gateway to student as they need to know it. But its very weak, it tells me nothing about why the person moves on apart from an evil dealer passing it on to them. I'm interested in the psych reasons

jackiebaron

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

For Class A drugs;

Automatic life sentences for drug users unless they reveal their supplier and testify against them. If they do this, then the sentence should be reduced to treatment and weekly drug tests afterwards, with a prison sentence for re-using.

Automatic life sentences for suppliers, reduced to 5 years if they reveal their supplier and testify against them (if possible).

Death penalty for manufacturers/growers/importers.

For other illegal drugs, treatment and random testing. Re-using = significant fine. Re-using again = prison sentence.

That'll put a stop to it.

Will it now? And what evidence do you have that these draconian sentences will eradicate drug use? It's very easy to spit out macho-man solutions to problems and claim that this will solve the issue. Bollocks!

Portugal decriminalised the use of street drugs in 2001. Many people ranted and screeched that Portugal would become a drug Mecca where people would go on stag weekends and shoot up off their heads. Newsflash: It didn't happen. Here's another newsflash: in 5 years the number of deaths from overdoses dropped by nearly 30% while the number of cases of HIV infection dropped to a quarter of what it was prior to decriminalisation.
It's still illegal to sell and distribute street drugs in Portugal but if you're a user and they are found in your possession no charges are filed and you are persuaded to seek treatment and counselling.

So those figures right there speak for themselves. Your life-sentence bullsh1t is cretinous.

PeakOutput

Odysseus wrote: »

Look I'm off sick here, so I'm not to full debate, but I spoke of drug histories,
which means psychoactive drugs not paracetamol. Have you ever go stoned on paracetamol?

I am not allow to enter alcohol as a first drug of use.

i wasnt getting at you i was just pointing out that my statement is equally as grounded in fact as the one that a lot of heroin users started on marijuana

and not paracetomol no but non prescription pain killers certainly

Odysseus

PeakOutput wrote: »

i wasnt getting at you i was just pointing out that my statement is equally as grounded in fact as the one that a lot of heroin users started on marijuana

and not paracetomol no but non prescription pain killers certainly

Yeah I know that, at that age it would be rare for youth to be getting opiate pain killers that would bring them down the road. Would you not agree?

Odysseus

R_H_C_P wrote: »

How about you read my post and tell me where I even said it was true?

And did you even read it? Probably not. :rolleyes:

I know this post was not at me but you ask me to have a look at it. I just scanned it, the thing is there are papers on both sides of the fence. My honest opinion it is a very weak theory, but there maybe some elements of truth to it. Remember each person in study is a different subject, for me each addict that enters my room has a different reason as to why they end up there.

SuperInfinity

Estelle Scrawny Sax wrote: »

Sweet jesus. So alcohol is a bit like food (okay in moderation as you have stated on the last page) and all other drugs aren't because they're illegal? You haven't a notion what you're talking about.

I know exactly what I'm talking about. Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean you can use "haven't a notion what you're talking about" as a default insult.

Pharmacology and particularly the treatment of humans through pharmaceuticals often incorperates many facets of pseudoscience. I know all about pharmacology and what they pretend to do in order to sell expensive drugs to the masses. I find it despicable.

CiaranC

SuperInfinity wrote: »

I know exactly what I'm talking about. Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean you can use "haven't a notion what you're talking about" as a default insult.

Pharmacology and particularly the treatment of humans through pharmaceuticals often incorperates many facets of pseudoscience. I know all about pharmacology and what they pretend to do in order to sell expensive drugs to the masses. I find it despicable.

You havent a clue what you are talking about, you are making a fool of yourself. Stop posting. You+Internet=fail.

SuperInfinity

CiaranC wrote: »

You havent a clue what you are talking about, you are making a fool of yourself. Stop posting. You+Internet=fail.

Listen BUDDY. We already went over this. Knowing what I'm talking about =/= Opinion of it.

I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about and I know EXACTLY how I am being perceived. How the HELL could you possibly think that you know better than me what I'm making of myself????

