Finally.....

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marble
  • Start date Start date
Grasshopper said:
It's the Leah Betts mind-set of "Bad for one, Bad for all" that is nonsense, and which prevents any proper, adult discussion on the subject.
Click to expand...
You dismiss someone taking an different position to you on a topic as spouting nonsense ...................... and then in the same sentence call for an "adult discussion". :blink:
'Strordinary.
 
If someone enters a discussion, and their contribution is limited to the standard "Bad for One, Bad for All" argument which tends to prevail, then I will call it out for the nonsense that it is.

Unless, of course, said person is prepared to apply the same logic to cigarattes, alcohol, gambling, sexual proclivities, binge-eating or any of those myriad other 'addictions' which people choose to get involved in.

It is the isolation of recreational drugs for 'special attention' which is nonsense - especially so when the perils of those other addictions can be equally as harmful; both to the individual and to wider society.
 
Grasshopper said:
If someone enters a discussion, and their contribution is limited to the standard "Bad for One, Bad for All" argument
Click to expand...
Whereas your contributions are limited to calling anyone disagreeing with you as nonsensical. So immature, and a dead-cert to kill off any meaningful debate --adult or otherwise.
 
icebreaker said:
Whereas your contributions are limited to calling anyone disagreeing with you as nonsensical. So immature, and a dead-cert to kill off any meaningful debate --adult or otherwise.
Click to expand...

Actually, all I've done is try to give an alternate view, based on real-life rather than hearsay, based on my own experience. I've only thereafter challenged the "Bad for one, Bad for all" assertion as "nonsensical", and I've not directed that at any particular individual - it's more the mind-set I'm taking-on.

If you have that mind-set - and your own contribution so far suggests you do - then it's you who has the closed-mind and need to open-up to meaningful debate.

Instead of marking me as immature, why don't you tell us of your own experiences with cannabis, and try to articulate in less monochrome terms, exactly why you hold your position. That might help move the debate forward. ;)
 
Grasshopper said:
why don't you tell us of your own experiences with cannabis,
Click to expand...
Dude, I cannot do so.
I have never in a reasonably long lifetime ever taken any illegal substance. Ever.

So, perhaps, I will accept that anything I know about the drug is third-party and anecdotal. (But I didn't realise one had to be a washed-out junkie to be allowed partake in TalkingHorses forum discussions). :whistle:
 
No shame in that, icebreaker.........I'd be happy to share a jigger with you, if you ever feel like trying it. :cool:

One doesn't have to be a washed-out junkie to participate in TH.......but I find it helps. :lol:
 
icebreaker said:
Whereas your contributions are limited to calling anyone disagreeing with you as nonsensical. So immature, and a dead-cert to kill off any meaningful debate --adult or otherwise.
Click to expand...

I don't think that suggesting a point of view doesn't make sense (which is what calling an argument nonsense means) is immature.

Speaking as one of the many who took drugs and suffered as a result, my point of view would be that the arguments against legalisation of cannabis on the basis that it is damaging or a gateway drug are inherently misinformed. It is no more damaging than alcohol consumed in great quantities is. It is also no more of a gateway drug than alcohol.

I smoked cannabis and then, subsequently took Class A drugs (which, incidentally, caused the damage). I took class A drugs after trying cannabis because I enjoyed the high and wanted to experience what I was advised was an even greater high. I took cannabis after trying alcohol because I was advised it was an even greater high. If I hadn't been so pre-disposed to obtaining a high, I'd probably never have tried either.

Now, I just drink alcohol. Sometimes it affects me badly. I am NOT allowed to drink Tequila. :)
 
Well done for volunterring your testimony Simmo, I appreciate it.

Its clear to me from reading what you've said that out of the millions of people who've taken drugs, there are various affects and outcomes for each chosen individual, though I note you state it wasn't actually cannabis that caused the damage, (hopefully not everlasting), and it was your choice to move on to the next thing.

Poiticians and lawmakers should be looking for improved outcomes for their citizens, regardless of whether they wear a halo or have actually tryed drugs, creating a better situation for the user and subsequently the rest of society (through realistic aims and objectives).

Its quite sad that the anti-drugs lobby want the status quo to remain. A status quo that is unforceable through an oxymoron which is the law, creates the illusion of protecting the public but as the same time has more users springing up then ever before in real terms. More users mean more so called 'one offs' who can't handle the drugs they take, and then because of this the anti-drugs lobby demands tougher laws.

The logic of their argument is increasingly looking like it doesn't have many legs to stand on.

If Cameron doesn't authorise this study he is a total bafoon, but it should be stated for wider purposes that it looks like if the Liberal Democrats had not been able to influence the Conservative government this would never have been on the agenda. I just hope the Labour party does the right thing on this issue (for once).
 
Last edited:
Drugs debate coming up now on The Big Questions on BBC1, looking forward to it. Wouldn't have been entertained a wee while ago.
 
You shouldn't have, plenty of cocaine up north, probably mostly taken in the Bigg Market :) certainly newsworthy.

Durham is for the wine bar merchants though, which I may become in the years to come. :)
 
Last edited:
That article is totally confused. On the one hand it says the guy wants legalisation, on the other hand he is quoted as saying "people who encourage others to take drugs by selling them are criminals, and their actions should be tackled".
 
Yeah, I'm not suggesting its article of the century. What's interesting is how more and more prominent folks seem to be 'coming out' (as it were).

A Northeast chief constable is the last person I'd associate with these comments, given drugs seems such a high priority for them to tackle.

I'm done to death with this subject myself, and only the gods will get any change on this one. I only ever thought they should legalise hashish and lowly forms of weed, the class A stuff I couldn't really talk about as I have no experience of taking them, and don't know much about them. :)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top