• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: swilow | Vagabond696

Who should be allowed to use drugs?

Who should be allowed to eat? Who should be allowed to drive? Who should be allowed to procreate?
 
And the first - meaning, who should be allowed to use drugs? Is that not a Pandora's box? That's what I was getting at, slowly increasing the subjectivity with each suggestion.
 
Open slather won't reduce harm either. Only a small percentage of users get into trouble but if you open the borders then that small percentage still represents a greater number.

If availability and purity were the only two things stopping people getting into trouble with drugs why are there so many rehab centres for the rich and powerful?
 
^ are you saying the rich and powerful only score pure products? Well maybe the informed ones do, but I'm sure there's plenty that have no idea.

Miley Cyrus eats 'molly' and lil Wayne od's on codeine. :/

These people need to be educated in what their taking, not just told 'no', that's HR.
 
Last edited:
I don't know what circles you have traveled in but I have known people over the years who had no need to work for the rest of their life and did have a steady supply of high quality DOC. They are not immune to the health consequences, the paranoia, the mood swings or any other manner of trouble that comes with drug addiction. Unfortunately neither were their family.

HR rule number one should always be do not get addicted. Increasing the purity and availability will not solve this problem and arguing that it will is short sighted.
 
^ that seems like a dick-sizing post to me busty.

I don't care who you roll with.

I never said the rich and powerful where immune to these consequences. Just that some of them are as clueless as the next bloke. Educate them and they won't be.
 
How is it dick sizing exactly? I'm sorry my friends aren't all on the dole. It is easy if you are a poor addict to dream that all your problems would be answered if you had a steady supply of your drug of choice. I am telling you that your problems don't disappear just because you don't have to worry where the money for your next hit is coming from. In fact I would argue it makes things worse when all you need to do is wear a suit three times a year and vote in a meeting on a board for a pay check.
 
Steady supply seems fine to me, but only if the person acquiring it has been fully educated on the consequences.

I know problems don't disappear with a constant supply of your DOC from experience.

Your looking at one aspect of this scenario, supply. I actually think there's more to it than that.
 
Educate how? If sitting in a lecture was all it takes you wouldn't need exams. If ad campaigns were truly successful no one would smoke. People are idiots and will harm themselves despite all the warnings or licenses on the planet.
 
One Thousand Words said:
People are idiots and will harm themselves despite all the warnings or licenses on the planet.
Click to expand...


It's the same with anything in life, driving, smoking, drinking. There's idiots everywhere, doesent mean they should spoil what helps me get through.

What seems idiotic to me is someone telling me what I can, and can't, put in my body. While it's fine for joe blow to get wasted drunk.
 
If you don't see how education reduces harm, you're more a fool than your posts would indicate.
"Education" comes under many guises. Most people understand this; it's not about being preached to - this has obviously failed in the past. Welcome to now. This site does many things - one of them being education of 'taboo' or touchy (but vitally important) subjects. Nancy Reagan might have shaped your youth but she doesn't mean shit to me.
Post your opinions all you like ("HR rule number one should always be do not get addicted"). They're simply that; opinions.
This is your particularly slanted view of the idea. It doesn't ring true for everyone - I've known some caffeine addicts to live past 100.

Anyway, this has gone far off topic, your loaded question has been well and truly answered, and far be it for me to say this thread has had its day - one thing seems clear; you live in a fantasy world and have no concept of the people outside your blanketed existence (except maybe to look down your nose at them) and your opinions about harm reduction are so out of touch as to be completely redundant.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I didn't say it doesn't reduce harm I simply asked how you expect to educate the masses, and if you do how will you ensure they have learned anything?

My opinions are so out of touch that I still use drugs, am still alive, and not an addict. Which is more than can be said for the majority of people who have modded AusDD in the last 5 yr
 
So that's all that counts.

'I use drugs, I'm not addicted.'

Well done busty, you deserve a pat on the back for fulfilling YOUR dream.
 
I still use drugs, I'm still alive, I'm not addicted.
Can only speak for myself, but do I pass your piddly test?
Nice try.
 
That's great spacejunk, like it or not it won't be functioning addicts who change societies perspective on drug use rather people like you and I. If you want true change you need to lead by example. The only thing sadder than those addicted to drugs are those who gave them up completely and turned their back on the scene. They are often the ones who bleet the loudest in opposition when it comes to reform.
 
Don't lump us together, please.
I for one want reform. You argue against it (case in point; this thread).

It will be smart, empathetic people with political nous who are able to lead us to a better future.
I see none of these qualities in you, sir.
 
So now your saying the stuff you post here isn't serious?

It's not the real you?

Don't bother posting here if it's just to stir shit.

You talk of a free society, but still demand people don't get addicted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top