Largest on-land seizure of drugs in the history of the state.

gaffer91

bohsboy wrote: »

As I said yesterday I have spent a lot of time working with drug users/addicts.

Users and addicts are different entities, I don't know how many times I'm going to have to say this.

Also if someone job was dealing with recovering addicts would you not agree it could give them a somewhat warped perception of drug use and its effects?

bohsboy wrote: »

I have seen the side of drugs, which judging by your pompous posting, you obviously never have.

I know many drug users.

bohsboy wrote: »

Its not pretty and recovery rates from addiction are sadly very, very low.

Well I don't know what recovery rates are but most users do not become addicts in the first place, it is important to note that.

bohsboy wrote: »

I dont want to argue with you but your constant sniping at differing views and aggressive ordering of people to "read the thread" is not doing you many favours. You're not going to change anyone's attitude towards drugs no matter how hard you try.

If people read the thread I would not have to bust the same myths over and over. It would show that any possible argument/strawman/myth that they could come out with has already been disproved.

bohsboy

tayto lover wrote: »

This is becoming hilarious now. You couldn't buy this stuff.

Think that is good? Check out the rock climbing/horseriding dangers v drug taking dangers from last night. Comedy gold.

bohsboy

gaffer91 wrote: »

If people read the thread I would not have to bust the same myths over and over. It would show that any possible argument/strawman/myth that they could come out with has already been disproved.

But you haven't. Really, you haven't.

bohsboy

gaffer91 wrote: »

Also if someone job was dealing with recovering addicts would you not agree it could give them a somewhat warped perception of drug use and its effects?

Would it not give you a better idea of the potential disasters lying in wait for curious users.

gaffer91

tayto lover wrote: »

This is becoming hilarious now. You couldn't buy this stuff.

Good man tayto lover. Keep patting yourself on the back to try and assuage your wounded pride after having been comprehensively trounced with every sentiment you expressed today. That you should take it so personally, despite your presumed middle age makes me pity you. Chin up buddy, I'm sure your life isn't that bad.

bohsboy wrote: »

But they are not.
Show me one pro-drug taking article and I'll show you an opposite one.
You're not going to change anyone's opinion no matter what virtual credentials you say you have.

Any links by the prohibitionists have been comprehensively picked apart. Keep trying.

And what "virtual credentials"?

Tym

Only goes to show that the country is awash with drugs when they make seizure's of this size.

Yeah I know:S How much aren't they seizing?

gaffer91

bohsboy wrote: »

Think that is good? Check out the rock climbing/horseriding dangers v drug taking dangers from last night. Comedy gold.

This reflected badly on the prohibitionists when presented with the obvious fallacy of their ridiculous position. I'm not sure you every really understood it.

bohsboy wrote: »

But you haven't. Really, you haven't.

We have. Really, we have.

bohsboy wrote: »

Would it not give you a better idea of the potential disasters lying in wait for curious users.

Most users are not addicts, nor will they become one. Can you understand this?

gara

bohsboy wrote: »

Think that is good? Check out the rock climbing/horseriding dangers v drug taking dangers from last night. Comedy gold.

Personally, I like the 'taking drugs makes you more responsible' post best!

tayto lover

gaffer91 wrote: »

Good man tayto lover. Keep patting yourself on the back to try and assuage your wounded pride after having been comprehensively trounced with every sentiment you expressed today. That you should take it so personally, despite your presumed middle age makes me pity you. Chin up buddy, I'm sure your life isn't that bad.



Any links by the prohibitionists have been comprehensively picked apart. Keep trying.

And what "virtual credentials"?

No drug could make me feel this good. Your posts are hilarious, please continue.
"Comprehensively trounced" ha ha. Every one of your myths have been debunked all day by other posters except in your own head.

bohsboy

gara wrote: »

Personally, I like the 'taking drugs makes you more responsible' post best!

The guy is a ledge, with his virtual credentials and debunking the opinions of millions with a mere bash of a keyboard and the odd "read the goddamn thread" quip every now and then.

