UA-12921627-3 Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ReikiAnge

Ecstasy "not Worse Than Riding A Horse"

Recommended Posts

Drug taking being illegal DOES limit drug taking - just like speed restrictions limit speeding. Without the 70mph national speed limit do you really think people would still drive at the speeds they do today (and that includes speeding above the current limit). To say the law does not limit drug taking is to say it is 100% ineffective and that really is stretching things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, where is the real evidence to support the idea that most people grow out of recreational drug use?

 

It does seem that the UK has a unique problem with binge drinking and binge drug use. I think we ought to be looking at the reasons behind that, and not just asserting that everyone's entitled to have a hobby.

 

The figures are for frequent use, not just any recreational use. The BCS is self report, it's not perfect, but it's the best there is at the moment. Their figures are comparable with the proportions admitted to A&E. Where's the evidence that most people don't?

 

It does seem that the UK has a unique problem with binge drinking and binge drug use. I think we ought to be looking at the reasons behind that, and not just asserting that everyone's entitled to have a hobby.

 

I absolutely agree, but I was specifically talking about whether drugs should be legalised or not, and I think the causes of binge drinking (or drug taking) is a whole different issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drug taking being illegal DOES limit drug taking - just like speed restrictions limit speeding. Without the 70mph national speed limit do you really think people would still drive at the speeds they do today (and that includes speeding above the current limit). To say the law does not limit drug taking is to say it is 100% ineffective and that really is stretching things.

 

:rolleyes: I haven't said it's 100% ineffective, I'm saying it's not effective enough to outweigh the additional negative effects caused by it being illegal.

 

But, over 1/3rd of people have tried cannabis, less than 1/7 have tried a Class A drug. Both situations are illegal, so there is clearly another factor at work.

 

The speeding example doesn't really work. On roads where there are no speed limits, like some in Germany and Isle of Man, average speeds are comparable to those in the UK, because more than half of people here speed on motorways anyway.

Edited by pboae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:rolleyes: I haven't said it's 100% ineffective, I'm saying it's not effective enough to outweigh the additional negative effects caused by it being illegal.

 

But, over 1/3rd of people have tried cannabis, less than 1/7 have tried a Class A drug. Both situations are illegal, so there is clearly another factor at work.

 

The speeding example doesn't really work. On roads where there are no speed limits, like some in Germany and Isle of Man, average speeds are comparable speeds to those UK, because more than half of people here speed on motorways anyway.

 

I was replying to Krusewalker, no need to roll eyes :flowers: As a researcher in road safety I'll bow out of a speeding debate (it's the weekend)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was replying to Krusewalker, no need to roll eyes :flowers: As a researcher in road safety I'll bow out of a speeding debate (it's the weekend)

 

Then you'll know accidents are more about inappropriate speed than absolute speed, which is why the efficacy of speed limits is so debateable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pboae seriously I'm not going to argue every point. If you want to know the facts and figures I'll gladly send you links. Suffice it to say I don't think you'll find a single road safety professional who would advocate the abolution of speed limits. You just have to look at the discussions and recommendations given to government over the proposol to raise the motorway speed limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the bottom line is, that whether or not substances are legal, if people want them they will make an effort to get them. By having alcohol legal, the government - or whoever - is not saying that it is okay to get leathered every other day or use it as a crutch to get through daily life and develop all sorts of hideous conditions on the way. Neitehr do they say that it is okay to become violent or drive a car after using alcohol. Yet it happens, people don't need approval or disapproval for that. Everyone knows what kind of behaviour is acceptable and what isn't, yet people choose to ignore to respect others and/or use common sense.

 

I think by downgrading or even legalising many drugs, the criminal element will definitely lessen, and surely if people are using drugs anyway, it might as well be made safer? Right now you can't get pill testing kits here, which could potentially save people's lives. If you've just bought a pill for a fiver and find out that it's got all sorts in it, then you're more likely to waste the fiver and not have it, then get ill - and you will avoid the dodgy dealer the next time!

