The Sam Quentin click bait thread about drugs

wexie

Deusexmachina wrote: »

I lived in Amsterdam for 5 years. If you think their policy does more good than harm, you are wrong.
My Dutch friends thought the coffee shops were for idiot tourists. Meanwhile they are among the lowest rate of cannabis users in Europe.

And why do you think that is?

By the way I was born and raised in Holland so I think I probably have a little bit more material for a comparison. If you think Holland = Amsterdam you should have tried to get out a bit more.

Deusexmachina

wexie wrote: »

And why do you think that is?

By the way I was born and raised in Holland so I think I probably have a little bit more material for a comparison. If you think Holland = Amsterdam you should have tried to get out a bit more.

That old chestnut. Netherlands, not Holland. Happy now?

wexie

Deusexmachina wrote: »

That old chestnut. Netherlands, not Holland. Happy now?

That's not what I meant, I meant there's a whole country outside Amsterdam. (albeit a small one). Judging Holland on your experiences in Amsterdam is like judging Ireland cause you were once in Dublin for a stag.

Deusexmachina

wexie wrote: »

And why do you think that is?

By the way I was born and raised in Holland so I think I probably have a little bit more material for a comparison. If you think Holland = Amsterdam you should have tried to get out a bit more.

The reason they aren’t big users of cannabis (or big users of prostitution for that matter) is that they know how harmful these trades are.
But they are happy to make a few quid on the gullible.

Deusexmachina

wexie wrote: »

That's not what I meant, I meant there's a whole country outside Amsterdam. (albeit a small one). Judging Holland on your experiences in Amsterdam is like judging Ireland cause you were once in Dublin for a stag.

Nah, I lived in Heemstede too.

wexie

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Nah, I lived in Heemstede too.

Wow...you made it a whole 20km out of Amsterdam....well done

Deusexmachina

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

In fairness, it's been pointed out to you by myself and another poster exactly why the relationship between drugs and the law is erroneous.

What I find difficult to understand is how people think treating a drug abuser like a criminal actually garners any form of positive results.

wexie wrote: »

Wow...you made it a whole 20km out of Amsterdam....well done

And Eindhoven.

The Bishop Basher

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Why so rattled? No need to be rude to me.

I'm neither rattled nor rude.

Maybe grow a thicker skin or report my post if you have an issue with it.

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Why should it be a matter of personal choice? Is it a matter of personal choice to have asbestos in your walls? To use leaded petrol? To drive at 150 miles per hour down O Connell Street?

All of those things have the potential to harm other people.

Try again..

VinLieger

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Why should it be a matter of personal choice? Is it a matter of personal choice to have asbestos in your walls? To use leaded petrol? To drive at 150 miles per hour down O Connell Street?

Completely ridiculous analogies to use when compared to a single person consuming cannibis in their own home with no risk to anyone else

Deusexmachina

Rennaws wrote: »

I'm neither rattled nor rude.

Maybe grow a thicker skin or report my post if you have an issue with it.

All of those things have the potential to harm other people.

Try again..

Since you are giving me advice, please let me offer you some. You may not be right. You might be wrong. I know that seems almost impossible to you, but believe me, it is possible.

If you are going to call my opinion 'non sensical and ignorant', at least try to back up your position with some facts.

Is cannabis smoking healthy?

Deusexmachina

VinLieger wrote: »

Completely ridiculous analogies to use when compared to a single person consuming cannibis in their own home with no risk to anyone else

How is this 'consuming' typically done?

The Bishop Basher

Deusexmachina wrote: »

If you are going to call my opinion 'non sensical and ignorant', at least try to back up your position with some facts.

I did.

They were in my response. It was only 4 lines long and they took up 2 of them.

2.5 million die every year world wide due to alcohol consumption.

Not one recorded death has ever been attributed to cannabis..

You really need to try harder at this..

Oh and i was being kind when I said non sensical and ignorant. You've posted nothing to demonstrate anything to the contrary, in fact you're digging in deeper and deeper but please keep at it..

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Is cannabis smoking healthy?

Is eating a doughnut healthy ? What does that have to do with anything ?

Deusexmachina

Rennaws wrote: »

I did.

They were in my response. It was only 4 lines long and they took up 2 of them.

2.5 million die every year world wide due to alcohol consumption.

Not one recorded death has ever been attributed to cannabis..

You really need to try harder at this..

Oh and i was being kind when I said non sensical and ignorant. You've posted nothing to demonstrate anything to the contrary, in fact you're digging in deeper and deeper but please keep at it..

Is eating a doughnut healthy ? What does that have to do with anything ?

What is your actual point? Are you telling me that smoking cannabis is healthy? Because I am saying that is carceogenic. Am I wrong?

What is your position on this?

Deusexmachina

whenever youre ready...

