If you drink alcohol, yet you are against other drugs...

Chuck Stone

robbie7730 wrote: »

The country where you can be locked up for kissing. Is that wrong too?

I think you're missing the point. The fact that alcohol is illegal in the middle east doesn't make an argument that it should illegal here - it highlights the absurdity of having some drugs illegal and others acceptable.

JFC.

Bruthal

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Who said anything about injecting heroin? Heroin can be smoked. Smoking opium was a common practice before it was outlawed. Why is it any worse than having a pint?

Injecting heroin is abusing the drug rather than using it. Just like slamming cans of cider versus having a glass of wine.

Is it hypocritical to drink a few pints, and yet object to injecting heroin? Earlier you seemed to suggest the level of use had no relevance.

Father Damo

jimpump wrote: »

Are you a huge hypocrite

In my opinion, yes!

anyone that drinks alcohol or smokes tobacco yet are against cannabis,cocaine,heroin users are the biggest hypocrites there is

What age are you, 15?

I drink heavily at the weekend. I take yokes regularly, if they are good quality I fcuking love them. I used to smoke hash by the ton. I have never had much time for coke in truth, most of it in Ireland is rubbish for the price it costs. Paying a quarter weeks wage for a brief kick followed by feeling like Ive been to the dentist has never cut the mustard with me.

Of all of the above I would rate alcohol as the safest, cleanest, most enjoyable drug. Cannabis is atrociously anti social. Id rather be surrounded by mouldy drunks in a pub getting sideways that sitting in a gaff with people comparing how stoned the other is.


And there is no better joke than the rubbish that cannabis somehow inspires people in terms of art and music. Jesus christ.

Chuck Stone

robbie7730 wrote: »

Earlier you seemed to suggest the level of use had no relevance.

Use =/= abuse.

Abuse of any substance is a problem. Eating too much chocolate, sugar, chips - whatever - is a problem.

mickrock

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Injecting heroin is abusing the drug rather than using it. Just like slamming cans of cider versus having a glass of wine.

Why the distinction between using and abusing?

Both want to get high, one quicker than the other.

Bruthal

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Use =/= abuse.

Abuse of any substance is a problem. Eating too much chocolate, sugar, chips - whatever - is a problem.

Alcohol >= to heroin for an individual would seem unlikely. Maybe it is ignorance on my part though.

Chuck Stone

mickrock wrote: »

Why the distinction between using and abusing

The distinction between use and abuse is everything because abuse of any drug is a problem. As said earlier abusing food will cause huge problems for people but we wouldn't dream of trying to limit people's calorie intake (at least not yet).

The guy who has a few cans of beer or a few pints on a Saturday night, the guy who has a joint when he comes home from work, the girl who takes a couple of E's at the weekend - these people are not a problem.

Some people will abuse these substances and will harm themselves or others - these people are.

I'm out.

Bruthal

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The distinction between use and abuse is everything because abuse of any drug is a problem. As said earlier abusing food will cause huge problems for people but we wouldn't dream of trying to limit people's calorie intake (at least not yet).

The guy who has a few cans of beer or a few pints on a Saturday night, the guy who has a joint when he comes home from work, the girl who takes a couple of E's at the weekend - these people are not a problem.

So the answer is, you would see no difference between your kids (18+) having a glass of wine a day, and taking heroin each day.

snowfinch

This is so easy. I have no problem drinking alcohol as it is legal and taxed and the state profits from it. Monies from drugs go to fund the criminal underbelly of society whom I despise and I think it hypocritical of people who go on about being socially upstanding yet take drugs that fund the lowest of the low.

Legalise cannabis, cocaine etc and I have no problem with people taking them, the state will profit, some of the money can go to treatments to those who can't handle it but in the meantime the money goes to thugs & murderers. I am glad to have no part of that. I can enjoy a glass of wine and not feel hypocritical at all.

Chuck Stone

robbie7730 wrote: »

So the answer is, you would see no difference between your kids (18+) having a glass of wine a day, and taking heroin each day.

If I was forced to choose I would rather they'd drink alcohol because they wouldn't have to get it from scumbags and face being criminalised for use and possession. If smoking opium was legal and normalised then maybe I'd choose that.

