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

bohsboy

gara wrote: »

honestly, are you even aware of what you're actually writing or are you experiencing some drug-induced trauma?

You're wasting your time mate.

Seriously, they or one of their friends or family will get the wake up call they need sooner rather than later.

bohsboy

usernamegoes wrote: »

Nope. We didn't. The head shops sold drugs which weren't tested and were not allowed be sold as drugs so no advice could be given on how to use it. Also I don't think it was a failure, dispite what I said very few issues if I recall correctly.

But we knew the ingredients. They were printed on the boxes?

Check out the amount of court appearances which were blamed on headshop products. Plenty.

gara

usernamegoes wrote: »

Excellent. I'd be quite similar. I'd never though tell someone if they do a dangerous sport like rock climbing or whatever, I'd lock them up. I think this is where we disagree.

Different stroke, different folks.

Sorry but are you actually trying to equate rock-climbing with taking illegal drugs? I give up -there's actually no reasoning with this level of lunacy

bohsboy

usernamegoes wrote: »

Excellent. I'd be quite similar. I'd never though tell someone if they do a dangerous sport like rock climbing or whatever, I'd lock them up. I think this is where we disagree.

Different stroke, different folks.

Post of the month.

My god.

usernamegoes

bohsboy wrote: »

But we knew the ingredients. They were printed on the boxes?

Check out the amount of court appearances which were blamed on headshop products. Plenty.

What was printed on the box was "not for human consumption". By this logic you would not test medicines because it's printed on the box what it is.

Perhaps, but compare that proportionality to the alcohol ones. I'm also saying that if pharm was permitted to find one that didn't cause issues like you say these caused would you allow it or are you against in principle people you don;t know having fun by altering their minds?

B.A._Baracus

Don't know if its true or not. But I keep hearing that the majority of drug seizure operations stem from informants and not old fashioned police work.

So who ever told the police about a 350kg shipment must of been in quite the pickle with the law :pac:

usernamegoes

gara wrote: »

Sorry but are you actually trying to equate rock-climbing with taking illegal drugs? I give up -there's actually no reasoning with this level of lunacy

Nope I am equating taking legal drugs with rock climbing, or more precisely allowing people to make judgements or risk without you and others like you telling them what's best for them. Seems you think rock climbing is fine. So do I.

bohsboy wrote: »

Post of the month.

My god.

Thank you. You know best how to run other people's lives.

bohsboy

bohsboy wrote: »

Check out the amount of court appearances which were blamed on headshop products. Plenty.

And? Some people are arseholes. Some blame drink, some blame drink, some say Jesus told them to do it.

bohsboy

usernamegoes wrote: »

I'm also saying that if pharm was permitted to find one that didn't cause issues like you say these caused would you allow it or are you against in principle people you don;t know having fun by altering their minds?

Altered minds = problems.

bohsboy

bohsboy wrote: »

Altered minds = problems.

Where do you draw the line on something being mind-altering or not?

usernamegoes

bohsboy wrote: »

Altered minds = problems.

For other people? So you don't care about the person taking it? So we have reached agreement.

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.

bohsboy

Deleted User wrote: »

Where do you draw the line on something being mind-altering or not?

Drugs? Had this not descended into a "drugs are safe" argument?

bohsboy

usernamegoes wrote: »

For other people? So you don't care about the person taking it? So we have reached agreement.

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.

Im aware of drugs that users and dealers resort to using violence to obtain and supply. Can you ban them?

usernamegoes

bohsboy wrote: »

Drugs? Had this not descended into a "drugs are safe" argument?

I wasn't saying that. I don't think they are. I don't, however think they are as dangerous as you think and most aren't as dangerous as alcohol.

I don't think others have the right to tell you want to consume if it's effect on others is remote at best.

I also think it would be safer if legal for the user and non-user.

usernamegoes

bohsboy wrote: »

Im aware of drugs that users and dealers resort to using violence to obtain and supply. Can you ban them?

Well dealers are gone if legal so no.

Addicts that rob for them might well become less of a problem if legal due to a price fall. But even if not, it's too remote of a cause. People steal for all sorts or addiction and reason not just drugs.

gaffer91

bohsboy wrote: »

Well its getting late...but if you fully know the effects of LSD on the human brain and links to anxiety disorders, schizophrenia, etc then be my guest.

http://voices.yahoo.com/acid-casualties-life-dangers-lsd-198316.html

I cannot believe Im actually arguing with someone about LSD being safe or not. Astounding.

A. That article is one persons account and is completely unscientific.
B. It still does not give conclusive evidence linking LSD to schizophrenia. What would you say the links that have been presented showing that LSD use is not that dangerous?

bohsboy wrote: »

We tried that, headshops I think they were called? That was a roaring success.