The Bishop Basher

Deusexmachina wrote: »

What is your position on this?

Read my posts..

If you still have questions feel free to ask..

I may indulge you, I may not..

The Bishop Basher

Deusexmachina wrote: »

whenever youre ready...

Seriously

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deusexmachina wrote: »

What about alcohol, what about nicotine, what about.......

You may have read my previous post. I asked if we had had the opportunity to stop tobacco smoking before it became ubiquitous, wouldn’t that have saved countless lives and untold suffering?

Yet you want cannabis legalized. Another poisonous carceogenic.

You reach for nonsense excuses like ‘you don’t have to smoke it, it can be ingested’.
But the vast vast majority of users smoke it.

The drug loads rule when it comes to propaganda. It is deeply embedded in youth culture.

Where did I say I want anything banned? I'm arguing that the safety of a drug has no relation to it's legal status (although to be fair, I'm not sure whether or not you've ever disagrees with this). Anyway, in order to prove this, I have to show evidence showing legal drugs ranked more dangerous that legal ones. Seeing as alcohol and tobacco are the legal and dangerous ones, it makes sense to use these as examples of my point, does it not?

So the questions I have for you are:
1 - Do you agree that drug legality has no relation to drug safety?
2 - If something is proven to be unhealthy, should it be banned? And on what grounds?

VinLieger

Deusexmachina wrote: »

How is this 'consuming' typically done?

Does it matter when it is by ones self endangering nobody else versus all of your analogies involved endangering others being the main factor why they are not allowed, your analogies were absolutely and completely wrong

Deusexmachina

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Where did I say I want anything banned? I'm arguing that the safety of a drug has no relation to it's legal status (although to be fair, I'm not sure whether or not you've ever disagrees with this). Anyway, in order to prove this, I have to show evidence showing legal drugs ranked more dangerous that legal ones. Seeing as alcohol and tobacco are the legal and dangerous ones, it makes sense to use these as examples of my point, does it not?

So the questions I have for you are:
1 - Do you agree that drug legality has no relation to drug safety?
2 - If something is proven to be unhealthy, should it be banned? And on what grounds?

These are very broad questions you are asking. I’ll do my best.

1. The only way I can honestly answer this is to say there are few dangerous substances in their own right. What’s dangerous is how they are used.

Alcohol is only dangerous if it is abused. Tobacco is dangerous if it is smoked (or for the pedants - chewed). There are prescription drugs that are great if used correctly but deadly if abused
Cannabis has curative value in some instances but is cargeogenic if smoked with tobacco (which is generally how it is used).
I find it incredible how many people will stoutly defend the use of cannabis and yet would (I imagine) hardly take up the cause of British American Tobacco and support their campaign to bring smoking to the natives of Papua New Guinea etc!
My point is that Cannabis is a nasty drug. It’s abuse causes cancer and it can have significant impact on mental health and can cause psychological damage.
Why are so many people so adamant that smoking this Shyte is some form of basic human right??

2. Yes. Some things that are unhealthy should be banned. This is common sense.
Examples - Substances that cause damage to our health (I would ban cigarettes gradually over a period of say 10 years - this will eventually happen, I believe). (Alcohol is relatively safe if not abused.)
The drugs trade is horrific, a scourge. I hate it. It is incredibly effective in getting its propaganda message out there. Lots of defenders on here.
How many people do we all know who would hate the behavior of say Trump and his ilk but who will gladly hand over 50 quid to some dealer who works in the most murderous, cruel and evil industry ever known to man.

I do understand your point. Legislation is by its nature cumbersome and the ‘war on drugs’ is not being won.
Does make it a fundamental right to use the stuff ? nor should we throw in the towel.
For every person who tells me how well it works in Amsterdam, I will point out than the sex trade is legal there too. I lived near the red light district for a number of years. The abuse these women take is heartbreaking. Amsterdam is the answer to nothing.

Deusexmachina

VinLieger wrote: »

Does it matter when it is by ones self endangering nobody else versus all of your analogies involved endangering others being the main factor why they are not allowed, your analogies were absolutely and completely wrong

Drug abuse is never a solo endeavor. There are many victims beyond the abuser. It’s a trade in cruelty.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deusexmachina wrote: »

These are very broad questions you are asking. I’ll do my best.

1. The only way I can honestly answer this is to say there are few dangerous substances in their own right. What’s dangerous is how they are used.

Alcohol is only dangerous if it is abused. Tobacco is dangerous if it is smoked (or for the pedants - chewed). There are prescription drugs that are great if used correctly but deadly if abused
Cannabis has curative value in some instances but is cargeogenic if smoked with tobacco (which is generally how it is used).
I find it incredible how many people will stoutly defend the use of cannabis and yet would (I imagine) hardly take up the cause of British American Tobacco and support their campaign to bring smoking to the natives of Papua New Guinea etc!
My point is that Cannabis is a nasty drug. It’s abuse causes cancer and it can have significant impact on mental health and can cause psychological damage.
Why are so many people so adamant that smoking this Shyte is some form of basic human right??