Bruthal

Chuck Stone wrote: »

If I was forced to choose I would rather they'd drink alcohol because they wouldn't have to get it from scumbags and face being criminalised for use and possession. If smoking opium was legal and normalised then maybe I'd choose that.

There is no doubting how bad alcohol can be when abused. I do think people can have an opinion on the difference between alcohol and other drugs without being hypocrites though.

To simply say if one drug is legal and freely available, they must all be legal and freely available, and any other opinoin is hypocritical, seems a bit unjust possibly.

Chuck Stone

robbie7730 wrote: »

There is no doubting how bad alcohol can be when abused. I do think people can have an opinion on the difference between alcohol and other drugs without being hypocrites though.

To simply say if one drug is legal and freely available, they must all be legal and freely available, and any other opinoin is hypocritical, seems a bit unjust possibly.

If his stance was that all drug consumption should be illegal and he abstained from drugs himself then he is being consistent.

Saying 'I should be allowed to use the drug of my choice but I don't think you should be allowed to use yours' is hypocritical.

lugha

Surely the issue is legality?

Rightly or wrongly, certain drugs are classified as illegal. And if you use such drugs you are supporting the criminal underworld that supplies them?

This makes for a more violent and run infested society that places huge demands on our policing resources. And of course we quite possibility saw a manifestation of this infestation in the slaying of that girl in Talllaght last night.

Chuck Stone

lugha wrote: »

Surely the issue is legality?

It certainly is.

Rightly or wrongly certain drugs are classified as illegal.

Wrongly.

And if you use such drugs you are supporting the criminal underworld that supplies them?

Rubbish.

People have no choice but to source their drugs from the criminal under world.

Why?

Yep, you've guessed it. Because they are illegal.

Strawman fallacy next?

Or perhaps an 'appeal to common practice' fallacy?

Or are will we see the 'parade of horribles' non-argument?

Or maybe the inability to distinguish between abuse and use? That's a good'un.

Sindri

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It certainly is.



Wrongly.



Rubbish.

People have no choice but to source their drugs from the criminal under world.

Why?

Yep, you've guessed it. Because they are illegal.

Strawman fallacy next?

Or perhaps an appeal to common practice fallacy?

Or are will we see the parade of horribles non-argument?

Or maybe the good old ability to not distinguish between abuse and use? That's a good'un.

What is your argument?

Certain drugs are illegal for a reason, I'm not against decriminalization or legalising them, dangerous substances other than recreational substances are banned due to there danger, why not certain drugs?

I'm not against it, but there's sense to criminalising or restricting access to dangerous substances be it heroin or be it uranium.

lugha

Chuck Stone wrote: »

People have no choice but to source their drugs from the criminal under world.

Think a little harder and I think you will find that they do have a choice. Not one they want to take, but choice they have?

You are basically giving license to anybody to break the law (for personal benefit mind, not any principled altruistic reason) if they disapprove of the law!

Might I ask, how do you distinguish between laws that we must obey (or are there any???) and optional ones that we obey only if we approve of them?

Bruthal

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Saying 'I should be allowed to use the drug of my choice but I don't think you should be allowed to use yours' is hypocritical.

So you are in effect saying, legalise all possible drugs to be freely available, or legalise none.

snowfinch

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It certainly is.


Rubbish.

People have no choice but to source their drugs from the criminal under world.

[/unquote=Chuck Stone;76972732]

Don't be ridiculous, no-one has to take illegal drugs. You just choose to do so thereby ignoring your social conscience and fund criminals to get your kicks. Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

Chuck Stone

Sindri wrote: »

What is your argument?

What's yours? I believe all drugs should be legalised for a multitude of reasons.

Certain drugs are illegal for a reason

No good reason.

I'm not against decriminalization or legalising them

Great.

dangerous substances other than recreational substances are banned due to there danger,

Like say DDT or Asbestos? Yes, they are illegal because they have the potential to harm people who have no decision in whether they are at risk or not. Drug users choose to take drugs.

why not certain drugs

Because the 'cure' (prohibition and the criminality and violence* that orbits it) is worse than the disease (drug use).

* I include the violence of the state against peaceful people who choose to take drugs in this too.

Chuck Stone

robbie7730 wrote: »

So you are in effect saying, legalise all possible drugs to be freely available, or legalise none.

