krusewalker

Hello Guys I got this as an email at my rescue centre. I thought i would post it on here to help these people, as per the request in the email. The situation sounds awful. If anyone knows anything about this or could help, that would be great. I have emailed Shelley to link her to this post. There is a poster, but it came as an attachment to my email so im not able to copy that onto here, but if you contact Shelly yourself or check the blogspot that would be great.

i can well imagine. stupid.

Are you using the word argument in its 'having a row' definition? Or having a debate defintion? I'm using the latter - having an interesting debate in a discussion forum. That alright, isnt it?? If the boy took E and then got in a car quite quickly then he is an idiot and deserves to have the book thrown at him - but after he has the book thrown at him for drink driving, much the more severe crime IMO.

That is easy to answer. I said both and I'm not trying to have it both ways, you have misunderstood me. That is because you have not referred to whole middle section of my post, which states, unlike alcohol or other drugs, E can affect every individual in completely different way, incl the effects can wear off before you drive. That is the crux of my whole point: That being all drugs, including alcohol should be legal, but that all drug driving should be illegal. The argument that a lad killed someone after driving under the influence of E AND alcohol is not an argument that E should not be legalised, it is an argument that alcohol should be banned, as we know that alcohol impairs the driving of every person the same way, whereas E effects the driving of different individuals differently. So, if you were counting odds, you could reliably say that the fact the lad was A) under the influence of alcohol, and B) a young lad driving, both had more relevance to the incident than the E. So this is not a valid arguement for banning E, because A) it is not a valid like by like comparison, and B) it should therefore be an argument for banning alcohol, otherwise you are contradicting yourself. (maybe even an argument for banning teenage drivers?). Again, this is no a valid like by like comparison. As drug taking being illegal DOES NOT limit drug taking, as people regard that as a personal matter. Whether or not drugs are legal OR illegal does not effect the average user as to whether or not they do or do not use drugs. It never did in my generation, it certainly does not with the current generation. The criteria is more to do with fashion, music, environment, social life, friends, company, sense of personal pleasure, personal opinions/values, personal health, what their family might think. Barely any of my peers, and barely any of today kids, when considering should they pop that E or smoke that spliff stopped and thought: "umm, i wonder what the government or police will think". You need to approach these issues realistically. You may get a very small proportion of people that would do this. But it is negligible, and they probably would not be interested in that lifestyle anyway. Whereas, for the most people, the decision to speed or not IS affected the the law, as most people consider it is a matter for wider society, and the likelihood of getting caught is massively higher when you consider all the traffic cops and cameras. BTW I do not use drugs. I very rarely even go to the pub or purchase alcohol.

The vast majority of drug users are law abiding, can hold normal lives sans chaos, but just have fun at the weekends. Just like drinkers..... Drug taking being illegal doesn't limit drug taking..... The whole point about E's and driving and booze and driving is just one of comparative context. Neither is right. But this is the point i was making: Booze is known to effect everyone the same way, as is cocaine, and most drugs. E's are different, as one person can take one tablet and die for one reason, another person can take one tablet and die for a completely different reason, and a third can take half a dozen and it barely has any effect. It is the unquantifiable randomness of E that makes it dangerous - Russian Roulette Quite often, by the time someone has finished in the club at 9am the following morning, the effects can be worn off. Therefore, when you compare like with like between booze and E, if a young lad has crashed under the influence of drink and E's, you can make a *reasoned arguement* that it was the influence of being a young lad and drunk that made the difference, and you can make a reasoned argument that if someone has ONLY taken E, he could feasibly drive home without problem several hours later. Im not saying its 100% or right behaviour, I'm just saying its possible, unlike alcohol.

