jump to last post 1-15 of 15 discussions (85 posts)

Are you pro-drugs?

  1. profile image61
    undiluted truthposted 5 years ago

    If you are: 
    -You support the legalisation of drugs, don't make any distinction between this and the term "decriminalisation".  You support doing whatever you want for yourself with no concern for how it may affect any-one else.  You get angry when people try to point out well known facts about the real dangers of drug use and won't accept it; instead you support half-baked notions and distorted "truths" from people/companies aiming to try to legitemise themselves or simply take away the penalties or risks involved merely for personal gain without care on the effects on their market.

    -You support a corrupt system and are a danger to a decent society.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image92
      Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That's tellin' em'!  You are talking about prescription drugs too, aren't you?  There's more folks killed with legal drugs than street drugs.  Take a valium or xanax and have a few shots of whiskey and calm down!  lol

      1. profile image61
        undiluted truthposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        that proves my point.  Addicts, pushers, pooers appologgists and their supporters arent trustable!!!

    2. earnestshub profile image86
      earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I've got a theory. You are semi literate, can't spell or think, and want to control others people's lives and moralise about a subject you know zip about. How's that fit?

      1. profile image61
        undiluted truthposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        spelling is less important than kinowing what is said.  If You are "fully" literate it shows that and adherence to laws don't necessarily follow!  And so if you are you're a bad example for the rest of those with an easy life whose parents spoiled them with a silver spoon!!
        2.  Surely to moralise is better than to immoralise.  As for control  - Go live in a country that permits it.  Lets see how this fits.  You feel a sense of power by breaking rules, you need this perhaps due to some kind of inferiority complex or something.  Fits eh!

        1. earnestshub profile image86
          earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No what I said stays. You confirmed it with this post. smile

          1. Absent Friend profile image59
            Absent Friendposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            undiluted truth is right.  What do you know about it?  You only know where you've got to with it so far.  You assume some kind of 'moralised high ground' just because you're on or use or sell or whatever you do with it.  Yet you don't know what is round the next corner even though it goes on!  Don't tell some-one else they know zip when you sound like you didn't have the sense to stay off them in the first place, and don't thus far have the sense or ability to get off them.  You're really stupid if you think you "could get off them if you wanted" that is delusion generated by ego.  Truth is you can't face the fact you want to be free because getting there would be too hard!
            It shows being ignorant of ignorance and its ways is the most wise in situations like this!

            1. earnestshub profile image86
              earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Hey wise guy your opinion is based on less than nothing!

            2. earnestshub profile image86
              earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Make sure you are on solid ground when you make stupid accusations or you could be looking at a lawsuit Einstein.

            3. earnestshub profile image86
              earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Allow me to prognosticate further.

              You are a religious zealot with a chip the size of Europe on both shoulders perhaps?
              I'm not on drugs, nor do I sell them, or try to open a thread that has not been thought through simply because I want to stick my beak in to other people's business and make unfunded accusations. smile

              1. recommend1 profile image72
                recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I don't know why you bother to reply to these loonies Earnest.

                1. earnestshub profile image86
                  earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I get concerned that someone will take them seriously sometimes. smile

                  1. psycheskinner profile image80
                    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    It's catching you know.  Type with gloves....

                  2. Mighty Mom profile image91
                    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    LOL Earnest,
                    I read your response quickly and thought it said "I get concerned that someone will take ME seriously..." lol lol

                    See that? That's exactly how "they" work. "They" get us questioning our own vision and before we know it, everything we thought we knew to be true and unassailable is suspect! lol lol

              2. profile image61
                undiluted truthposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                'tis the business of every-one it affects.  Even little old ladies that lose their pension for some thugs fix.  know any-one???

          2. profile image61
            undiluted truthposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            If you mean I confirmed that your comments aren't worth justifying with a reply -quite correct.  But I seem to take pity on you as you are clearly deluded.  absent friend is spot on!  Well Done that man!!!

            1. earnestshub profile image86
              earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Sure, like I need pity from a judgemental ignoramus like you!
              A legend in your own lunchtime.
              Get over yourself, you look like a jackass coming on all strong about a subject you know nothing about.

              1. profile image61
                undiluted truthposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                You know nothing about me yet you go on as though your some kind of world authority -How much do you know, I wonder?  Beyond the taste, smell, cost, hallucinations you probably have etc.???