Absolute pure entertainment.

CANT YOU UNDERSTAND THIS! lol

Chuck Stone

gaffer91 wrote: »

Any links by the prohibitionists have been comprehensively picked apart. Keep trying

Don't bother yourself.

Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.

John Stuart Mill

tayto lover

Tym wrote: »

Yeah I know:S How much aren't they seizing?

I was told that the Customs and Gardai estimate that they only seize about 10% of all that comes in. Don't know how they can even guestimate !!! Maybe it's something to do with the prices not going up after seizures but it seems mad that they can even estimate.

Tym

Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.

John Stuart Mill

I am not a conservative.

How would legalizing a product that takes freedom from a lot of people be a liberal attitude?

Augmerson

Tym wrote: »

Yeah I know:S How much aren't they seizing?

A LOT, LOL!

csi vegas

A_Funny_Thing_Happened_on_the_Way_to_the_Forum

The plot displays many classic elements of farce, including puns, the slamming of doors, cases of mistaken identity (frequently involving characters disguising themselves as one another), and satirical comments on social class.

gara

tayto lover wrote: »

No drug could make me feel this good. Your posts are hilarious, please continue

bohsboy wrote: »

The guy is a ledge, with his virtual credentials and debunking the opinions of millions with a mere bash of a keyboard and the odd "read the goddamn thread" quip every now and then.

I dunno guys, maybe we should send him down to Store Street to inform the guards it's actually all grand and not to bother with the silly drugs and just focus on the robbers instead?

gaffer91

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Don't bother yourself.

I know Chuck, if it wasn't for Sinn Fein, I could see us becoming fast friends!:D

All jokes aside though, what is false/immoral about the following statements:

1. The drug was is costing the country millions, via money spent pursuing it, incarcerating offenders and money missed out on in taxes and jobs created.
2. The war on drugs has wreaked havoc on many of the poorest communities by ensuring that the easiest way for a disenfranchised youth to make money is by turning to crime rather than getting a legitimate job. Poor quality drugs has also destroyed many users, particularly heroin users, lives.
3. Treating the drug problem as a criminal one as opposed to a medical one has resulted in people who need help being afraid to come forward, and often being incarcerated rather than treated.
4. Most drugs, but specifically cannabis, MDMA and LSD are not particulrly dangerous, certainly not enough to warrant them being illegal.
5. If prohibition of alcohol has thought us anything it is that psychoactive drugs are better legal and regulated rather than illegal and unregulated.
6. Most drug users do not become addicts.

Edit: 7. If you are opposed to drugs you can simply choose not to take them, don't force your beliefs on others

Anyone?

bohsboy

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Don't bother yourself.

“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion..."

John Stuart Mill

Snake Pliisken

This graph clearly shows the difference in harm between Alcohol, heroin and crack and cannabis, LSD, MDMA and mushrooms. Recognise that alcohol is more harmful to society and the use than any other drug. If you're argument is that soft drugs are kept illegal because they're harmful, you're mistaking yourself.

There has been a blackout on medical research into psychoactive and psychedelic drugs in science for the last 50 years that's only now lifting. MDMA is being used to treat PTSD in soldiers coming home from Iraq, psilocybin(mushrooms) is being used to combat death anxiety in terminal patients. Ibogaine is being used successfully to treat heroin addiction. Cannabis is already legal for medical use in over ten states in America and is on the ballot for full legalisation in Colorado.
These drugs break down barriers and concepts for people and allow users to see from different perspectives, people don't realise how powerful and helpful these experiences can be until they've tried. This depends on responsible use and moderation of course, just like everything else in life and that's something that should be taught to people, instead of instilling fear and taboo.

When you're talking about addicts and junkies, these people are all addicted to hard drugs(heroin, benzos, crack and usually alcohol as well), they're mainly from very poor backgrounds with no education or prospects. In our society these people were never given the proper tools to act responsibly, to moderate themselves. Society failed them, not drugs.

