The EADD I'm Fucked Megathread - We don't even know what month it is...

[Shambles]

Drug use among adolescents (13-15 yrs) and "problematic" users declined

I think this is perhaps the most important figure to bear in mind. If young people are less likely to start taking drugs in the first place that helps drug-related issues across the board. It makes sense that young people could be put off from trying drugs in the first place too. Partially due to the legality argument already made (less romance and thrill associated with acquiring drugs from legal sources than doing all that kewl cloak and daggers stuff and the feeling of being a bit special cos you can score such and such and none of your friends have the contacts and all that kinda stuff - the thrill of naughtiness really does appeal when young especially). In large part I suspect also due to greater education (which I believe is part of the Portuguese approach - it's not just legal drugs without context or support services also being beefed up).

It will be interesting to see how the figures settle and find their own level over the years. I'm pretty sure there is a natural level for those who will opt to take drugs and that that level is not hugely affected by legal status. I don't doubt for a second there are some people for whom legal status is enough of a concern that it prevents them from using even though they may wish to but I suspect that is a very low number compared to the population as a whole. As is currently the case, lots of people will try drugs for lots of reasons, most will probably stop using drugs at some stage for an equally large number of reasons. Even where it mentions usage doubling of certain drugs look at the percentages - ~1% of the population. That's hardly a landslide. Some of those will continue to use, some will lose interest, some will develop problems with use, some never will. All will be better off for having the criminality removed from the equation and the other 90-99% of the population will be better off too in terms of reduction in crime (both acquisitive and violence associated with illegal drug dealing) and of not having their friends and relatives locked up for what is a victimless crime (certainly in the case of possession, more arguably in the case of low-level supply (assuming no violence, of course)).

It's a win:win. I can't see how it could be anything other than a win:win. And I further think that as the changes bed in and drugs start to lose all their previous associations with criminality and the glamour that comes with it (which it does even if often rather misplaced notions of glamour) that drug problems will become less and less of a problem. Will be just another part of life that has certain known risks and rewards associated with it that people can see for themselves and behave accordingly.

 

[alasdairm]

I'm not spending my hard earnt money on chemical-infested white shite.

so buy some that's not non chemical-infested? good white port contains no more chemicals than any other port...

alasdair

 

[Urbain]

I don't like it either sammy, I'm doing this for its medical benefits, not as some sort of way to salvage a trip gone bad.

Medical benefits? Come on man, you put yourself in this situation.

Jesus, the sheer idiocy of some people.

 

[THECATINTHEHAT]

Raas, drugs are widely available and becoming more so all the time, if they're available from a shady guy or a chemist whats the difference? Other than you can guarantee what exactly you're getting..!

Getting your drugs from a pharmacy is no guaruntee, counterfeits regularly find their way in to the supply chain.

 

[Shambles]

No guarantee but still better than funding criminals. It's arguable whether or not Big Pharma count as criminals admittedly. I'd still say best licensed and regulated than left to whoever has the biggest gun though.

 

[ColtDan]

Funky combo tonight, lovely

 

[THECATINTHEHAT]

No guarantee but still better than funding criminals. It's arguable whether or not Big Pharma count as criminals admittedly. I'd still say best licensed and regulated than left to whoever has the biggest gun though.

For sure, I just felt like putting my pedant hat on though.

 

[maxalfie]

I'm so full of pills today that i rattle when i walk. Unfortunately not one of them has any buzz to go with it. So i'm fucked, fucked off

 

[Raasyvibe]

Really?!? Do please explain. I'd be fascinated to hear why it would be an improvement to have drugs made equally as available as they would be if fully legalised but rather than being a regulated industry the supply is left completely to existing criminal networks.