No - I was pointing out an inconsistency. He said, in a nutshell, 'I should be able to use my drug of choice (alcohol) while I support that you get a criminal record for using yours' (weed/E's/Cocaine etc).

I do support the legalisation of all drugs though but that's a different matter.

foxyboxer

Oh how I long for the day when I go to a dinner party and be asked.

"Will you have just a line or a speedball foxy?"

:rolleyes:

If I drink caffeine which is a drug but abhor and condone Heroin use, does that make me a hyprocrite?

Julie London

Alcohol ranks "most harmful" among a list of 20 drugs, beating out crack and heroin when assessed for its potential harm to the individual imbibing and harm to others, according to study results released by a British medical journal.

Alcohol is just a socially acceptable drug. But with new plans on the way to ban alcohol advertisements and bring in min prices on alcohol. It seems alcohol could be set to become as socially unacceptable as smoking in the next 10 years.
I used recreational drugs, alcohol and smokes for most of my early twenties. Im 2 years clean from everything. And the biggest difference inb my life has come from quitting alcohol. I would have been a social drinker. bingeing some weekends, not drinking much midweek. I was by no means what you could class an alcoholic. But the differences to my life from quitting are amazing.
Alcohol was way worse for me personally than the cocaine ( again social cocaine user thankfully clean now).
I think alot of people who drink, are doing so blindly because its the social norm. They just dont accept its a drug. They dont know what it feels like to be months clear of alcohol and how your mood and outlook on life changes for the better.

vtec_vixen

Look.. No one has to break laws they choose too.
No one has to take Drugs. Again they will do so if they want to.
Ive taken a few myself god knows.
That does NOT mean I want to see Gear and Crystal Meth legalised.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

So Ill Smoke my hypocritical fags, Ill drink my hypocritical vodka.
Ill smoke my Joints and pop my odd pill.
I honestly couldn't give a flying fcuk if they legalise them or not.


People always will and always have found ways to do what the like. Illegal or not. Making something legal I doubt will have very much effect on use levels and if it does it will only be until the novelty wears off.

Bruthal

Chuck Stone wrote: »

No - I was pointing out an inconsistency. He said, in a nutshell, 'I should be able to use my drug of choice (alcohol) while I support that you get a criminal record for using yours' (weed/E's/Cocaine etc).

I would agree a user probably should not be crimilised for actually using them.

I do support the legalisation of all drugs though but that's a different matter.

We will have to ban tea as well now:D

Sindri

Chuck Stone wrote: »

What's yours? I believe all drugs should be legalised for a multitude of reasons.



No good reason.



Great.



Like say DDT or Asbestos? Yes, they are illegal because they have the potential to harm people who have no decision in whether they are at risk or not. Drug users choose to take drugs.



Because the 'cure' (prohibition and the criminality and violence* that orbits it) is worse than the disease (drug use).

* I include the violence of the state against peaceful people who choose to take drugs in this too.

Choose to take drugs, or are they highly addictive and in cases lead to OD? Many psychologists will tell you people don't choose to take heroin or cocaine, or pcp or crystal meth, all extremely dangerous and damaging drugs that people become addicted to for a multitude of reasons, but mainly because they are addictive.;)

People who abuse prescription drugs are directed by courts to go to rehab.

lugha

snowfinch wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous, no-one has to take illegal drugs. You just choose to do so thereby ignoring your social conscience and fund criminals to get your kicks.

Exactly. It is much the same argument that we make to prohibit the viewing of child pornography. I.e. Even if you do not harm a child directly you are supporting an industry that does.

Similarly, whilst people continue to use prohibited drugs they are supporting an industry that causes harm to an awful lot of people.

And no, I am not suggesting that pedophiles and illicit drug users are the same. The former did not make a choice to be what they are!

Seriously, the scenarios are different in that there certainly is a case to legalize certain drugs, clearly there is not for child pornography. But that is not relevant to my point.

Chuck Stone

lugha wrote: »

Think a little harder and I think you will find that they do have a choice. Not one they want to take, but choice they have?

Causal problem. The illegality takes away the choice.

You are basically giving license to anybody to break the law (for personal benefit mind, not any principled altruistic reason) if they disapprove of the law!