With proper regulation, we could look after these problems through education, taxation and treatment. The system we have now puts people in prison costing the public, draining Garda resources and the sinking money into the justice system. The junkies rot and are back out on the street eventually, as useless as they were when they went in and any adult who took a personal decision to use drugs and was caught now has a conviction that'll ruin their lives and job prospects.

We already have laws for behavior that impinges upon others rights. If I rob someone because I'm addicted to drugs, arrest me for that. If I neglect my children, whether I'm on drugs or not, arrest me and get my kids into care. The current system isn't helping the situation, it's hindering it.

Pro-prohibition commenters seem to think that the anti side are arguing drug advocation. We're not, we're advocating choice. As informed adults we have the right to decide what goes into our bodies and how dare you think you can tell me what to do, to moralize and judge me.

There's a shift happening all over the western world on the perception of drugs, real information is out there freely available for the first time thanks to the internet. Places like the erowid vault give unbiased information about drugs along with user reports on the drugs in question. The war on drugs is a sham and it plain to see for anyone willing to look.

gaffer91

Snake Pliisken wrote: »

This graph clearly shows the difference in harm between Alcohol, heroin and crack and cannabis, LSD, MDMA and mushrooms. Recognise that alcohol is more harmful to society and the use than any other drug. If you're argument is that soft drugs are kept illegal because they're harmful, you're mistaking yourself.

There has been a blackout on medical research into psychoactive and psychedelic drugs in science for the last 50 years that's only now lifting. MDMA is being used to treat PTSD in soldiers coming home from Iraq, psilocybin(mushrooms) is being used to combat death anxiety in terminal patients. Ibogaine is being used successfully to treat heroin addiction. Cannabis is already legal for medical use in over ten states in America and is on the ballot for full legalisation in Colorado.
These drugs break down barriers and concepts for people and allow users to see from different perspectives, people don't realise how powerful and helpful these experiences can be until they've tried. This depends on responsible use and moderation of course, just like everything else in life and that's something that should be taught to people, instead of instilling fear and taboo.

When you're talking about addicts and junkies, these people are all addicted to hard drugs(heroin, benzos, crack and usually alcohol as well), they're mainly from very poor backgrounds with no education or prospects. In our society these people were never given the proper tools to act responsibly, to moderate themselves. Society failed them, not drugs.

With proper regulation, we could look after these problems through education, taxation and treatment. The system we have now puts people in prison costing the public, draining Garda resources and the sinking money into the justice system. The junkies rot and are back out on the street eventually, as useless as they were when they went in and any adult who took a personal decision to use drugs and was caught now has a conviction that'll ruin their lives and job prospects.

We already have laws for behavior that impinges upon others rights. If I rob someone because I'm addicted to drugs, arrest me for that. If I neglect my children, whether I'm on drugs or not, arrest me and get my kids into care. The current system isn't helping the situation, it's hindering it.

Pro-prohibition commenters seem to think that the anti side are arguing drug advocation. We're not, we're advocating choice. As informed adults we have the right to decide what goes into our bodies and how dare you think you can tell me what to do, to moralize and judge me.

There's a shift happening all over the western world on the perception of drugs, real information is out there freely available for the first time thanks to the internet. Places like the erowid vault give unbiased information about drugs along with user reports on the drugs in question. The war on drugs is a sham and it plain to see for anyone willing to look.

Sorry pal, you're in the wrong place, gara, tayto lover et al have wilfully turned this into a fact free zone.

gaffer91

bohsboy wrote: »

“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion..."

John Stuart Mill

You realise you are summing yourself up?

Tym

and money missed out on in taxes and jobs created.

That shouldn't even be there, since you have absolutely no way of knowing how much will or will not be created.

Treating the drug problem as a criminal one as opposed to a medical one has resulted in people who need help being afraid to come forward, and often being incarcerated rather than treated.