Cos heroin and crack are really hard to get hold of at the moment aren't they. Availability has gone up since prohibition, cost has gone down since prohibition. The current situation has clearly not done what you think it somehow will do in future if things stay the same. Do you not see this is a rather bizarre argument? If drugs of addiction were legal I'm sure there would be a blip in addiction rates - perhaps even quite a big one - but much as with alcohol people could be treated for their addictions and - more to the point - society would learn that if you abuse them you will be addicted, that addiction is nothing to be ashamed of, and that addiction can be successfully treated in every case. Not saying it is successfully treated in every case but anybody can beat an addiction given the appropriate treatment and support. This would be much, much easier to do without the criminalising of addicts. There'd also be a helluva lot more money available to fund treatment when vast amounts aren't being wasted putting fingers in dykes and instead tax is being paid - profits go to boost government coffers (which helps all of society out - at least it does in theory) rather than going straight into the pockets of criminals as is currently the case.

Some people will always be addicts cos it's not availability of something that makes people become addicted to it - the reasons are far more complex than that. When something is illegal it puts barriers in the way of seeking help. Some will try to hide their addiction - perhaps fear of losing a job, or alienating friends and family, simple shame because there is additional factors simply because it's an illegal substance. In my experience, people can deal with a relative who develops an alcohol problem - it's seen as a medical issue which can be treated and the person given suitable support to help them deal with their issues. Many people who are addicted to, say, heroin or crack will be disowned by their families when they admit to their problem. I've known plenty who've been chucked out onto the street for "bringing shame" on their family. That happens because it is illegal - it would happen a lot less if all addictions were treated similarly in terms of being a medical issue not a criminal matter.

I do take your point about it being harder to quit something when it is all around you. However, how many ex-alcoholics are there out there? How many ex-smokers? Ex-gamblers? People can beat addictions even when temptation is everywhere. There's no getting away from drugs anyway - they are everywhere in every city, town and even village in the country. Anybody who wants to find them will find them so legality makes a slight difference at best. A minor irritation rather than an absolute barrier which you appear to think may be the case for some reason. I moved town - moved to another country actually - to get away from where the majority of my addiction happened. I could hop on a train and have a bag in my hand within an hour even though I know not one dealer. I choose not to though. That's what beating an addiction means - you choose not to, you are not prevented from having the choice cos that just isn't practical and would not work. You can't beat an addiction by force, you have to choose.



Because... ? As Matt points out, the real risk with LSD is being sold something else that isn't LSD. LSD itself is an incredibly safe drug - certainly physically safe even in the most extreme "OD" situation, I'd also argue it's safe for the vast majority of people as long as proper information and advice were widely available. You seem to have some very strange ideas about LSD - what is it about it that concerns you so much over and above other psychedelics?



Actually it would decrease a hundred fold and everybody in the world would spontaneously be cured of all ills and there'd be world peace and free chocolate for everybody. See - I can make stuff up off the top of my head too



And that is relevant how...? And you know this to be the case from...? All drug combinations are considerably more dangerous or is it maybe just that dangerous drug combinations are dangerous? How does prohibition prevent them from being dangerous? How does prohibition prevent people from combining drugs whether dangerously or otherwise?

Again, all your arguments argue for legalisation. Everything you've brought up is a problem either caused by or greatly exacerbated by prohibition. You're batting for the wrong team, old bean

fucksake, I'm not reading all that...

If you can't see why making crack and heroin legal would be problematic, then we'll have to end it here.






Now for some lovely pictures of my latest outdoor adventures:




Here's me out adventuring

[/IMG]










Well I had to climb it! Because it's there... ~Raas

And here's me in action. What a cute bum.

And here's me, heroically leaping to a piece of rock to grasp on to just before I smacked my face on the surface and fell a long way to the ground

NSFW:

 

[plmar]

Feeling just a -little- bit decent off the FA. A bit of jaw tension and music sounds quite good atm. Nice stuff this.

Goodmorning to all of you.

 

[Eveleivibe]

Better to purchase drugs from pharmacy, in my opinion as more chance of them being pure- rather than half the kitchen sink being put in them. Less crime etc. why should these drug dealers get away with it. Think drugs should be legalised so people are safer as people are going to do drugs anyway but I hate these people who take advantage of vulnerable people in addiction n so forth.

Evey

 

[rickolasnice]

raas loses a debate.. again

Where is that raas?

Video of how your face changes in different lights.. Very trippy:
http://pixelbark.com/8664/how-your-face-changes-in-different-lighting

 

[yoyo50]

500mg pv came yessssss, pornhub time?

