• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Shambles

If you could only take 1 drug for the rest of your life what would it be?

Oh the good old days with the really good stuff ;)
SummerSerenade said:
If it was free and always top quality then cocaine.

If not then alcohol. Not even for getting drunk, I just love the taste of it and of course it's the easiest drug to obtain plus the only one that's really socially acceptable.
Click to expand...
 
Eveleivibe said:
No disrespect but I don't think making it as dull as possible ie no advertising, repercussions etc is gna disinterest people.
Click to expand...

Didn't say the lack of advertising and branding and stuff would prevent people from using drugs - just that it will help limit the appeal to some. Same way plain-packaged cigs (combined with plenty of education and so forth) is helping to drastically cut tobacco smoking in countries where it's been brought in. It's a very complex issue and no one single factor is a magic bullet. That's the type of thinking that got us in the mess we're in now - ban it all, lock up dealers and users, propagandise the public and it will all just go away. Just like alcohol prohibition definitely didn't more or less create the organised crime structures in America that switched over to other drugs that became illegal once the government gave in on bannning booze.

You can't stop people using and selling drugs. It's impossible. Supply and demand and all that. Limit the supply to increase the demand and inflate the prices and then make sure that all those billions - trillions - go straight into the pocket of assorted mafias, corrupt regimes and terrorist/freedom fighter folk (depending on point of view) to spend on building private armies, buying off politicians and judges and generally handing all control to mostly fairly unsavoury characters. You couldn't make it up as satire it's so deranged a policy.
 
parttime crackhead said:
There's nothing wrong with taking drugs. Some of you seem to be looking at the legalisation thing as if taking drugs is in itself a bad thing. It isn't. I don't know why you would want to "disinterest people"
Click to expand...

Cos that's the only conceivable way any government would even dream of trying to bring in legalisation. Drugs are great but they do have a few drawbacks at times. People that really want them won't care that it comes in plain packing with no stupid brand names but people that have more of a herd mentality buy stuff cos they like the ads that tell them this thing is kewler than that thing. It's not disinteresting, it's just not encouraging.
 
parttime crackhead said:
There's nothing wrong with taking drugs. Some of you seem to be looking at the legalisation thing as if taking drugs is in itself a bad thing. It isn't. I don't know why you would want to "disinterest people".

Drugs are good. Just say yes.
Click to expand...

You've a good point actually - why disinterest people? Drugs can be good if used correctly. For instance, to enhance an experience.

Lol @ just say yes!

Evey
 
Obviously on a drug forum there's a lotta sympathy for the Just Say Yes!!! campaign. Gonna be a hard sell to those that actually get to decide on such matters framed that way though. Drugs used sensibly by people who have been properly educated on the potential risks and the potential benefits and everything else relevant and factually accurate about them are no bad thing at all in my book. There's no getting away from the fact that there will always be people that get into trouble of one kind or another whether they're legal or illegal though. The taxpayer will save a fortune in a world of legalised drugs but would still be picking up the tab for folk who OD or damage their bodies (or indeed other people's bodies unfortunately). One of the main arguments for legalisation is on HR grounds - HR for the individual yes but mainly for the wider society. After decades of bullshit and propaganda some concessions to those who currently object to tobacco and alcohol marketing and the like as they are known to be potentially risky choices is a small thing in the grand scheme. And I happen to think the no-marketing stuff should apply to booze and fags too.
 
Gotta be some decent quality Heroin seeing as I'm addicted to the stuff but yeah, can't imagine not having another blurt again....that feeling as the plunger reaches the bottom of the pin and the last of the lovely brown solution disappears into your vein....lovely!
 
Shambles said:
Obviously on a drug forum there's a lotta sympathy for the Just Say Yes!!! campaign. Gonna be a hard sell to those that actually get to decide on such matters framed that way though. Drugs used sensibly by people who have been properly educated on the potential risks and the potential benefits and everything else relevant and factually accurate about them are no bad thing at all in my book. There's no getting away from the fact that there will always be people that get into trouble of one kind or another whether they're legal or illegal though. The taxpayer will save a fortune in a world of legalised drugs but would still be picking up the tab for folk who OD or damage their bodies (or indeed other people's bodies unfortunately). One of the main arguments for legalisation is on HR grounds - HR for the individual yes but mainly for the wider society. After decades of bullshit and propaganda some concessions to those who currently object to tobacco and alcohol marketing and the like as they are known to be potentially risky choices is a small thing in the grand scheme. And I happen to think the no-marketing stuff should apply to booze and fags too.
Click to expand...

I've never understood that (well I do, money) why they keep fags n alcohol yet frown upon illicit drugs. Fags are known to cause lung cancer and well we know about booze; violence etc, etc, etc - in my view alcohol is one of the worst drugs (she says, drinking stella cider, spelt cidre) yet it's legal and other drugs that are less harmful are ILLEGAL.

Ahhhhhh I'm drinking n killing off more braincells plus I've taken a few extra subs so not very good at this at mo lol but hay ho ya get the drift LOL

Evey
 
Eveleivibe said:
I've never understood that (well I do, money) why they keep fags n alcohol yet frown upon illicit drugs. Fags are known to cause lung cancer and well we know about booze; violence etc, etc, etc - in my view alcohol is one of the worst drugs (she says, drinking stella cider, spelt cidre) yet it's legal and other drugs that are less harmful are ILLEGAL.
Click to expand...