Yes, everybody who wants to do drugs needs them for medical reasons..although strangely I support cannabis for medicals reasons, just not widescale recreational use.

5. If prohibition of alcohol has thought us anything it is that psychoactive drugs are better legal and regulated rather than illegal and unregulated.

Again mountain versus molehill.

bohsboy

gaffer91 wrote: »

You realise you are summing yourself up?

read it again. Might remind you of someone.

Dyr

gara wrote: »

You think it's funny that parents don't give a sh1t if their children are on drugs? What a messed up fukking world this is

So are you a copper or not?

gaffer91

Tym wrote: »

That shouldn't even be there, since you have absolutely no way of knowing how much will or will not be created.

A lot, I would wager. Look at how much coffee shops bring in for the Netherlands.

Tym wrote: »

Yes, everybody who wants to do drugs needs them for medical reasons..although strangely I support cannabis for medicals reasons, just not widescale recreational use.

I'm talking about treating drug addiction as a disease rather than locking people up.

Tym wrote: »

Again mountain versus molehill.

I agree. The war on drugs is far worse than prohibition ever was.

Now that those half hearted rebuttals have been dealt with, can I safely assume you have no response to the other issues I raised?

bohsboy wrote: »

read it again. Might remind you of someone.

You? It's not that I don't understand your point of view, it's just that it is mistaken.

bohsboy

Bambi wrote: »

So are you a copper or not?

Someone mentions that parents should care if their children are on drugs or not and you ask him if he is a copper?

bohsboy

gaffer91 wrote: »

You? It's not that I don't understand your point of view, it's just that it is mistaken.

According to who? you? again, who are you? you're a faceless nobody on a public forum? When will you realise that?

Snake Pliisken

All I'll say is that we've been born into a society that is completely anti-drug, it's hard coded into people from a very early age that changing and moderating your consciousness is very bad.

The people who've come around to the idea of drug policy reform have had to actively learn about it, while the other side is already represented with years of the media telling them why people who take drugs are 'bad', along with tonnes of anecdotal evidence from everyone around them(who was raised in the same enviroment).

People who want reform have already shown themselves to be open minded, they've had to change there opinion once already. Very few children are raised thinking drugs are okay.

"The only people against drugs are people who never did them and the people who did them badly" - Doug Stanhope

gaffer91

bohsboy wrote: »

According to who? you? again, who are you? you're a faceless nobody on a public forum? When will you realise that?

Why does it matter who I am? If your argument is systematically picked apart, which it has been, it means it has been debunked.

Care to respond to posts #470 and#472?

tayto lover

Snake Pliisken wrote: »

This graph clearly shows the difference in harm between Alcohol, heroin and crack and cannabis, LSD, MDMA and mushrooms. Recognise that alcohol is more harmful to society and the use than any other drug. If you're argument is that soft drugs are kept illegal because they're harmful, you're mistaking yourself.

There has been a blackout on medical research into psychoactive and psychedelic drugs in science for the last 50 years that's only now lifting. MDMA is being used to treat PTSD in soldiers coming home from Iraq, psilocybin(mushrooms) is being used to combat death anxiety in terminal patients. Ibogaine is being used successfully to treat heroin addiction. Cannabis is already legal for medical use in over ten states in America and is on the ballot for full legalisation in Colorado.
These drugs break down barriers and concepts for people and allow users to see from different perspectives, people don't realise how powerful and helpful these experiences can be until they've tried. This depends on responsible use and moderation of course, just like everything else in life and that's something that should be taught to people, instead of instilling fear and taboo.

When you're talking about addicts and junkies, these people are all addicted to hard drugs(heroin, benzos, crack and usually alcohol as well), they're mainly from very poor backgrounds with no education or prospects. In our society these people were never given the proper tools to act responsibly, to moderate themselves. Society failed them, not drugs.