 

[ColtDan]

Video of how your face changes in different lights.. Very trippy:
http://pixelbark.com/8664/how-your-face-changes-in-different-lighting

Wicked!!

 

[Shambles]

If you can't see why making crack and heroin legal would be problematic, then we'll have to end it here.

This is the trouble with not reading what you're responding too - I didn't ever say that legalised drugs would not be problematic. I'm saying those problems would be more easily tackled and almost certainly (in my view) would become less problematic over time. But seeing as you're not playing anymore we'll leave it at that. I have to say I don't think you actually presented any argument against legalisation - just about everything you brought up was an argument for legalisation even if you couldn't quite see it yourself.

That aside, aren't you just the action man

I'm impressed. Well, unless you've cropped the ground out to make it look decidedly more daring than it is but even then you probably wouldn't catch me all of six feet off the ground clinging to a rock so am impressed all the same. Very nice bit o' rock is that. Imposing and impressive - where abouts is that?

Video of how your face changes in different lights.. Very trippy:
http://pixelbark.com/8664/how-your-face-changes-in-different-lighting

It actually is too. Faces often look very much like that when I'm tripping. Very similar indeed in fact.

Lighting does make huge differences to how a person looks - it's why Hollywood starlets like to befriend the lighting man

 

[Uncle Robert]

raas loses a debate.. again

Where is that raas?

Video of how your face changes in different lights.. Very trippy:
http://pixelbark.com/8664/how-your-face-changes-in-different-lighting

Wow that is uncannily how things can look on acid. Cool vid.

 

[eLW]

Fucked up on tramadol and valium. Feels like shit

 

[Rio Fantastic]

When i mentioned this i was expecting everyone to say "yeeeah we know!"

This is all I know *snip*

Sorry but that text links directly back to a vendor and we can't be linking to vendors even if their product is shonky unless an exception has been made for them at more senior level than I. Vendors en masse are not all that reliable and do make mistakes and do churn out bad batches. Such is the nature of RCs unfortunately. The reasons for not allowing naming and shaming should be clear to all but just to reaffirm - it's largely because it's not something that can be confirmed by BL as a site and is also something that can be abused by disgruntled customers, competing vendors and the like. There is an issue where it rubs up against HR but it's not something that has ever been allowed on BL other than in very exceptional circumstances hence *snip*'d.

(apologies for lengthy edit reason but just wanted to clarify - especially as we have a new(ish) member amongst us)

As you were...

edit - in the name of HR... its the place that sounds like if you put a belt round a little tree...

Wow. So you get reprimanded for naming a vendor and then instead of correcting yourself or apologizing you still insist on directing people to it, you little weasel?*snip*

 

[Shambles]

Actually that would be my mistake. That edit was there when I *snip*'d the rest of it I think. That would be me not being on the ball not bummer trying to skirt the rules.

*slaps own wrists*

Apologies to all for any misunderstanding

PS: At the risk of making things worse, I'm gonna have to edit part of your response too as it's more than a little personal. I'll give you a lil while to see this and amend it yourself given it was my fuck-up that lit the fuse on your comment and this reference to it will disappear along with the personal attack.

PPS: Given other posts of similar nature in Gibberings I edited for you. Any more like that and it's an infraction. No personal attacks.

 

[Rio Fantastic]

Actually that would be my mistake. That edit was there when I *snip*'d the rest of it I think. That would be me not being on the ball not bummer trying to skirt the rules.

*slaps own wrists*

Apologies to all for any misunderstanding

PS: At the risk of making things worse, I'm gonna have to edit part of your response too as it's more than a little personal. I'll give you a lil while to see this and amend it yourself given it was my fuck-up that lit the fuse on your comment and this reference to it will disappear along with the personal attack.

PPS: Given other posts of similar nature in Gibberings I edited for you. Any more like that and it's an infraction. No personal attacks.

Are we not allowed to state opinions on other members of the forum that we dislike? My posts were hardly inflammatory, I didn't cuss the guy out, I merely stated what I disliked about his posts, the "personal attacks" wouldn't offend a five year old, let alone an adult.