            2. psycheskinner profile image80
              psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You are just making your point of view look hostile and irrational with your behavior.

      2. profile image61
        undiluted truthposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        not zip. but this is a goopd alternative to laces, as when these come undone, the chewing gum can get messy -this occurrs in areaS With no or few moralisers where drug crime is high!

    3. smcopywrite profile image79
      smcopywriteposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      there is a difference between what is morally right and criminally wrong. we need to remember that along with the freedoms we have in our country. be careful what you ask for....we shouldnt try and fit our morals into other peoples lives.

      1. profile image61
        undiluted truthposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        are you trying to say breaking a law that causes more crime is somehow morally right.  What is your definitions of morales?  And do you have any?

    4. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Personally I am pro-choice, pro-freedom and believe that you cannot force/coerce people to choose what you want them to choose. They must see it through for themselves and make thier own choices.
      Legal drug use would be, at this point, better than what we have now.

      1. profile image61
        undiluted truthposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        no it wouldn't.  It would permit other crimes by causing apathy and in time lead to worse degredation in society.  Look at The great Holland football sides of the past as a quick, Pop example.  Had they been able to get on with each other, they might have been more willing to train and play for each other which may have brought them more success than they got.

        As for pro freedom.  Many on drugs go out and commit crimes that take away others freedom/s and often severely diminish their perception of their own freedom.
        2.  Freedom is being able to choose not to do something, which is not open to those addicted to drugs!  So, yes.  I'm all for freedom to choose!!!

        1. kirstenblog profile image81
          kirstenblogposted 5 years ago in reply to this



          Can you explain how 'not getting on with each other' is an example of the dangers of drugs as seen in Holland? Or are we using drugs as a general scape goat for everything?


          This is true but, many sober people go out an commit crimes that take away others freedoms too. Likewise, there are people who do drugs like smoking pot who are very very successful in life and never commit any other crimes. My brother for instance is a computer genius. He was head hunted by Microsoft a number of times and eventually became somewhat of a permanent contract worker for them. He has smoked pot with Bill Gates, says Gates got the best stuff, and I have no reason to think he was lying. BTW, his office at Microsoft was AWESOME when I got to visit.

          Freedom is not freedom if there is only one choice, that is being dictated to. You can choose to NOT do this or NOT do it! Yeah, great choices there!
          By the way the person addicted to illegal drugs chose to become addicted to illegal drugs, they didn't spend their entire life that way! They can also choose to go into rehab and kick their addictions, including the life threatening addiction to alcohol which is totally legal.

          I grew up exposed to some drug use, some drug addiction and a whole hell of a lot of alcohol abuse. Alcohol did more damage then anything else. It almost killed my father before I was born (he had to get clean and sober after almost dying and was sober when he had me). My real mom had an addiction to meth, and boy that stuff ruined her. It's been more then 30 years since she last used but I think her emotional/mental problems are still down to her meth use as a young person. My step mom used to drink like a fish, sometimes taking my younger brothers (on my dad's side, mom's side and its all older siblings) and I for long drives, not always on the right side of the road! I remember her going blind and paralyzed in turns once, in retrospect I know that she was probably suffering alcohol poisoning and is lucky to have lived (tho no surprise how she got the cancer she got later on). My dad lost custody of me because of my step mom's drinking. I have seen addiction and am myself very addicted to tobacco (have tried quitting a few times now and will try again, and again if need be, one of these days I will quit and it will stick! LOL). My childhood was a nightmare, I last saw my mom as a child at my 5th birthday party and didn't understand that I would not see her again until I was 17 and didn't know her at all. I lost my dad at 10 because of alcohol addiction and was adopted (that didn't go down very well either, they got divorced and he was paranoid schio and wound up homeless after the divorce, while she got hep C and I ended up in a foster home).