With proper regulation, we could look after these problems through education, taxation and treatment. The system we have now puts people in prison costing the public, draining Garda resources and the sinking money into the justice system. The junkies rot and are back out on the street eventually, as useless as they were when they went in and any adult who took a personal decision to use drugs and was caught now has a conviction that'll ruin their lives and job prospects.

We already have laws for behavior that impinges upon others rights. If I rob someone because I'm addicted to drugs, arrest me for that. If I neglect my children, whether I'm on drugs or not, arrest me and get my kids into care. The current system isn't helping the situation, it's hindering it.

Pro-prohibition commenters seem to think that the anti side are arguing drug advocation. We're not, we're advocating choice. As informed adults we have the right to decide what goes into our bodies and how dare you think you can tell me what to do, to moralize and judge me.

There's a shift happening all over the western world on the perception of drugs, real information is out there freely available for the first time thanks to the internet. Places like the erowid vault give unbiased information about drugs along with user reports on the drugs in question. The war on drugs is a sham and it plain to see for anyone willing to look.

Actually some of your points make sense and I can understand why you would make those points but the internet is also against much of your your argument as there is as much anti drug information or facts contained there. I have a niece in the U.S. who uses prescribed cannabis for M.S. but she gets terrible headaches from it and would not take it except for medical reasons if she could. Cannabis is also dangerous if you have any mental deficiencies and you might not even be aware of that until it hits you.
A question I have not seen anyone answer is why these drugs are banned if they are so harmless? Why is there a blackout as you claim? Why would any country not make money on the drug trade if there are very little problems with it as you claim?

bohsboy

gaffer91 wrote: »

All jokes aside though, what is false/immoral about the following statements:

1. The drug was is costing the country millions, via money spent pursuing it, incarcerating offenders and money missed out on in taxes and jobs created.
If thats what it takes to face up to and tackle the problems then so be it. In Holland I believe the hash shops are on the way out? Maybe you can debunk this for me?


2. The war on drugs has wreaked havoc on many of the poorest communities by ensuring that the easiest way for a disenfranchised youth to make money is by turning to crime rather than getting a legitimate job. Poor quality drugs has also destroyed many users, particularly heroin users, lives. he one thing everyone has when they grow up is a choice. A choice to do something constructive or go down a drug taking route. The war on drugs is not responsible for placing young people with no other option but to sell or take drugs.


3. Treating the drug problem as a criminal one as opposed to a medical one has resulted in people who need help being afraid to come forward, and often being incarcerated rather than treated.
Again, an opinion and one I would not agree with. Addicts will come forward and as far as I am aware are treated when incarcerated.

4. Most drugs, but specifically cannabis, MDMA and LSD are not particulrly dangerous, certainly not enough to warrant them being illegal.
They are dangerous. We went through this last night.

5. If prohibition of alcohol has thought us anything it is that psychoactive drugs are better legal and regulated rather than illegal and unregulated.
Meh....

6. Most drug users do not become addicts.
But a lot do.

Anyone?

Anyone?

gaffer91

tayto lover wrote: »

A question I have not seen anyone answer is why these drugs are banned if they are so harmless? Why is there a blackout as you claim? Why would any country not make money on the drug trade if there are very little problems with it as you claim?

Because people have a skewed perception of how harmful drugs are, as clearly evidenced in this thread.

bohsboy wrote: »

Anyone?

I'll take that as a no.

bohsboy

gaffer91 wrote: »

Why does it matter who I am? If your argument is systematically picked apart, which it has been, it means it has been debunked.

Because you seem to have an attitude that you have the final say on things. Your arrogance is nauseating.
systematically picked apart? debunked? you've done nowt.

the varg

usernamegoes wrote: »

If a drug can be shown to cause it's takers to act violently per se then I'd ban it.

I am not aware of any drugs that do.

PCP springs to mind, love that angel dust.
Psychological effects include severe changes in body image, loss of ego boundaries, paranoia and depersonalization. Hallucinations, euphoria, suicidal impulses and aggressive behavior are reported.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phencyclidine#Brain_effects

Alcohol too for some people:eek:

gaffer91

bohsboy wrote: »

Because you seem to have an attitude that you have the final say on things. Your arrogance is nauseating.
systematically picked apart? debunked? you've done nowt.