This argument could be used to ban alcohol. Would you be in favour of prohibition?

2. Yes. Some things that are unhealthy should be banned. This is common sense.
Examples - Substances that cause damage to our health (I would ban cigarettes gradually over a period of say 10 years - this will eventually happen, I believe). (Alcohol is relatively safe if not abused.)
The drugs trade is horrific, a scourge. I hate it. It is incredibly effective in getting its propaganda message out there. Lots of defenders on here.
How many people do we all know who would hate the behavior of say Trump and his ilk but who will gladly hand over 50 quid to some dealer who works in the most murderous, cruel and evil industry ever known to man.

So, how about sugar, alcohol and fast food?

---


There are two key differences here:
1 - You are nowhere near as informed about drug usage and properties as you think you are. Case in point, you think cannabis is a nasty drug. You refuse to accept that it's actually a drug that has BEEN PROVEN TO HAVE a lot of medical and palliative benefits. This is further hightlighed by your continued reluctance to deal with the issue of drug legalisation and dangers being proven to be skewed.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/320984.php

2 - You seem to be in favour of a nanny state approach: I'm of the opinion that, if a person wants to use them even though they can be harmful to their health, so be it - as long as they keep it to themselves.

If your argument would be consistent, you'd be banning legal substances that are far more dangerous than cannabis, yet you refuse to acknowlege this.

Agent Coulson

Just legalise everything Leitrim and let them all move up there and do the drug of choice there.

Put up a hard border around the County and only entry and exist allowed with an official State drug passport.


Then turn Leitrim into a tourist attraction for those who want to see what happens when you legalise everything.

wexie

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Then turn Leitrim into a tourist attraction for those who want to see what happens when you legalise everything.

Why would anyone go to Leitrim for that if they could go to Portugal?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

wexie wrote: »

Why would anyone go to Leitrim for that if they could go to Portugal?

Weather.

wexie

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Weather.

oh....I guess.....

And the food and the women....cause both are just infinitely better in Leitrim than that kip Portugal

Deusexmachina

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

This argument could be used to ban alcohol. Would you be in favour of prohibition?



So, how about sugar, alcohol and fast food?

---


There are two key differences here:
1 - You are nowhere near as informed about drug usage and properties as you think you are. Case in point, you think cannabis is a nasty drug. You refuse to accept that it's actually a drug that has BEEN PROVEN TO HAVE a lot of medical and palliative benefits. This is further hightlighed by your continued reluctance to deal with the issue of drug legalisation and dangers being proven to be skewed.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/320984.php

2 - You seem to be in favour of a nanny state approach: I'm of the opinion that, if a person wants to use them even though they can be harmful to their health, so be it - as long as they keep it to themselves.

If your argument would be consistent, you'd be banning legal substances that are far more dangerous than cannabis, yet you refuse to acknowlege this.

For someone who spends half her life on Boards , your debating style is primarily made up of inane questions (‘whataboutery’) and feeble putdowns.

Neither interesting or enlightening. Good luck.

wexie

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Neither interesting or enlightening. Good luck.

If it's enlightenment you seek perhaps you should try a nice spliff

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deusexmachina wrote: »

For someone who spends half her life on Boards , your debating style is primarily made up of inane questions (‘whataboutery’) and feeble putdowns.

Neither interesting or enlightening. Good luck.

So you finally opt for petty insults instead of taking one last chance to examine the evidence that proves that your judgment about the safety of drugs is skewed and that your knowledge about cannabis is ill-informed

Pigeon, meet chessboard; good night.

Sam Quentin

Can someone tell me who changed the topic/title of my thread(this thread)and why!?
Now all be I have forgotten what title I actually gave this thread???? But that's not the point,.. My threads are of good humour but have serious overall content.. It's my way of not being a cúnt but getting my feelings/views across..
So yes I was disappointed with this WHAT I use to consider 'hero' when he spoke about legalising DRUGS... Dont come back with this utter bullshít about a 'wee' bit of hash is no harm blah blah blah.. Mention a 'wee' bit of hash/smoke if your a twit and don't understand my thread!?!?

J.pilkington

You are drunk and making no sense, go to bed like a good lad.

Sam Quentin

J.pilkington wrote: »

You are drunk and making no sense, go to bed like a good lad.

Lmao.
This nonsense has been used before.
I'll tell you because you seem like a newbie!?
I work mainly graveyard shift, I'm not a drinker and usually dont hit da hay until early morning... Ok hi..
I'll give you 'the fools pardon' for now

J.pilkington

Sam Quentin wrote: »

Lmao.
This nonsense has been used before.
I'll tell you because you seem like a newbie!?
I work mainly graveyard shift, I'm not a drinker and usually dont hit da hay until early morning... Ok hi..
I'll give you 'the fools pardon' for now

It doesn’t change the fact that your post read like it was written by a very drunk person, very tough on the eyes and hard to understand.