Tobacco probably avoided banning as it's use was so widespread it'd be a great way to lose an election to try and take it away from people. Plus there's not only the tax but also British owned tobacco companies that can pay to have the law suit them cos half the politician are probably also 'consultants' on the board of 'em. That and they lied through their teeth for years and buried the evidence proving the link with lung cancer for decades. Booze would be much the same story. Snouts in the trough and a guaranteed election-loser to even suggest a ban on it.

The more conspiratorially-minded may also point out that tobacco does nothing to prevent a person from doing their duty earning the money to spend on fags and booze that ends up in the pockets of those who make the laws (and/or their school chums and relatives and that). When it does prevent them from working then you can blame them for being a drain on the state for being so stupid as smoking tobacco and it's a handy excuse to bump the taxes up and up on baccy and pretend it'll be spent on the NHS treatment they now need for the rest of their lives. All pays for itself and is a nice lil earner for drug dealers in suits.

They may also point out that alcohol depresses and numbs people which is just what you need to convince somebody to slog their guts out doing a job they hate to earn money to spend on fags and booze and so forth. Much the same again only has the added bonus of increasing crime (especially violent crime and mindless vandalism and the like) which means you have a handy excuse to keep raising the taxes on it to fund more police to spend their time arresting drunks. Create a problem then arrange it so it appears you're trying to solve it but really you're just going round and round in circles. And keeping the booze lobby happy. And profiting - directly or indirectly - from it too, Plus now you have fuckloads of police in case people get all worked up about illegal wars or poll taxes or whatever happens to be the thing you're wanting to inflict on those people who you'd rather weren't too close but glad there's plenty of 'em and most at least semi-addicted to booze and/or fags cos it does work out quite handy one way and another.

Other drugs became illegal for various reasons. Most of the 'street' drugs were banned worldwide cos America said so cos they didn't like the way that those ghastly ethnic types preferred to smoke a bit of weed that grew wild and didn't bring in any taxes, or they liked to smoke opium to escape from the brutal reality of being considered little better (actually usually worse) than animals who you could get to do really the really hard, really shitty jobs for next to no wages, or those folks who sniffed a bit of cocaine cos they actually were more or less still slaves and cocaine was cheap and legal and meant you could get through the day.

And as for psychedelics... those fellas really do scare the people who generally make laws. Look what happened when they became prevalent? People started protesting against wars and racism and sexism and homophobia and generally started to spot that life doesn't have to be as crappy as it often is. They cause people to have ideas. Often bloody stupid ideas for sure, not always so stupid though and that's a risk too far.

I'd probably best leave it there but you get the idea.
 
I'm so good at it they gave me a special cap

article-2508371-1973B96400000578-516_634x424.jpg
 
unlike you shambles my manhood actually sees some proper use, so i cant risk being a brainless fool and sticking a pin into it, but as you seem so interested - nah, not injecting anything anywhere atm. big bulging fellas all over my arms again should i want to though


keep creeping to them girls man, youll find one mentally disturbed/visually impaired enough to give you a pity shag some day, im almost sure of it
 
BlindHelperMonkey said:
keep creeping to them girls man, youll find one mentally disturbed/visually impaired enough to give you a pity shag some day, im almost sure of it
Click to expand...

If you mean me then he was hardly creeping. He was just (rightly) correcting you as you appear to be somewhat confused. I do not know any IV drug users - therefore, how can all the folk I encounter end up fucked? I am the naïve 19 year old who is trying to learn more about IV drug use through intelligent discussion with those experienced with such matters. Shambles is one of the aforementioned experienced parties who has taken the time to write some extremely useful and interesting posts over the last few days addressing my questions. Which I am very grateful for.

Give me some of what you're on though BHM, seems to be some strong stuff. On second thoughts, maybe not as it seems to take away basic reading comprehension and makes you act like a cunt to random people on the interwebs. And I'm enough of a cunt as it is ;) Or so I've heard.
 
BlindHelperMonkey said:
unlike you shambles my manhood actually sees some proper use, so i cant risk being a brainless fool and sticking a pin into it, but as you seem so interested - nah, not injecting anything anywhere atm. big bulging fellas all over my arms again should i want to though


keep creeping to them girls man, youll find one mentally disturbed/visually impaired enough to give you a pity shag some day, im almost sure of it
Click to expand...

That last bit is really quite revealing about you, Monkeyman. Y'know it would never have struck me as a viable tactic for gaining those oh so precious pity shags of yours to try the "fairly lengthy forum posts about why deliberately addicting yourself to drugs and needles and stuff interspersed with tangential rambles about whatever happens to be dredged up by another post with the occasional bit of rather dry reminders of rules" approach. Such an obvious thing now you point it out.

Also rather revealing is how your eternal comeback for more or less anything is to claim to have had sex. Possibly even with somebody else. Possibly even with them conscious. Maybe even with some form of consent. Y'know that thing about ladies protesting too much? If you honestly think that the fact that as a middle aged man you sometimes have sex is a crushing put-down I can only presume you've not even quite managed it even with the help of rohypnol, blunt instruments or a spade to dig up a fresh(ish) one.

Did you ever reach the end of puberty?

Aside from all the obvious self-loathing and feelings of inadequacy that every post you have ever contributed (and thanks for each and every one <3) to this forum simply reek of, and the sheer desperation that people will not notice you're a bit dense cos you chuck in ludicrously out of place (but 'big' and 'clever) words in at the level that only those who are very sure they are indeed a bit dense ever do, I can only presume it's your winning personality and friendly, open demeanour that all these women flock to your cock to worship at your magnificence for.

Alternatively, you might just be an angry man who's probably a bit dead inside. If you were half the man you try to present yourself as (however misguidedly) you would have no need of being such an isufferable bellend would you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top