The only thing nauseating is the conservatism and close mindedness of the prohibitionists.

And yes it has. Read the thread with an open mind and you will realise how very wrong you are. The problem is you have dug yourself into an entrenched position in this debate and feel compelled to defend it come hell or high water. It is a common trait in people but an unfortunate one. I do not hold it against you.

bohsboy

gaffer91 wrote: »

Because people have a skewed perception of how harmful drugs are, as clearly evidenced in this thread.



I'll take that as a no.

My answers are in your quoted post. Apologies.

Chuck Stone

tayto lover wrote: »

A question I have not seen anyone answer is why these drugs are banned if they are so harmless?

Greed. Xenophobia. Special interests. Puritans. Conservitards. Ignorance. Paternalism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JolWD1DpykA

tayto lover

gaffer91 wrote: »

Because people have a skewed perception of how harmful drugs are, as clearly evidenced in this thread.

Jesus, that's really answered my questions.
Can't see you getting far with answers like that.

tayto lover

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Greed. Xenophobia. Special interests. Puritans. Conservitards. Ignorance. Paternalism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JolWD1DpykA

That's only Chomsky's opinion.
There are many opposite views to his.

bohsboy

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/europe/benelux/120501/dutch-cannabis-coffee-shops-begin-closing-doors-tourists

Hmmm....loss of tax and revenue methinks?

But......"However, it adds that many local residents have welcomed the change." And this is from the drug loving Dutch who tried to bring in legal soft drugs to deter hard drugs taking a hold?

Tym

Because people have a skewed perception of how harmful drugs are, as clearly evidenced in this thread.

Wait, if these perceptions are created by the government through education and media, then that doesn't explain why a government doesn't reap the (apparently) collasal amount of tax that they would get from legalizing a "harmless" and "healing" product.

Greed. Xenophobia. Special interests. Puritans. Conservitards. Ignorance. Paternalism.

I am not a puritan, I am pro-multicultarism, I have no monetary interests in keeping drugs non-legalized and I am not ignorant (although aparently I am since I disagree with your doctrine).

gaffer91

bohsboy wrote: »

If thats what it takes to face up to and tackle the problems then so be it. In Holland I believe the hash shops are on the way out? Maybe you can debunk this for me?

Most problems with drug use are created by virtue of them being illegal. This has been pointed out to you already. Several times.

As for Amsterdam, it is only for tourists that they are "on the way out". It is generally accepted that this is a bad move by social conservatives and about government applying a national solution to a border problem.

bohsboy wrote: »

he one thing everyone has when they grow up is a choice. A choice to do something constructive or go down a drug taking route. The war on drugs is not responsible for placing young people with no other option but to sell or take drugs.

I went through this yesterday. Not for everyone but a significant minority, significant enough it cause major problems with violent crime. Read my posts again to get a better understanding of the situation.

bohsboy wrote: »

Again, an opinion and one I would not agree with. Addicts will come forward and as far as I am aware are treated when incarcerated.

An opinion, but an accurate one. So you think locking up drug users is a progressive step.

bohsboy wrote: »

They are dangerous. We went through this last night.

We did. The anti-prohibition crowd was proved completely correct, backing our opinions up with scientific evidence.

bohsboy wrote: »

Meh....

Refusal to face facts. How typical.

bohsboy wrote: »

But a lot do.

But most don't. And addicts are better served if drugs are legal as they would be safer. And since when do the rights of a minority come before the majority?

Ok, I have now dismissed these half baked responses, most of which ignored my points anyway. I will now suggest again to read up to the subject as it is obvious to anyone who has a clue that you are shamefully and woefully ignorant.

gaffer91

Tym wrote: »

Wait, if these perceptions are created by the government through education and media, then that doesn't explain why a government doesn't reap the (apparently) collasal amount of tax that they would get from legalizing a "harmless" and "healing" product.