          I used to play the 'what if?' game. What if my real mom had not been addicted to drugs? What if my step mom had not been addicted to alcohol? Both had equally destructive and devastating effects on my life. Well my adopted mom used drugs to numb herself from an abusive childhood of her own. She ran away from home at 10 to escape an abusive religious home but not before the religion taught her to hate herself. Had drugs not been an option I am convinced she still would not have been a suitable mother had she had me at all (the possibility she would have wound up a mental patient in some hospital is a real possibility and I would never have even been born). My step mom? Well she was a very abusive woman when sober, I preferred her drunk in spite of everything simply because she lacked the coordination to beat me up when drunk. It wasn't the many many reports of suspected abuse that finally gave grounds for me to be taken away either. It was the driving around drunk with small kids in the car that tipped the scales in the end. Had she not been addicted to alcohol I may have been raised there and God only knows how that would have turned out! I might be a permanent mental patient myself had I suffered even more of her abuse then I did.

          My point is this, I have as much reason as anyone to think that drugs are dangerous and could easily jump on the prohibition band wagon. The problems in my life would simply have been different tho, because the reasons the people in my life choose to use addictive substances to cope would have had to choose something else and the chances are that something else would have been just as bad. We are talking about self destructive people here, and self destructive people will always find ways to self destruct. The current system means that drug lords who terrorize their local communities are profiting of the self destructive people of America. It just seems like stubbornness to be willing to sacrifice the innocent people of poor countries to try to stop self destructive people from using drugs to self destruct. It doesn't address the problem but makes new problems for innocent people instead.

          1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
            Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Nicely stated. I use an expression, "Even just a little bit better, is better".

            Putting good people in charge of what the criminal drug lords are in control of now, can only be a better solution. Making it a legal trade, means we can better control the quality (not so much of the high, but of the poisonous side effects) and develop safer drugs that still give the drug user what it is they 'need' from the drug, from the high.

            Taking away the drug lords money, and power over the little people can only be deemed a better situation than what we have now.

            Obviously people are going to do it anyway, we can continue to beat our heads against the wall, or we can make a bad situation just a little bit better.

            1. kirstenblog profile image81
              kirstenblogposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Perhaps if pot (for instance) was legal across the board the tax monies raised could at least in part go toward the costs that drug use/abuse costs society, where as at the moment tax monies is being used on but not raised by said narcotics. At least then the problem would be paying for itself even if partially while at the moment the problem does not foot any of the bill it creates....

              1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
                Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                That would also be a little bit better. smile

                1. profile image61
                  undiluted truthposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  hmmm.  Nice idea.  I'll give you that about the problem being made to pay for the solution -which in truth seems like not starting the problem in the first place!
                  And second, ask yourself this does road tax or petrol money ever get used to pay for new equipment or expensive wages in casualty (Emergency Room, or "A&E" etc.) departments?  No, I thought not.
                  Finally, the sellers wouldn't change but be granted licence to hide under a cloud of false pretence about becoming decent, allowing them to hide their other traits.  Nice try though.

          2. profile image61
            undiluted truthposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            kirstenblog said:   Likewise, there are people who do drugs like smoking pot who are very very successful in life and never commit any other crimes. My brother for instance is a computer genius. He was head hunted by Microsoft a number of times and eventually became somewhat of a permanent contract worker for them. He has smoked pot with Bill Gates, says Gates got the best stuff, and I have no reason to think he was lying. BTW, his office at Microsoft was AWESOME when I got to visit.

            This explays about the last couple of editions of Windoze doesn't it!  vista was diabolical and should not have been sold, every one should have got a refund for that one, and 7 isn't much better downloading things user hasn't asked for etc., etc.

        2. Castlepaloma profile image25
          Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Hollands football team played very well at the world cup

          Canada smokes more pot than Holland, how bad do you think our Hockey is doing or how we did at the last winter Olympics

          1. profile image61
            undiluted truthposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I was speaking of a particular world cup, where one, two or more players were known to be taking banned, illegal substances -or were later found out.

            Of course Canada does well at The Winter Olympics.  It has good access to plenty of snow.  Do you know which Athletes won by drug taking though, is that what you're saying???

            1. Castlepaloma profile image25
              Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              If Canadian were taking lots of drugs, it was not pot, pot would slow you down from most of those extra workouts'

              Beside 92% of Canadian approve cannabis as a medicine

  2. MelissaBarrett profile image60
    MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago

    Well then... nice to see a poster with a balanced perspective and a desire for rational non-judgmental debate.  You shall fit right in with the rest of the HP posters, as we all share those traits as well.  Carry on and keep fighting the good fight... or whatever.