 

For a while, Holland had so-called 'head shops', where mushrooms and stuff like efedrine were sold. Drugs are NOT legal in Holland, but rather condoned. I think they had to close them again, because of pressure of other European countries, but while they were open I never heard of anyone within my social network - or their friends - who all of a sudden started to bulk buy and get off their heads every day, just because it was there. Neither did I see 12 year olds going off their heads all of a sudden due to being able to buy 'shrooms' (they weren't allowed into the shops anyway). I really am in favour of self regulation; in my experience people who are given more responsibility for themselves in general appear to take more care. :flowers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You've completely lost me I'm afraid. At the start you say that ecstasy does affect your mental state. At the end you say that someone can drive without problem. You can't have it both ways.

 

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?).

 

Drug taking being illegal DOES limit drug taking - just like speed restrictions limit speeding. Without the 70mph national speed limit do you really think people would still drive at the speeds they do today (and that includes speeding above the current limit). To say the law does not limit drug taking is to say it is 100% ineffective and that really is stretching things.

 

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.

Edited by krusewalker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

I only have 2 secs. I am not referring to the user I am referring to those who do not use, or do not use much, because it is illegal. It is in THAT respect that the law limits drug use.

 

 

Re: drugs and driving, there is no middle ground whatsoever. If the drug has left the system and there is therefore no effect on the individual (apart from being tired I imagine) then they are not driving under the influence are they?!

 

If a tablet affects your mental state then it affects your capacity to drive. There is quite frankly no grey area in that and to suggest otherwise is dangerous in my opinion.

 

I did not mention the case as an argument for anything (why must everything be an argument). I mentioned it as an example of the wider harm of drug use. He had by the way taken the drug very soon before driving.

Edited by reds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I only have 2 secs. I am not referring to the user I am referring to those who do not use, or do not use much, because it is illegal. It is in THAT respect that the law limits drug use.

 

I disagree. I would say the majority of the population whom dont use drugs do so as they are not the sort of people that would want want to.

Otherwise, if you take your argument to it's logical conclusion, then the opposite would also apply:

If drugs weren't illegal, most of the population would be using them?

And the law having a limiting effect upon those whom dont use much (recreational/weekend users - which is the majority of drug users), well, that just doesn't add up?

For 2 reasons:

1) If the law did have a limiting effect upon their decision to take drugs, surely they wouldn't be breaking the law and using them in the first place.

2) They enjoy using drugs, they like holding a normal life, and like combining both.

Those factors alone are what informs their decision.

They are not concerned with how the Gov or police view them or their lifestyle choice

You can ONLY apply the argument to users or those whom are members of that social scene/peer group/sub culture whom would consider whether or not they wish to experiment with drugs.

You need to be realistic, these people dont really care what the Gov thinks.

When i was in my teen and twenties, I dabbled a bit here, a bit there.

Practically every i knew then or know has, or still do dabble.

Nobody really gave any thought to The Law, except for how not to get caught.

And those amongst us that didnt dabble, they didn't mind being in our company whilst we dabbled, didn't object to us imbibing, and didnt really care about The Law either.

I have also been a member of this group as well.

 

Re: drugs and driving, there is no middle ground whatsoever. If the drug has left the system and there is therefore no effect on the individual (apart from being tired I imagine) then they are not driving under the influence are they?!

 

Possibly some residual influence?

With E, it depends upon the individual, as like i said, everyone is different.

With other drugs, it depends upon the quantifiable effect of each drug in the system, and the time between taking and driving. I have no idea what the measurements are.

I agree that it should be illegal to drive while under the influence of drugs, and that it is wrong

 

If a tablet affects your mental state then it affects your capacity to drive. There is quite frankly no grey area in that and to suggest otherwise is dangerous in my opinion.

 

Again, depends upon time span between taking and driving.

This is the same with alcohol.

Opinion is not dangerous, its just opinion (unless my opinion is to kill my neighbour).

 

I did not mention the case as an argument for anything (why must everything be an argument). I mentioned it as an example of the wider harm of drug use. He had by the way taken the drug very soon before driving.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Today's Birthdays

    No users celebrating today
×
×
  • Create New...