Try make more of an effort at constructing legible sentences and maybe more “newbies” would partake in you private thread / club.

Also signing off from a nightshift.

The Bishop Basher

Sam Quentin wrote: »

Dont come back with this utter bullshít about a 'wee' bit of hash is no harm blah blah blah.. Mention a 'wee' bit of hash/smoke if your a twit and don't understand my thread!?!?

Why did you start a thread if you're going to try and control the opinions that we can offer

Oh and in case i forget, a wee bit of hash really is no harm..

Sounds like you could do with a vape just now tbh..

You seem a little angry. It would calm you down and help you sleep :pac:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Sam Quentin wrote: »

Can someone tell me who changed the topic/title of my thread(this thread)and why!?
Now all be I have forgotten what title I actually gave this thread???? But that's not the point,.. My threads are of good humour but have serious overall content.. It's my way of not being a cúnt but getting my feelings/views across..
So yes I was disappointed with this WHAT I use to consider 'hero' when he spoke about legalising DRUGS... Dont come back with this utter bullshít about a 'wee' bit of hash is no harm blah blah blah.. Mention a 'wee' bit of hash/smoke if your a twit and don't understand my thread!?!?

Your opening post was a bit vague, to be honest and repeated attempts to establish why you were disappointed went unanswered. Nor did you explain why you saw him as a hero. If you'd included the last paragraph of this post in your opening post, it would have helped a lot.

I'm still unclear as to what you mean by 'drugs'. Which drugs? All drugs? Dangerous drugs (and if so, on what grounds are the dangerous)? Illegal drugs (in which case decriminalising them would surely be seen as a solution - people won't be taking 'illegal' drugs then?)

It's been repeatedly proven (and repeatedly conveniently ignored by other posters) that there is no correlation between a drug's safety standing and it's legal status. How do you react to this?

Sam Quentin

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Your opening post was a bit vague, to be honest and repeated attempts to establish why you were disappointed went unanswered. Nor did you explain why you saw him as a hero. If you'd included the last paragraph of this post in your opening post, it would have helped a lot.

I'm still unclear as to what you mean by 'drugs'. Which drugs? All drugs? Dangerous drugs (and if so, on what grounds are the dangerous)? Illegal drugs (in which case decriminalising them would surely be seen as a solution - people won't be taking 'illegal' drugs then?)

It's been repeatedly proven (and repeatedly conveniently ignored by other posters) that there is no correlation between a drug's safety standing and it's legal status. How do you react to this?

I'll try and make it simple with 2 very easily understandable points.

1: Why would you make it easier for people to be out of their heads?
2: The illegal drug producers would just invent and supply 'better' drugs than what the government deem legal and the doses will be more potent in the new illegal drugs that will no doubt become available on the streets.

wexie

Sam Quentin wrote: »

I'll try and make it simple with 2 very easily understandable points.

2: The illegal drug producers would just invent and supply 'better' drugs than what the government deem legal and the doses will be more potent in the new illegal drugs that will no doubt become available on the streets.

If they were able to do that how come they're not already doing it?

How do you imagine that conversation going?

chemist : hey lads, I can make this new and awesome drug and you'll be able to sell it and increase your profits!!!

drug dealer : nah.....we're good, business is fine, let's not overstretch ourselves

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Sam Quentin wrote: »

I'll try and make it simple with 2 very easily understandable points.

1: Why would you make it easier for people to be out of their heads?
2: The illegal drug producers would just invent and supply 'better' drugs than what the government deem legal and the doses will be more potent in the new illegal drugs that will no doubt become available on the streets.

You didn't answer either of my questions, and while the first of these is a strawman argument, the second is a slippery slope fallacy.

Ken.

Mod-I changed it. Not feeling even a little bit guilty.

Original title was this click bait -So Disappointing!?

wexie

Putinbot wrote: »

Mod-I changed it. Not feeling even a little bit guilty.

Original title was this click bait -So Disappointing!?

I thought you guys weren't allowed a sense of humour?

Or is that just the admins?

hatrickpatrick

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

No idea what you're disappointed about, either - Egypt's world cup results, possibly?

You're really not funny, you know that? Some of us lost a fiver in a sweepstakes because of those feckers :mad:

Sam Quentin

Putinbot wrote: »

Mod-I changed it. Not feeling even a little bit guilty.

Original title was this click bait -So Disappointing!?

I can't believe you dont feel guilty!?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Sam Quentin wrote: »

I can't believe you dont feel guilty!?

Disappointing week all round, eh Sam?