    1. profile image61
      undiluted truthposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "rational" and "non-judgement" aren't necessarily always the same thing!
      And debate doesn't always solve anything, or necessarily lead to the right answer/s!  ...or whatever!

  3. thooghun profile image85
    thooghunposted 5 years ago

    ¿sƃnɹp ʎɐs ǝuoǝɯos pıp

    1. Cagsil profile image60
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That's too funny. Even funnier is I can read it without a problem. lol

      1. profile image61
        undiluted truthposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You can read? -Wow!

      2. mistyhorizon2003 profile image91
        mistyhorizon2003posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Get off your head immediately Cags wink

  4. gezondgewicht profile image62
    gezondgewichtposted 5 years ago

    Pro-drugs... No
    Pro-legislation... Yes. The few countries where it is legal have much less trouble with drug (ab)use simply because it is (sort of) controlled.

    1. profile image61
      undiluted truthposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      these countries with supposedly "lower crime" tend to allow, permit, legalise etc. those things which more sensible governments etc. see as wrong!

      1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
        Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        these countries with supposedly "lower crime" tend to allow, permit, legalise etc. those things which more sensible governments etc. see as wrong!

        This is merely a value judgement and has no basis of any worth.

  5. samer1 profile image60
    samer1posted 5 years ago

    great words earnestshub

    1. earnestshub profile image86
      earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you, I am well over these holier than thou ignorant evangelicals, what they produce sticks to boots. smile

      1. profile image61
        undiluted truthposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        speaking of lawsuits, this is mis representation to say the least.  Never once have I bothered what God thinks or stuck out my opinion of what I might think he thinks.  Yet you go on as though you were chained to some pulpit!

      2. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
        Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        They produce chewing gum? hmm



        smile

        1. kirstenblog profile image81
          kirstenblogposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          ROFL! lol

          1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
            Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            big_smile lol big_smile

            1. kirstenblog profile image81
              kirstenblogposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I know what Ernest was referring to but I just loved your take on it anyway, I always enjoy the unexpected responses big_smile

              1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
                Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I understood too. I saw an opening for a little bit of humor...Glad it worked. smile

                1. kirstenblog profile image81
                  kirstenblogposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Now is it high sugar chewing gum they produce, or the sugar free sort thats not so dangerous for your teeth? lol
                  These are the things I wonder about.....

  6. kirstenblog profile image81
    kirstenblogposted 5 years ago

    I wonder how many realize the poverty the black market for drugs has created in other countries?
    Farming to produce food goes out the window because drugs earn so much more, the need for local people to eat cannot get in the way of the profits to be made. Depending on the drug being produced the very soil can become totally polluted with the chemicals used to process the drugs, especially since this is all illegal but rarely enforced. The makers of these substances couldn't care less about the land they ruin to make this stuff.

    Personally, I would rather protect the innocent people in these impoverished countries then protect people who are knowingly doing something that is bad for their health. If a person wants to risk their personal health, they are going to do it no matter the law. If we take the production into the legitimate and monitored business world, chemicals might be disposed of responsibly instead of ruining farm land and the black market that funds some of the worst people alive on the planet, they gotta go get a real job!

    Protect the innocent, not the stupid.

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
      Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I'd rather see the authorities go after the cartels then the end user. You're right that people should know better than to use drugs, but unfortunately by just going after and prosecuting end users we just end up with a huge prison population and no real solutions to the problems.  As well as the damage caused to other countries, which I agree is disgusting, whole communities in the UK, US and elsewhere are devastated by crack and heroin use. I think this is where lawmakers and enforcers should really concentrate their efforts, on the big boys.

    2. profile image61
      undiluted truthposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      kirstenblog:  And yet shoe/trainer manufacturers can't be considered guilty of such, I suppose because what they sell is legal.  Have you heard the term ("Sweat-shops")???

      1. kirstenblog profile image81
        kirstenblogposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yes I have heard the term sweat shops, there are illegal ones in the city where I Live (London). There was an expose on them a little while back and it was shocking. I don't wear trainers and avoid brands unless the company is one I think has a good moral business practice (those are rare and often not big name brands) or I but second hand from a charity shop. I repair any clothing of mine that I can so that I don't need to buy from these cheep fashion shops which are the worst when it comes to sourcing their stock from sweat shops both locally and internationally.

