psynuk Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 similar to yourself then? you keep stating things are one way when they are clearly not.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anfisa Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 similar to yourself then? you keep stating things are one way when they are clearly not.. In your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psynuk Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 not just my opinion, try the swiss government, the portuguese government, kings college, so on and so on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo77 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 If you do not want to agree to agree then we will not, you simply misunderstood my post and have spent the next several pages trying to save face. No, I don't want to admit to your mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anfisa Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 not just my opinion, try the swiss government, the portuguese government, kings college, so on and so on They have no idea what I wrote so I doubt they would have an opinion on it. ---------- Post added 08-01-2015 at 20:50 ---------- No, I don't want to admit to your mistakes. If you do not believe you made an error then I guess we will have to continue arguing about it, assuming that is what you want to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo77 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 If you do not believe you made an error then I guess we will have to continue arguing about it, assuming that is what you want to do. No, I'm done with it now. Just wanted to make sure I pointed out your error, and the fact that you tried to squirm out of it, as usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psynuk Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 They have no idea what I wrote so I doubt they would have an opinion on it.. That is such a play on the truth it's almost very clever. However, as clever as it might be, it's not about what you wrote as you well know. Its about your disagreement with the facts, which are opposite to your opinion. pedantry can only get you so far, you'll have to be witty to get your full troll status Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 I very much doubt it. Your post was an excellent counter though. Public feeling on the war on drugs is so deverse, but there is no point whatsoever in dismissing a Yes or No vote, because the divide is so wide. I'm not sure it is really. I think there are 3 main groups: 1. control taken away from the hands of criminals (me, and probably a large % of people); 2. those who are opposed to any kind of change (also a large % of people); and 3, those who aren't bothered, or don't know enough about it to be bothered (small % of people). I think the problem with the middle group AND the last group is this fixation with the term 'drugs'. You did it at the beginning, and all the other posters against also do the same, by grouping all 'drugs' as one. Which I think is nonsense. Of course there is success in rehabiltation, but a higher degree of failure, but in support of legalisation, this could only work with education, and because health officials are not in a position to check the quality of the product that is purchased on street corners, and the education system is not in a position to effectively warn individuals of the risks involved. I accept that. One of the key things here, is the addict (in the case of H) has to want to be rehabilitated, but even then it isn't easy to stop - that's why it's called addiction of course! Most smokers don't want to smoke, and even those that try and use help don't stop. As for the rest of this quote, that's the exact reason it should be taken off the street. Heroin isn't expensive to grow/produce. The crime rates, in particular burglary, stealing etc. would naturally plummet, and you could easily divert some Police funding into NHS funding to cover it. As far as being clueless, it would be fair to say in my defence that I see the results of drug misuse at its worst, and my honest thoughts regarding my views are from the heart, and if the politicians and the GMC can come up with a solution, then I hope it works. Yes absolutely, and I think that is a fair comment, I knew that and it's why I wrote this: (to Bonzo regarding your post) It's like me working with alcoholics, and believing that EVERYONE who drinks alcohol has an uncontrollable addiction to it. Which is nonsense. Some have of course, most haven't. - The difference between the drugs and the difference between the change has been posted over and over again, and posters like Anfisa xt500 etc. have to have it repeated over and over. Of the drugs mentioned, I would suggest something in the order of this: (though just in short) 1. Marijuana/cannabis - available in licensed shops, taxed but not to the point where it would be cheaper to buy off the street 2. Ecstasy/MDMA - available perhaps in the same shops as above, or similar. 3. Opium - see Heroin 4. Cocaine - not altered to now, or further thought required for seriously addicted people 5. Heroin - available free to registered addicts (or prescription depending on income), and rehab available to any registered user (with clauses) 6. Crystal Meth - not available, more thought required, I think most use it as cheaper alternative to such as above, so perhaps similar to above 7. Amphetamines/speed - I think these users would buy MDMA instead. - Education would be much simpler. At the moment it's 'just say no to drugs', which is pointless really. It's not education at all. Education could be changed to don't buy anything off the street, and all drugs bought legally have dangers. I remember at school, we had the 'no drugs' thing, (partly because it was on Grange Hill at the time ), and smoking is deadly. I can't recall any education about alcohol though. Still, 1 in 5 smoke now. The reason? It's addiction characteristics. Given the logic of our current laws, then nicotine and alcohol should be banned. The reason they aren't? Taxation, culture, and the knowledge that prohibition doesn't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anfisa Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 No, I'm done with it now. Just wanted to make sure I pointed out your error, and the fact that you tried to squirm out of it, as usual. I am sorry to burst your bubble but was in fact your post that caused was in error. http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10837965&postcount=120 ---------- Post added 09-01-2015 at 06:55 ---------- That is such a play on the truth it's almost very clever. However, as clever as it might be, it's not about what you wrote as you well know. Its about your disagreement with the facts, which are opposite to your opinion. pedantry can only get you so far, you'll have to be witty to get your full troll status And what facts do you think I have disagreed with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo77 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 I am sorry to burst your bubble but was in fact your post that caused was in error. http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10837965&postcount=120 By posting a link to my post, you think you've won the argument? You're an absolute joke! It's not only this thread that you're back tracking on because of your stupid remarks getting people wound up. I suppose it must get you off, winding folk up? Sorry but you're a pathetic troll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now