Appeal to common practice fallacy. Some laws are stupid and harmful. - think Godwin and S. African apartheid.

Might I ask, how do you distinguish between laws that we must obey (or are there any???) and optional ones that we obey only if we approve of them?

A person should have the freedom to peacefully consume the drugs of his choice unmolested without being labelled a criminal.

The reasons that drugs laws are fantastically stupid are primarily the above and also the below.

When it comes to drugs I believe the cure (prohibition) is far far worse than the disease (drug use).

Prohibition has been a costly disaster that hasn't worked, if anything it has caused untold misery and death.

AeoNGriM

Naomi00 wrote: »

Guinness is rich in iron, they used to give out free pints to people after donating blood.

That's true, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the alcohol in the Guinness.

Bruthal

AeoNGriM wrote: »

That's true, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the alcohol in the Guinness, so your point is invalid.

Although the blood-alcohol level might be higher from one pint, with having less blood:D

Chuck Stone

foxyboxer wrote: »

If I drink caffeine which is a drug but abhor and condone Heroin use, does that make me a hyprocrite?

Depends what you mean by 'heroin use'.

Refining it down to it's most active ingredient and then blowing it into your brain via hypodermic needle is drug abuse. Opium smoking was and is common in many countries and a lot less harmful I believe.

Sindri

Chuck Stone wrote: »

What's yours? I believe all drugs should be legalised for a multitude of reasons.



No good reason.



Great.



Like say DDT or Asbestos? Yes, they are illegal because they have the potential to harm people who have no decision in whether they are at risk or not. Drug users choose to take drugs.



Because the 'cure' (prohibition and the criminality and violence* that orbits it) is worse than the disease (drug use).

* I include the violence of the state against peaceful people who choose to take drugs in this too.

* What about the violence caused by the mind altering effects of PCP that has police being bitten by a man who has the strength and energy of an ox as he rampages through a neighbourhood.

You know these arguments are very idealistic and there are valid points to be made by both sides, but practically how does the legalisation of these drugs stop the social issues they cause?

reprazant

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Depends what you mean by 'heroin use'.

Refining it down to it's most active ingredient and then blowing it into your brain via hypodermic needle is drug abuse. Opium smoking was and is common in many countries and a lot less harmful I believe.

Its also highly addictive.

The OP's point is ridiculous. You either have to be a tea-totaller, against everything or for everything. There is no in-between. It is the type of argument propagated by someone with a very narrow mindset.

Chuck Stone

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAcnDevkTnc

Chuck Stone

Sindri wrote: »

* What about the violence caused by the mind altering effects of PCP that has police being bitten by a man who has the strength and energy of an ox as he rampages through a neighbourhood.

Parade of horribles.

A parade of horribles is also a rhetorical device whereby the speaker argues against taking a certain course of action by listing a number of extremely undesirable events which will ostensibly result from the action. Its power lies in the emotional impact of the unpleasant predictions

We don't ban cars because there are nasty crashes. We don't ban mining because there will be cave-ins. Why should we ban drugs? Why? Because puritans, racists, charlatans and colonists made these ridiculous laws in the first place?

how does the legalisation of these drugs stop the social issues they cause?

How does prohibition stop them? It makes them worse and hands a valuable revenue stream to thugs and criminals. Being put in prison is a lot more harmful than taking drugs or selling them I would argue. Remove the illegality and focus on treating addiction and you reduce the costs to society and people.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/apr/07/drugs-policy-legalisation-report

Kolido

jimpump wrote: »

anyone that drinks alcohol or smokes tobacco yet are against cannabis,cocaine,heroin users are the biggest hypocrites there is

Maybe we are just law abidding citizens.

There is a difference between recreational use and medicinal use. To argue that some drugs are used in medicine to highlight there benefits is irrelavant to this tread.

saa

Sure I saw you taking that panadol, last night, in the kitchen.
Sure I saw you taking that cocaine, last night, in the kitchen.


No difference, I just can't understand why people get so uppity about drugs maaaan.

pirelli

One of the many health benefits of guinness is that it has many antioxidants which lower blood cholesterol, guinness acts much like an aspirin and prevent blood clotting and has fewer calories than larger. It's a social pastime, and while smoking cannabis is social it is also very cult. While heroin and cocaine are hardly sociable activities.