        This thread was not on the evils perpetrated by big business (but they can and do happen). This thread was on drug prohibition, which can also lead to serious degradation of innocent people from drug producing countries. Just because someone else is doing things that could be called destructive to innocents does not mean its OK for you, me, or anyone else to also do things that could be called destructive to innocents. The farmers and natives to the lands in these countries where cocaine (for instance) is produced live in extreme poverty and in fear of drug barons in an otherwise lawless country. I feel more sympathy for them then I do for the person who was told, cocaine can destroy your septum, brain cells and eventually kill you, but decides to snort the stuff anyway. This is not a person would would go out and get a job, and become a good productive member of society if only those pesky drug dealers weren't selling coke at night clubs or whatever. Those farmers might just grow food for themselves tho if not for the rule of drug cartels.....

    3. profile image61
      undiluted truthposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Protect everyone - Say No to Drugs!!!!

  7. profile image0
    RookerySpoonerposted 5 years ago

    There are many problems caused by legal drugs, prescribed by doctors.  Addiction to the legal ones can be as damaging as that to illegal ones.

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
      Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Couldn't agree more. Although it's far less likely that someone hooked on drugs such as anti-depressants will burgle properties, commit street robberies, or push their substance on others. Though, with regards to the latter I guess GPs do it all the time.

  8. profile image0
    vperryposted 5 years ago

    Uhm...wow.  Where did all of this anger come from?  I think I agree with earnestshub. 

    And regular day to day marketing of prescription drugs don't do the same thing?  When they are pushed by doctors on a daily basis instead of figuring out the real cause of symptoms?  Not legalizing marijuana is a crime when it is helping so many that need it for medical reasons.  I believe we could crack down on the allowance of cards for pot use, but it definitely can't be any worse than some of the drugs that are advertised on television, then go through fifteen minutes of the side effects.  How would one person smoking pot in their own home, for medical reasons affect anyone else?  Do you know it's not illegal (as of now) for parents to give their kids alcohol?  That's a much worse drug in my opinion.

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
      Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That's the problem though isn't, alcohol can be taxed, therefore it's in the best interests of the government to leave things as they are. Not that I'm condoning that. Just saying that appears to be how it is. Many day to day prescription drugs can cause great misery in the life of the user, which is why I agreed with RS, however, I don't think the problems associated with prescription drugs spill over into communities as much. Still a problem though I admit.

      I've always believed that marijuana should be both controlled and legalized. Another poster suggested, I'm paraphrasing here," a government was sensible for not allowing legalization of some drugs" In the UK, the Government only appear to be interested in the findings of independent studies into the subject, if the findings are what they "deem" to be sensible, or a vote winner! I can think of a couple of scientists in recent times that resigned over this issue. big_smile

  9. noturningback profile image82
    noturningbackposted 5 years ago

    Allowing illegal drugs to become legal may actually decrease the money made ion them, allowing them to become less lucrative and perhaps cause a drop in usage. I would only advocate that for certain types of illegal drugs, not all.

    Secondly, what burns my buns is the legal drugs, the side effects from those and the ever rising costs to procure them. For an elderly person, whom may be in need of say a high blood pressure med. or ... and they are on fixed incomes, how do we not address this first, then secondly the illegal drugs?

    1. profile image61
      undiluted truthposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Who would it be legal for, who would be licenced to sell it?  And would it actually work?
      with smoking, children in droves got hold of them, got friendly adults who disregarded the dangers, or fear for there own buy for children these drugs.  And this is how many many adults started.  And there is a saying with smoking, if you don't start when you're young then you don't /arent likely to start!
      No, legalisation is not the answer as it makes it even easier to get!  And ok informed choice is one thing, but why shouldn't the ignorant be protected? -many of whom think they know better, these usually are full of insults *(ie. earnestsnub)

  10. kirstenblog profile image81
    kirstenblogposted 5 years ago

    Won't cause foot fattening or elbow stink!

  11. romper20 profile image87
    romper20posted 5 years ago

    on drugs so yes

    1. Mighty Mom profile image91
      Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I want what you're taking! You look so happy:).

      1. romper20 profile image87
        romper20posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Haha! Of course a bit of Blue Dream California Chronik does the job quite well smile

        1. Mighty Mom profile image91
          Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Sounds exotic.
          But you are a good poster dog for it, whatever it is! smile

    2. profile image61
      undiluted truthposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      at least your honest.  More than could be said for some.  Hey, it's your funeral have as much as you want and as often, you know what they say the more you have...

