Bago Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 How does a temporary mood enhancer numb an area of your life? So you don't think that people use drugs as a form of escapism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeaFan Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 So you don't think that people use drugs as a form of escapism? Of course they do. If you want to reduce the numbers of people doing drugs, make day-to-day reality more appealing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bago Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 Clamp down on drugs, or all the things you mention? Some of these things are now being clamped down, aren't they? i.e. raising the drinking age. Having consent before sex at a young age. Sex as an addiction is also now known, or s recognised more. c.f. Ulrika Jonssan. Food/obesity is now being addressed as a nation. Drinking too much to the extent that it is anti-social are addressed by removing cheap drinks in the 24/11 shops and supermarkets. Bouncers removes those who drink too much and make a nuisance to a public place. Smoking is now banned in a public place. So should drugs not be clamped down on? They won't and never have done. Laws have been getting harsher & drug use has stayed the same or gone up for the last 200 years. When cannabis was reclassified to C, usage went down Legislative prohibition of substances leads to greater profits for criminals and greater harm for users, but does not affect the number of people using them. Prohibition is stupid, counterproductive and illiberal. Prohition is not stupid, as it should deter users from using it. The fact that liberal countries already do not use them, but look to utilising them as a form of tourism will not have that much of an issue. When liberalism was all the rage of the 60s, 70s, I am sure that generation's people really know what being liberal means. Now for the generation of the 80s, to the 90s, who went through a stage of not finding work, and disillusionment with the government just means that the usage and the mentality to drugs are very different. If people are liberal, then they would feel it in their hearts to be so, without theneed of drugs, or to encourage or to co-erce others to try, and make the law liberal. For whose sake ? Drug users, or non-drug users? Drug use has increased, and it has fizzled into a younger age group. I think that is outrageous. BTW, did you also see the documentary talking about the fact that drugs like cannabis can be a gateway drug to harder drugs by way of the body being tolerant to the heavier drugs? If I am not liberal, then I would not even be talking about it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bago Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 Of course they do. If you want to reduce the numbers of people doing drugs, make day-to-day reality more appealing. Well, that takes all sorts to happen. The drug taker need to want it to be so, and also to deal with the emotional side of their lives. Cos I am so sure that as an adult, that is what we are expected to do. To deal with the bad hand that we are dealt with, and to toughen ourselves for the future. The question is, whose job is it to make life more appealing to others, or should it be the individuals taking responsibilities for their own lives and to move themselves onwards and upwards so that they can live a life which they find appealing themselves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smithster Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 So you don't think that people use drugs as a form of escapism? Not in all cases but it certainly is a factor in a lot of them. But can you really blame people for wanting some kind of escapism? Look at the situation we find ourselves in right now... The worst recession in most peoples' lifetimes Redundancies left, right and centre and those who still have jobs scared they will lose them Cost of living still rising thanks to additional taxes and lower incomes More civil liberties being eroded away every day Constant nannying by the govt about what we should/shouldn't eat/drink/smoke Knife crime so bad that our own Home Secretary won't walk the streets of London without a police escort The list goes on. Is it any wonder some people look for a way of escaping the daily depression of their lives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrteabag Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 class A or not i'll keep on taking it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 For the same reasons that Prohibition didnt work, never does banning drugs. Its creating a social underclass of people unnecessarily. If we just educated our children properly in drug excesses, aswell as alcohol & tobacco this would do more in the long run. Legalise them and add plenty of tax on top of it, so should the user hit the NHS one day, he/she would have amply paid for it. Leaving the status quo as it is now just isnt working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Robbo Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 Sorry if this is a thread already but I couldn't find one related. Anyway, are politicians mad to keep ecstacy as a class A drug? Why do they bother asking the opinions of experts and then totally ignore the findings? Madness. EDIT: would have helped if I spelt ecstasy correctly, mods feel free to delete! Ecstacy is a class A ...I've used it as have millions others and it's fine. Here lies the problem. Also class A, so logically an equivalence of E, are Heroin, Crack and Crystal meth...if they're only the same as E then I reckon I'll go out and try some of them since they must be safe enough too... By over-rating relatively harmless drugs the idiots in govt. are actually watering down the message about how bad the three I mentioned are, and they really do wreck lives. Insanity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 Some of these things are now being clamped down, aren't they? i.e. raising the drinking age. Having consent before sex at a young age. Sex as an addiction is also now known, or s recognised more. c.f. Ulrika Jonssan. Food/obesity is now being addressed as a nation. Drinking too much to the extent that it is anti-social are addressed by removing cheap drinks in the 24/11 shops and supermarkets. Bouncers removes those who drink too much and make a nuisance to a public place. Smoking is now banned in a public place. So should drugs not be clamped down on? I don't see drinking alcohol, smoking or eating fatty foods, skydiving, horse riding or compulsive (consensual) sexual behaviour being made illegal any time soon. If you're talking about raising the minimum age for using drugs, providing warning labels and dissuasive tax bands on drugs and banning the use of drugs in public places, you are not talking about prohibition, you are talking about regulation Prohition is not stupid, as it should deter users from using it. Well, maybe it should (although why I don't know) but the simple fact is that it doesn't, and it never has done. Drug use has increased, and it has fizzled into a younger age group. I think that is outrageous. If it wasn't prohibited, you could at least have a stab at regulating it. But if it is illegal, then you simply don't have any control whatsoever. BTW, did you also see the documentary talking about the fact that drugs like cannabis can be a gateway drug to harder drugs by way of the body being tolerant to the heavier drugs? That was the experiment they did on about 20 mice? Bad news for mice that smoke pot. Drugs like cannabis? There aren't many, if any. Cannabis is pretty unique amongst recreational drugs for several reasons. If I am not liberal, then I would not even be talking about it now. Liberal and libertarian are different. Liberals can be as nanny-ish about this sort of thing as any good authoritarian, indeed it can be hard to tell the difference, except perhaps liberals would prohibit drugs for your own good, whereas authoritarians would prohibit drugs because they're just plain wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bago Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 Not in all cases but it certainly is a factor in a lot of them. But can you really blame people for wanting some kind of escapism? Look at the situation we find ourselves in right now... The worst recession in most peoples' lifetimes Redundancies left, right and centre and those who still have jobs scared they will lose them. Cost of living still rising thanks to additional taxes and lower incomes.More civil liberties being eroded away every day Constant nannying by the govt about what we should/shouldn't eat/drink smoke, Knife crime so bad that our own Home Secretary won't walk the streets of London without a police escort The list goes on. Is it any wonder some people look for a way of escaping the daily depression of their lives? If you want something that you cannot get, or think that you cannot get, then yes... maybe. We just have to go with the flow and ride out the wave, just as other depressions before that, and any other depression before that. How did people used to survive? Maybe it's time to bring back religion, or some kind of hope and belief so that people don't turn on each other. Since when do you complain and moan at all ills, and let it get to you so? This is not just affecting some people, this is affecting ALL people globally. So what are you going to do? Drug yourself first with little money that you can afford to buy drugs with, on top of your existing living expenses to depress and demotivate yourself in this current climate? I would cut my expenses, eat fresh where I can, exercise, see my friends, spend time with families (people who really matters), and hold tight... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.