Because it would not be a vote winner. Because many politicians are as indoctrinated as everyone else. Because there are vested interests opposing legalisation (lawyers, prison officers etc.).

Chuck Stone

tayto lover wrote: »

That's only Chomsky's opinion.
There are many opposite views to his.

Opinion would be whether he thinks vanilla ice-cream is tastier than chocolate.

He's speaking about real reasons why weed was banned and you have, yet again, failed to consider what someone is saying.

gaffer91

As a side note probably the funniest thing about this thread was bohsboy demanding to know my "credentials" and upon being provided giving some sneering response about "virtual credentials".

Perfectly sums up the childishness and stupidity of the prohibitionists.

bohsboy

gaffer91 wrote: »

Most problems with drug use are created by virtue of them being illegal. This has been pointed out to you already. Several times.

As for Amsterdam, it is only for tourists that they are "on the way out". It is generally accepted that this is a bad move by social conservatives and about government applying a national solution to a border problem.



I went through this yesterday. Not for everyone but a significant minority, significant enough it cause major problems with violent crime. Read my posts again to get a better understanding of the situation.



An opinion, but an accurate one. So you think locking up drug users is a progressive step.



We did. The anti-prohibition crows was proved completely correct, backing our opinions up with scientific evidence.



Refusal to face facts. How typical.



But most don't. And addicts are better served if drugs are legal as they would be safer. And since when do the rights of a minority come before the majority?

Ok, I have now dismissed these half baked responses, most of which ignored my points anyway. I will now suggest again to read up to the subject as it is obvious to anyone who has a clue that you are shamefully and woefully ignorant.

Are you the ok? Seriously, like mentally ok?

Do you speak like this in the real world?

"I have now dismissed" / "I will now suggest" / "you are shamefully and woefully ignorant" / "backing our opinions up with scientific evidence" / "Read my posts again to get a better understanding of the situation".

Just a bit of advice, when you get into the real world and have to deal with adult problems, please dont approach them with this attitude. It could all go terribly wrong for you and may involve reconstructive surgery.

gaffer91

bohsboy wrote: »

Are you the ok? Seriously, like mentally ok?

Do you speak like this in the real world?

"I have now dismissed" / "I will now suggest" / "you are shamefully and woefully ignorant" / "backing our opinions up with scientific evidence" / "Read my posts again to get a better understanding of the situation".

Just a bit of advice, when you get into the real world and have to deal with adult problems, please dont approach them with this attitude. It could all go terribly wrong for you and may involve reconstructive surgery.

I'm fine.

And of course I don't deal with people like this in real life. The internet allows one to be more direct and blunt as whether I hurt your feelings or not is of no importance to me, as I don't know you.

A bit of advice- to get the most out of life, ditch the close minded attitude and never dismiss anything out of hand. Also learn to accept when you have been proven wrong.

bohsboy

gaffer91 wrote: »

As a side note probably the funniest thing about this thread was bohsboy demanding to know my "credentials" and upon being provided giving some sneering response about "virtual credentials".

Perfectly sums up the childishness and stupidity of the prohibitionists.

On a further note, this genius provided me with a bucket of manure about being a medical student. Possibly a virtual medical student carrying out operations on his Nintendo DS.

Google "internet tough guy" and it describes you perfectly.;)

gaffer91

bohsboy wrote: »

On a further note, this genius provided me with a bucket of manure about being a medical student. Possibly a virtual medical student carrying out operations on his Nintendo DS.

Google "internet tough guy" and it describes you perfectly.;)

I am, whether you believe it or not is of no significance to me. I am not a doctor or scientist and I never claimed to be.

I don't know why you keep coming back for more. You must be a glutton for intellectual punishment.

Chuck Stone

bohsboy wrote: »

"internet tough guy" and it describes you perfectly.;)

You're the one who sounds like you've been on the 'home brew' here tbh.