  12. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    OP asserts:
    -You support the legalisation of drugs, don't make any distinction between this and the term "decriminalisation". 
    Is there some other status in between criminal and legal? Please advise.

    You support doing whatever you want for yourself with no concern for how it may affect any-one else. 
    Wow. That's kind of a giant leap of logic from a focused topic. I don't support stealing or killing or pushing old ladies down in the street.

    You get angry when people try to point out well known facts about the real dangers of drug use and won't accept it;
    No I don't. I am very, very familiar with the real dangers and consequences of drug use. I see users every day. I see the aftermath every day. And that includes "legal" drugs including alcohol, cigarettes, food, gambling and sex.

    instead you support half-baked notions and distorted "truths" from people/companies aiming to try to legitemise themselves or simply take away the penalties or risks involved merely for personal gain without care on the effects on their market.
    No. I am actually very skeptical of FDA approved drugs. I have a huge problem with a health care system that has only two ways to "solve" problems: surgery or pharmaceuticals. That, to me, is a much bigger (and more institutionalized) problem and the "personal gain" to Big Pharma is obscene.

    -You support a corrupt system and are a danger to a decent society.
    The system we currently have is corrupt. It is misguided and wastes valuable societal resources going after the wrong people. Keeping drugs illegal is the danger to a decent society.
    I guess we did not learn our lesson with Prohibition. Look at how well that worked. NOT!

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image88
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Nice reply mighty mom!

    2. profile image61
      undiluted truthposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      mighty mom:  You seem to either have twisted a lot of it, or have different experiences and from this have developed different understandings from my own.  I'm guessing you may -or may not- use, not an accussation but I do like to form a picture when addressing a person and to be honest I don't see any other real reason to be pro drugs except unless the pro campaigner is on such.  But, you know yourself and your own motives better than I, a complete stranger do.  -Are there other/ any legitimate reasons???
          I will answer your question as it seems genuinely asked.  And of course a purpose of these pages, I believe, is to increase understanding etc.

      So, decriminalization briefly; as I understand it -which is vehemently disputed by hislordshit who doesn't know me at all.-  Is considered on the lines of prescribable by a responsible GP. -doctor with the aim to help the patient bring the dose down.  For this purpose use is allowed, but not encouraged like legalized would assume.  This is perhaps the best coping method for a society where it is rife like america. 

      As for 'going after the wrong people' -how do you define the wrong people?  Most who commit serious crimes have a history of drug use, or mis-use, or have families where this is strongly indicated/encouraged.

      I left the rest to get on with my drug free life!

    3. profile image61
      undiluted truthposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      mighty mom said
      You support doing whatever you want for yourself with no concern for how it may affect any-one else. 
      Wow. That's kind of a giant leap of logic from a focused topic. I don't support stealing or killing or pushing old ladies down in the street.

      a:  Yet many looking for their fix hang about street corners with such things in mind pretty much every day in some places!

  13. Reality Bytes profile image92
    Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago

    I own my body and will ingest anything I want in to it!

    Drug laws are senseless and only supply slaves to the Prison Industrial Complex.


    We have had a war on drugs for over 30 years and nothing to show for it.  "War on the People"!

    1. Mighty Mom profile image91
      Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I agree with you RB.
      Personally, I keep waiting for the War on Stupidity.
      Alas, I suspect it would be as colossally ineffectual as the War on Drugs and the War on Terror.
      sad

      1. profile image61
        undiluted truthposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "War on stupidity" -presumably you mean those daft teenagers that can't come up with anything better to do than meet their druggie mates and look for a quick empty buzz just because they've been warned not to -perhaps too overzealously by a well meaning parent.  -Isn't that right, mightyMOM?