No But you can feasibly drive under the influence of an ecstacy tablet, and whilst risky for all concerned, it is not always a given that you would loose impairment to drive. However, it is always a given that alchohol prevents you driving properly. But this isnt an argument for defending either, I'm just stating that in the scenario mentioned in the other post, the lad being a young male whom had been drinking are the 2 strongest factors, when you weigh everything up. I just dont buy the argument that making drugs legal gives out a message it is alright, so more people would take them. Ive met loads of people who take various drugs (although i have never met anyone with a 'drug problem', but have met a few with a drink problem), and i can honestly say that these people couldnt give a monkeys if it is legal or not. Quite simply, the law has no bearing on their decision whether or not they take drugs. And that was my generation. These days, if young people want to do something, drugs, under age sex, under age drinking, they will do it regardless of the law. Their decision NOT to do these things is more likely to be influenced by their friends.

hi pboae, you've hit the nail on the head of some of the inconsistencies with the current situation. some interesting details as well when you describe types of addiction, are you referring to physical or psychological addiction? i have heard that crack is physically addictive after about 3 hits, which would make it much more addictive than alcohol and tobacco? this is spot on

i got as far as colney heath. big lake there as well in fact, i had to divert around 3 new lakes to work tuesday morning

Billymalc has said what i would have done. I think history proves that the legal status of drugs make no difference to how many people would use them. It was mainstream enough when i was younger, it's pretty rare these days not to have dabbled in something ditto. another previous random recreational user, but didnt have a problem with life and was a million miles away from any sort of addiction to any of it. i think it comes down to a certain type of personality, and that could be fags, booze, drugs, sex, computer games, allsorts. i got a physical addiction to chocolate once though - quite seriously - and had to ween myself off it properly.

i'd decriminalise all drugs, myself

i read that on another forum earlier. didnt do anything for me im afriad, i just found it waffling and repetitive, and found myself switching off as i read it. i do love a good comedy complaint letter, just couldnt see it this time.

we have a european wide navman S80. its great. i needed the bigger screen, as we have the small screen navman at work, and you have to touch the letters with the end of a pen, as your fingers are too big and press the wrong buttons, which is a right pain in the ass.

our heating was about £70 quid for last 3 months

cheers anne, i have pm'd you the way i would put them on here is just 'select all' (highlights whole document), right click and copy and paste onto forum. cheers

thank you anne, i would look forward to that thanks you everyone else as well

..................that spaying nervous bitches can perpetuate the nervousness? does anyone have links to any studies regarding this topic? thank you

you lost me there...can you elaborate?

i have been having random trouble for a few weeks now i refresh the page or click on latest posts, the green bar takes ages and then refuge disappears

yeh, sorry boos, between me posting yesterday and you contacting work in the morning, they had 2 last minute applicants. im sorry.

i remember that day, twas a big carnival new dawn atmosphere. i was suspicious from day 1 though, when i learnt that t.blair had stage managed his wak into downing street by using party workers flying union jacks. then the machine started meddling with journalists, and it didnt take but 2 months for bliar and new labour to turn into the usual suspects. i dont think obama is like that, but all that glistens isnt gold, so im gonna hold off on the new dawn rejoicing just for now. also, dont forget hilary is in the state department..........

excellent guys thanx for responding im not c.burton, but i will be involved at some stage

Hello guys Was i right in thinking that some members on here missed out on this years ballot for the London Marathon? Isnt boosboss looking for a place? My rescue, National Animal Welfare Trust, have 2 assured places, yet no one to fill them. It would be a shame to waste them. Is anywhere on here interested? But the deadline for applying for these is this week, January 23rd. Our website has some tech bugs today, but you can view it here: http://www.nawt.org.uk/headquarters/index.asp If you are interested you can email [email protected] Thank you for reading this

odd. most net users i know have heard of imdb. if you go to your google search box then click on the black drop down menu arrow, you get a list of alternative search sites, such as wikipedia, ebay, yahoo, amzon etc. imdb is on that, which is where i originally found it.

if that were my rescue that would simply be a case of a homechecker doing their job right. from the info given, its clearly a fail, as their circumstances arent right for the dog.