Sindri

Chuck Stone wrote: »

We don't ban cars because there are nasty crashes. We don't ban mining because there will be cave-ins. Why should we ban drugs? Why? Because puritans, racists, charlatans and colonists made these ridiculous laws in the first place?



How does prohibition stop them? It makes them worse and hands a valuable revenue stream to thugs and criminals. Being put in prison is a lot more harmful than taking drugs or selling them I would argue. Remove the illegality and focus on treating addiction and you reduce the costs to society and people.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/apr/07/drugs-policy-legalisation-report

Please, it's not clever to Google fallacies and have them handy for any occasion. Typical internet warrioring.

I think you are mistaken if you believe these arguments are just fallacies to be dismissed, in fact that is incredibly pseudo-intellectual. They still make valid points, and fallacious arguments can make valid points.

The reasoning behind the points can still be valid, the manner of which they are expressed can be fallacious but the reasoning can still be valid.

Do you have proof it makes them worse, as I have heard arguments of where it was tried and abandoned.

Decriminalise the user yes, there is a financial incentive to that as well, but legalising dangerous addictive substances like opiates for recreational use, as is at your own volition, even though they are highly addictive and you will not be able to stop until you over dose or find help, which legally one would be forced to do any way were they illegal.

EDIT

This isn't a schools debating team.

AeoNGriM

robbie7730 wrote: »

Although the blood-alcohol level might be higher from one pint, with having less blood:D

It's a new money saving tip. Give blood, get drunk on far fewer pints, thus saving a small fortune!

Chuck Stone

Sindri wrote: »

Please, it's not clever to Google fallacies and have them handy for any occasion. Typical internet warrioring.

I've been through this argument on these boards so many times that it actually gets annoying to hear the same rebuttals so forgive me if I am able to pre-empt them before they happen.

What I might do is actually take the time to make out one single detailed post with the arguments for legalisation and a flow chart to the fallacies of the counter arguments when it comes to the legalisation of drugs and just copy-pasta. It would save me a lot of time.

I apologise if I sounded condescending or unmannerly.

And with that I'm out.

Sindri

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I've been through this argument on these boards so many times that it actually gets annoying to hear the same rebuttals so forgive me if I am able to pre-empt them before they happen.

What I might do is actually take the time to make out one single detailed post with the arguments for legalisation and a flow chart to the fallacies of the counter arguments when it comes to the legalisation of drugs and just copy-pasta. It would save me a lot of time.

I apologise if I sounded condescending or unmannerly.

And with that I'm out.

Your grand.:)

I'm usually just playing devil's advocate any way. If something with interesting implications (moral or practical) occurs to me I always do it and try and disagree with a position that I hold and see where it takes me and see what I re-evaluate.

I find it intellectually stimulating, any way things like this are best discussed and speculated over a glass of whisky.

lugha

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Appeal to common practice fallacy. Some laws are stupid and harmful. - think Godwin and S. African apartheid.

Amusing as it is to compare your desire to shoot up at the weekends to the South African struggle to be rid of apartheid I think the child pornography analogy is closer to the mark.

Do you subscribe to the view that it is right to prohibit the possession of child pornography on the grounds that it supports an industry that causes a serious amount of pain? And if so, what in principle is different about illicit drug use.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

A person should have the freedom to peacefully consume the drugs of his choice unmolested without being labelled a criminal.

The reasons that drugs laws are fantastically stupid are primarily the above and also the below.

When it comes to drugs I believe the cure (prohibition) is far far worse than the disease (drug use).

Prohibition has been a costly disaster that hasn't worked, if anything it has caused untold misery and death.

You are simply saying that you don’t think the law is a very good or sensible one. But that is beside the point. People like Seanie Fitzpatrick believed that regulations were an impediment to entrepreneurial efforts. Unfortunately for us all, many of our “entrepreneurs” took it upon themselves to ignore laws that they vehemently disagreed with.

Arguing that you personally are convinced of the wrongness of a particular law, purely for reasons of personal gratification, are not grounds to ignore it, especially when there are adverse consequences for the rest of society.