    2. profile image61
      undiluted truthposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      realy bites:  You own your own body?  You float it on the stockmarket???  Blimey, hows it doing against the FTSE?  (Haa,Haa!) 
      Injest what you want - but know the consequences.  You don't own the high/s you get with it or the lows after and you submit upon taking the time wasted doing or learning nothing of any real value while your out of it, nor after when your body, brain etc. is trying to recover.  (term: "You" is general and refers to any/all who use)

  14. tsmog profile image84
    tsmogposted 5 years ago

    Pandora's box describes drugs legal or illegal. Narcotics maybe a different story, yet there are prescribed meds with narcotic affect. Try researching the aspartame controversy sometime. Defining 'drug' is the difficult challenge. I am inclined to agree with both sides of the argument presented so far. Being a former bearded long haired hippie who was present at a sit-in at a local high school supporting girls being allowed to wear pants to school, I have a dim view on what is 'good' for 'me' by others in 'power' over me.

    An interesting read on prescription drugs affect on economy can be found here Cholesterol-Statin Drugs - Federal Reserve - Connections it is a long read, and may prompt a hub or two. However it is enlightening. Sorry Earnest I haven't researched your homeland.

    The most common drug today is alcohol for affect. Next, isn't it smoking and nicotine, which I am a smoker, though against it. Oxymoron, eh? My personal view is marijuana will be legalized nationally in my lifetime. They just haven't figured out the mechanism for regulating it or the complexity of the capitalist marketing of it.

    The controversy here in Calif is it is legal by prescription, yet not federally. This week the feds will be cracking down on the Calif legal store fronts selling marijuana for 'medicinal' purposes. So, stay tuned to that remote and see what happens with that.

    Now, my sinister mind comes into play wondering. Is this an attempt to thwart the attempts of the economic sit-ins taking place in Calif. Is misdirection being incorporated. Is another emotional issue being put in play before elections. As the world turns.

    Thanks for letting me wander and rant.

    1. Mighty Mom profile image91
      Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Well put!


      My personal view on this latest witch hunt is WTF?
      California, a cash-strapped state with a bunch of severely cash-strapped counties and cities (the capital where I live being one!) has finally figured out how to make some legitimate money out of the medican biz.
      So what do the feds do?
      Swoop in and remind us all that THEY know best and are large and in charge!
      I am surprised at the lack of uproar.
      Do I care if enterpreneurs are making money off medical cannibis?
      Hell no.
      Why is it ok for Big Pharma to rake in the cash on drugs that are proven harmful (read: black box warnings) but tax-paying businesses are being targeted in this way?
      Don't they have any Mexican or Columbian druglords they can chase after???!!!

      If Obama is behind this surge, he's not helping his campaign one bit.
      roll

      1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
        Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Exactly, they should go after the big boys.

        1. profile image61
          undiluted truthposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "they" presumably you mean the authorities should go after every-one who committs illegality. 
          2.  "they" don't seem to be all law abiding themselves, there's always a few who spoil things, infiltrate and try to destroy from within -perhaps you know.../some...???

  15. profile image0
    Emile Rposted 5 years ago

    I'm anti drugs on many levels. I honestly don't have as much of a problem with the occasional use of pot as I do this incessant need to turn to medication for the simplest of problems. But, if we are going to be medicated for everything from a hang nail to diabetes we have to accept the fact that we have made drugs our culture.

    I see many forms of illegal drugs no different than drinking moonshine. A drinker will drink many forms of alcohol.  Someone who takes drugs will try them in many forms.

    1. profile image61
      undiluted truthposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      doctors, those educated in "drugs" and medicine have determined the benefits and the dangers and have deemed illigal those which have less or no discernible value compared to having too much serious risk.
          Why then argue too much about these protective laws.  Why say or imply pot to be better than some medication for diabetics that saves their life?
      I'm glad at least so far doctors have better priorities than those who support drug cults.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Doctors ARE the ones supporting the drug cults!
        Who needs a street pusher when you've got Big Pharma pushing their magic elixers on us through our friendly neighborhood primary care physician and specialist???

        1. profile image61
          undiluted truthposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I didn't make myself clear enough.  In days of olde more civilised times when money wasn't the only thing people cared about.  The primary even sole concern was health.  In todays times of technology being preferential.  eg. the old hand help b/p tester is good enough to get a near enough accurracy etc.  At approx. £20, whereas machines are bought instead at about £300.  so they get two electrical beasts in a department whereas before every nurse had a testing kit!

          And yes.  Many doctors today are in it for the money.  And I'm led to believe that more and more are turning to illegal drugs -so no wonder there's a call to legalise.  None of these want to be up on malpractice or ill conduct cases etc.

 
working