Me + internet = fail? Oh well obviously you are just a young little ****er who doesn't know **** about **** and the type of person that ruins the internet for everyone with your trolling.

Doctors murder people with their drugs. That is a FACT. Now you don't have to respect my opinion, but don't act like I don't know what other people think and don't act like I don't have a right to post my opinions on the internet.

Next time, keep your ignorant ****ing retarded nonsense to yourself.

FatherLen

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Listen BUDDY. We already went over this. Knowing what I'm talking about =/= Opinion on what I know about

I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about and I know EXACTLY how I am being perceived. How the HELL could you possibly think that you know better than me what I'm making of myself????


Me + internet = fail? Oh well obviously you are just a young little ****er who doesn't know **** about **** and the type of person that ruins the internet for everyone with your trolling.

Doctors murder people with their drugs. That is a FACT. Now you don't have to respect my opinion, but don't act like I don't know what other people think and don't act like I don't have a right to post my opinions on the internet.

Next time, keep your ignorant ****ing retarded nonsense to yourself.

calm down and tell us HOW you know so much about these murderous doctors.

SuperInfinity

FatherLen wrote: »

calm down and tell us HOW you know so much about these murderous doctors.

It's common knowledge and not disputed that pharmaceuticals kill people in some situations. They would always claim of course, that the drugs gave the person a better outlook than if they hadn't taken them. A lot of people are beginning to know better nowadays. Big pharma is an insidious and cut-throat industry, they are always trying to press their products on people.

Pace2008

SuperInfinity wrote: »

I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about and I know EXACTLY how I am being perceived. How the HELL could you possibly think that you know better than me what I'm making of myself????

Me + internet = fail? Oh well obviously you are just a young little ****er who doesn't know **** about **** and the type of person that ruins the internet for everyone with your trolling.

Doctors murder people with their drugs. That is a FACT. Now you don't have to respect my opinion, but don't act like I don't know what other people think and don't act like I don't have a right to post my opinions on the internet.

Next time, keep your ignorant ****ing retarded nonsense to yourself.

It’s common knowledge amongst the enlightened that the average life-expectancy in developed countries is increasing not due to advances in the field of evidence-based medicine and its constituents like pharmacology, but because fringe groups switching to a raw food diet are living to MILLIONS OF YEARS OF AGE, thereby skewing the statistics the NWO are so keen to propagate.

FatherLen

SuperInfinity wrote: »

It's common knowledge and not disputed that pharmaceuticals kill people. They would always claim of course, that the drugs gave the person a better outlook than if they hadn't taken them. A lot of people are beginning to know better nowadays.

i am sorry but i cant see where your coming from. i am not saying your wrong but i AM saying that just because you say it, doesnt make it right. if you have a point to make, try back it up with facts and not just "common knowledge".

Pace2008

Cue an abundance of links to naturalnews.com.

SuperInfinity

Pace2008 wrote: »

It’s common knowledge amongst the enlightened that the average life-expectancy in developed countries is increasing not due to advances in the field of evidence-based medicine and its constituents like pharmacology, but because fringe groups switching to a raw food diet are living to MILLIONS OF YEARS OF AGE, thereby skewing the statistics the NWO are so keen to propagate.

Medicine has nothing to do with increasing life-expectency, the life-expectency increased because people learned about how bacteria and malnutrition were causing all sorts of sickness in the modern world.

Hold up a second... what? lol. You're right, apart from the "millions of years of age", because the Hayflick limit limits the amount of times our cells can divide. We would die about 100-120 years of age in perfect health if we ate completely raw primitive lifestyles. Tortoises, lobsters, and a few other large organisms do not have this limit, and are accepted as being immortal if they obtain all their nutrients and do not get diseased etc.

Pookah

Here's an interesting study for to throw into the mix... http://www.naturalnews.com/029535_drugs_Big_Pharma.html

It seems most medicine is no more effective than (or relies on the placebo effect as much as), any witch-doctor or quack medince, only with more negative side effects.