The headshops were unregulated and little was known of the products. Despit this, they were nowhere near as bad as the media made them out to be. The whole thing was sensationalised out of all proportion.

gara wrote: »

Yes actually, remaining as safe as possible in life is something I'd quite like, believe it or not! And most people I know are also interested in avoiding danger whereever possible. In fact, some actively pursue safety and do things like wear seatbelts and install fire alarms -honestly, are you even aware of what you're actually writing or are you experiencing some drug-induced trauma?

Thousands of people aren't responsible enough to brush their teeth twice a day, never mind giving them free access to narcotics

Here's a thought-why don't you just not take drugs yourself rather than forcing your beliefs on everyone else?

gara wrote: »

Sorry but are you actually trying to equate rock-climbing with taking illegal drugs? I give up -there's actually no reasoning with this level of lunacy

On the basis that the prohibitionists believe that drugs should be illegal because they are "harmful" (despite it being shown several times that the dangers are completely overestimated), then it would stand to reason that the prohibitionists would believe that things like rock climbing and horse riding should be banned as well because of the dangers involved, right?

bohsboy

bohsboy wrote: »

Drugs? Had this not descended into a "drugs are safe" argument?

Just the illegal ones yeah?

bohsboy

gaffer91 wrote: »

then it would stand to reason that the prohibitionists would believe that things like rock climbing and horse riding should be banned as well because of the dangers involved, right?

Stunning, absolutely stunning. Do you really have any concept of what you're saying?

bohsboy

gaffer91 wrote: »

A. That article is one persons account and is completely unscientific.
B. It still does not give conclusive evidence linking LSD to schizophrenia. What would you say the links that have been presented showing that LSD use is not that dangerous?

A. Pretty damning account all the same.
B. Not "THAT" dangerous? It is though. There is no concrete proof yet that LSD is linked to schizophrenia but there are tentative links along with LSD psychosis which is coming under the banner of schizophrenia. Two labels.

gaffer91

bohsboy wrote: »

Stunning, absolutely stunning. Do you really have any concept of what you're saying?

You believe MDMA should be illegal because it is harmful. This is despite that the fact that taking MDMA is no more dangerous than riding a horse. So do you believe horse riding should be banned?

I don't. Nor do I believe MDMA should be banned.

gara

gaffer91 wrote: »

Here's a thought-why don't you just not take drugs yourself rather than forcing your beliefs on everyone else?

Because the negative repercussions of drug usage isn't exclusively confined to the user, that's why. I can't believe you even need that very simple concept pointed out to you

usernamegoes

bohsboy wrote: »

Stunning, absolutely stunning. Do you really have any concept of what you're saying?

Perhaps you can tell us your test on how dangerous something should be before someone who does it should be locked up, that's all we are asking you.

RasTa

More proof that prohibition is working!

usernamegoes

usernamegoes wrote: »

Perhaps you can tell us your test on how dangerous something should be before someone who does it should be locked up, that's all we are asking you.

Just what the government says I assume.

usernamegoes

gara wrote: »

Because the negative repercussions of drug usage isn't exclusively confined to the user, that's why. I can't believe you even need that very simple concept pointed out to you

So you don't care about the danger. Perhaps you can tell us the test on what the effects on others should be before it is banned. If some people rob to gamble should that be banned?

gaffer91

bohsboy wrote: »

A. Pretty damning account all the same.
B. Not "THAT" dangerous? It is though. There is no concrete proof yet that LSD is linked to schizophrenia but there are tentative links along with LSD psychosis which is coming under the banner of schizophrenia. Two labels.

I could just as easily link a story from someone like Steve Jobs who enjoyed with LSD with no repercussions.

Have you actually read any of the links relating to LSD that have been presented?

gara wrote: »

Because the negative repercussions of drug usage isn't exclusively confined to the user, that's why. I can't believe you even need that very simple concept pointed out to you

Some examples please. Specifically for cannabis, MDMA and LSD seeing as there no point in even trying with the prohibition on heroin or cocaine.

bohsboy

usernamegoes wrote: »

Perhaps you can tell us your test on how dangerous something should be before someone who does it should be locked up, that's all we are asking you.

Test eh? hmmmmmm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1138957/Governments-drug-advisor-resign-claiming-taking-ecstasy-safer-riding-horse.html

gara

gaffer91 wrote: »

Some examples please.

Plenty here

gaffer91

bohsboy wrote: »

Test eh? hmmmmmm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1138957/Governments-drug-advisor-resign-claiming-taking-ecstasy-safer-riding-horse.html

That link is from the DM, a completely unreliable source. It also does absolutely nothing to refute his claims.

gara wrote: »

Plenty here

I'll take that as a no then.

usernamegoes

bohsboy wrote: »

Test eh? hmmmmmm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1138957/Governments-drug-advisor-resign-claiming-taking-ecstasy-safer-riding-horse.html

How does that answer the question? You think the test for banning things which effect others should be if someone needs to resign because the made a politically unpopular statement or worse case lied? I don't understand. Is it just me or...

bohsboy

gaffer91 wrote: »

Have you actually read any of the links relating to LSD that have been presented?

What links???? Presented? Between the mish mash of your advocation of drug taking?