Cú Giobach

If someone makes a general statement like they are "against recreational drug use" yet they use a recreational drug, e.g. cannabis or alcohol, then yes, they are being hypocritical.

Sindri

Sindri wrote: »

Choose to take drugs, or are they highly addictive and in cases lead to OD? Many psychologists will tell you people don't choose to take heroin or cocaine, or pcp or crystal meth, all extremely dangerous and damaging drugs that people become addicted to for a multitude of reasons, but mainly because they are addictive.;)

What psychologists? Can you provide a source for this claim? Anyone who says this lacks a basic understanding anything and cannot be taken seriously, because you have to choose to put it into your body the first time.

You also cannot become addicted to anything on your first try because it is remains a conscious decision to take it again. Addiction is defined by dependence, i.e. you cannot choose to stop without enduring extreme cravings and/or withdrawals. From the anecdotal evidence I have read, it seems that heroin addicts typically begin as recreational users, then slowly use more and more often until they become dependent.

Chuck Stone

lugha wrote: »

Amusing as it is to compare your desire to shoot up at the weekends

Reported

to the South African struggle to be rid of apartheid I think the child pornography analogy is closer to the mark.

I mentioned S.A. to show that saying 'it's the law' is a facile argument.

Do you subscribe to the view that it is right to prohibit the possession of child pornography on the grounds that it supports an industry that causes a serious amount of pain?

Child pornography involves the abuse of minors by adults and is a disgusting and immoral deviancy.

And if so, what in principle is different about illicit drug use.

Do you really need me to walk you through the difference? What a nasty ill-though out strawman of an argument.

You are simply saying that you don’t think the law is a very good or sensible one.

Yes and harmful on top of it. Not just I. There are many like me.

People like Seanie Fitzpatrick believed that regulations were an impediment to entrepreneurial efforts. Unfortunately for us all, many of our “entrepreneurs” took it upon themselves to ignore laws that they vehemently disagreed with.

Sigh. Legalisation does not mean free for all. A legalised drug market could still be well regulated.

Arguing that you personally are convinced of the wrongness of a particular law, purely for reasons of personal gratification

This is nothing to do with personal gratification - the only drug I use is alcohol (which I'm off at the moment incidentally). Again I suggest you choose your words less recklessly.

I believe in in the legalisation of drugs because I care about what happens to people - not because I'm pro drugs or interested in self-gratification.

Sindri

Deleted User wrote: »

What psychologists? Can you provide a source for this claim? Anyone who says this lacks a basic understanding anything and cannot be taken seriously, because you have to choose to put it into your body the first time.

You also cannot become addicted to anything on your first try because it is remains a conscious decision to take it again. Addiction is defined by dependence, i.e. you cannot choose to stop without enduring extreme cravings and/or withdrawals. From the anecdotal evidence I have read, it seems that heroin addicts typically begin as recreational users, then slowly use more and more often until they become dependent.

Yeah I was referring to when they actually were addicted...:pac:

Cú Giobach

Doc wrote: »

I think you may be mixing up use and abuse. Just because I have a glass of wine at dinner but am against cannabis,cocaine,heroin use I am the biggest hypocrites there is? Grow up.

You seem here (and excuse me if I'm wrong) to consider using your drug of choice as "use", yet the use of any other drugs as "abuse". That seems a bit odd.

AngryBollix

Alcohol can be enjoyed and is not harmful as long as it is consumed in a responsible manner. More importantly its legal

lugha

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Reported

Rather hypocritical of you to find offense at the notion of you or anyone “shooting up”? So much for your proclamation that we should be free to use or not any drugs that we please.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Do you really need me to walk you through the difference? What a nasty ill-though out strawman of an argument.

I know what a strawman argument is. You have given a fine example of one here. I asked you to reconcile your contrasting attitudes in two situations where breaking the law leads to the perpetuating of a criminal industry and your respond with your view on how awful one of these industries in. You’re rebutting an argument that I am not making.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

This is nothing to do with personal gratification - the only drug I use is alcohol (which I'm off at the moment incidentally). Again I suggest you choose your words less recklessly.

Again, a strange objection to a phrase I use. Personal gratification? All drug taking, legal or not, is about personal gratification! What would you call it?

paddyandy

Doc is correct and one drug is not like another .Their effect and cultures are very different.