Edit; got me Pace2008

30txsbzmcu2k9w

SuperInfinity wrote: »

I know exactly what I'm talking about. Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean you can use "haven't a notion what you're talking about" as a default insult.

Pharmacology and particularly the treatment of humans through pharmaceuticals often incorperates many facets of pseudoscience. I know all about pharmacology and what they pretend to do in order to sell expensive drugs to the masses. I find it despicable.

You're some piece of work. You're in here spouting conspiracy theorist rot. And it's not a "default insult". You stated alcohol was akin to food - okay in moderation. Yet you think the local GP is a murderer.
You're wildly out of touch with reality.

MarkGrisham

You have to wonder why anyone would go near that ****e. Alcohol's a more fun way of wrecking your innards.

jimbling

Odysseus wrote: »

Look I'm off sick here, so I'm not to full debate, but I spoke of drug histories,
which means psychoactive drugs not paracetamol. Have you ever go stoned on paracetamol?

I am not allow to enter alcohol as a first drug of use.

Ha, why am I not surprised. :rolleyes:

So a guy comes into you and states
"Yes, I started drinking at 12, then over the following months I started smoking cannabis. Before long I was taking pills and cocaine etc etc"

You have to write down that Cannabis as his first drug use?

Note: Please understand I know this is not what you think, or what you see as right. Its the system.



Anyway, onwards..... There is a real difference between Drink and Cannabis when considering it as a gateway drug..... What happens when a young teen starts smoking weed is two fold:

1) They realise that Santa/Tooth Fairy and the Boogeyman weren't the only lies their parents/society told them. They smoke the weed and think.... wtf is all the fuss about
If they lied about the consequences of this, obviously they're probably lying about the consequences of other drugs too.

2) They generally get introduced to situations that can involve harder drugs. And now, for multiple reasons (peer pressure/lack of real education on drugs etc) they are vulnerable to trying other things. If Weed is a drug that is "illegal" because of the horrendous damage it can cause society when it is so obviously not as dangerous as Drink, then other illegal drugs have now moved into my comfort zone.

Odysseus wrote: »

Yeah I know that, at that age it would be rare for youth to be getting opiate pain killers that would bring them down the road. Would you not agree?

I had my first real high when I was about 14. I was getting 4 teeth pulled at the dentist. I was put under. Think I was out for about 30 seconds or so. I woke up, turned to my mother and said. "Oh my god, this is the best feeling in the world". Ha, I was as high as a kite for about half and hour. Then had painkiller mellowness for the rest of the day. It was great
Okay, it didn't lead me on to bigger and harder things, but it certainly opened my eyes to mind alteration.

Pace2008

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Hold up a second... what? lol. You're right, apart from the "millions of years of age", because the Hayflick limit limits the amount of times our cells can divide.

You eat your fill of goji berries (be sure not to cook them!) and the very laws of nature go out the window.

ScumLord

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Medicine has nothing to do with increasing life-expectency, the life-expectency increased because people learned about how bacteria and malnutrition were causing all sorts of sickness in the modern world.

Medicine controls bacteria and viruses what your saying just doesn't make sense. If you got a simple infection before modern medicine it could quite easily kill you very quickly. I've had such and infection from getting a splinter from a wooden floor. The doctor laughed how it was serious and would have killed me 50 years ago. He gave me antibiotics and I has cured within days.

What your saying that modern medicine doesn't lead to longer lives is just nonsense, the human population has gone from a constant 1 billion to 6 billion in the last century almost solely down to the breakthroughs of modern medicine.

Pookah

ScumLord wrote: »

What your saying that modern medicine doesn't lead to longer lives is just nonsense, the human population has gone from a constant 1 billion to 6 billion in the last century almost solely down to the breakthroughs of modern medicine.

Improvements in technology ( e.g. house insulation) and hygeine (cleaner water supplies), less war etc. must have played a part also. It can't be solely down to medicne?

Exponential expansion of populations?