Steve Jobs took LSD? So did Ozzy Osbourne.

usernamegoes

gara wrote: »

Plenty here

So is that a no?

I am pretty sure you'll find examples of people that did bad thing because of drugs or at least blamed it on drugs but that does not an argument make.

bohsboy

usernamegoes wrote: »

So is that a no?

Links I said. Links. They were apparently "presented" to me.

gaffer91

bohsboy wrote: »

What links???? Presented? Between the mish mash of your advocation of drug taking?

Steve Jobs took LSD? So did Ozzy Osbourne.

Several links were provided over the course of this thread detailing studies that suggested that the dangers of LSD were completely overstated and that it is relatively safe.

My point about Steve Jobs is that you can't only emphasise horror stories; you must look at the effects on users in general.

bohsboy

usernamegoes wrote: »

How does that answer the question? You think the test for banning things which effect others should be if someone needs to resign because the made a politically unpopular statement or worse case lied? I don't understand. Is it just me or...

So, let me get this right, you want me to devise a test for every possible activity/action/reaction in human life to then make a list of activities to ban because they are deemed too dangerous?

What sort of a timescale are we looking at here....?

gaffer91

bohsboy wrote: »

So, let me get this right, you want me to devise a test for every possible activity/action/reaction in human life to then make a list of activities to ban because they are deemed too dangerous?

No that is what the prohibitionists seem to be suggesting.

bohsboy

gaffer91 wrote: »

Several links were provided over the course of this thread detailing studies that suggested that the dangers of LSD were completely overstated and that it is relatively safe.

I cant recall one to be honest that you provided. There was one....putting LSD in the tope 20 most dangerous drugs......?

usernamegoes

bohsboy wrote: »

Links I said. Links. They were apparently "presented" to me.

Do you have access to the famous medical journal the lancet? http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61462-6/fulltext

While, it's not my argument that they are safe, it is that they are safer than you think and would be safer if legal.

Also even if they weren't it's not your business unless they cause harm to you.

bohsboy

gaffer91 wrote: »

No that is what the prohibitionists seem to be suggesting.

Really....what colour were these beings that spoke to you?

bohsboy

usernamegoes wrote: »

Also even if they weren't it's not your business unless they cause harm to you.

Thats telling me. LOL

usernamegoes

bohsboy wrote: »

So, let me get this right, you want me to devise a test for every possible activity/action/reaction in human life to then make a list of activities to ban because they are deemed too dangerous?

What sort of a timescale are we looking at here....?

Nope. I'd take a broad answer. Is it if one person dies, ten? You're the one that wants to lock people up for breaking your rules so you should have some idea.

gaffer91

bohsboy wrote: »

I cant recall one to be honest that you provided. There was one....putting LSD in the tope 20 most dangerous drugs......?

Here. There will always be some risk with drugs- but prohibitionists are vastly overstating it.

usernamegoes

bohsboy wrote: »

Thats telling me. LOL

I guess you've lost interest or just want to stop arguing. Fair enough.

bohsboy

usernamegoes wrote: »

Nope. I'd take a broad answer. Is it if one person dies, ten? You're the one that wants to lock people up for breaking your rules so you should have some idea.

Not breaking my rules? You should know that. Id lock users and dealers up all day long.

Lets talk about the test again, I like the idea of the test. Do people have to die in the test? What sort of a venue and how do you suggest we get people to take part in the various events.

Crocodile wrestling, paper folding....oohh it sounds like fun.:)

gaffer91

bohsboy wrote: »

Really....what colour were these beings that spoke to you?

On the basis that you believe MDMA and LSD should be banned because they are "harmful", surely you would extend that belief to anything that is equally or more harmful, such as horse riding?

If not, then maybe you are coming around to the way of thinking that prohibiting drugs because of their (grossly exaggerated) risks is ludicrous.

usernamegoes

bohsboy wrote: »

Not breaking my rules? You should know that. Id lock users and dealers up all day long.

Lets talk about the test again, I like the idea of the test. Do people have to die in the test? What sort of a venue and how do you suggest we get people to take part in the various events.

Crocodile wrestling, paper folding....oohh it sounds like fun.:)

I guess you've lost interest too. Good night.

gara

usernamegoes wrote: »

I guess you've lost interest or just want to stop arguing. Fair enough.

Or maybe people can't be arsed reiterating the same basic points to your increasingly ridiculous half-baked responses

bohsboy

gaffer91 wrote: »

You vastly overestimate the dangers with those drugs. Neither LSD or MDMA are particularly harmful.

Evidence 1
Evidence 2

You do realise in the first link that its outlining a list of the most dangerous drugs?

bohsboy

usernamegoes wrote: »

I guess you've lost interest too. Good night.

Get back to me about the test.

gaffer91

bohsboy wrote: »

Not breaking my rules? You should know that. Id lock users and dealers up all day long.

How can you still advocate that? Can you not see that that policy has been an abject failure? In the States it's stricter and it's even worse.