• The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Drug dealers locked up

Status
Not open for further replies.

winky said:
Youths, that the salient word, people grew out of it in their twenties and it wasn't common either.
Click to expand...

were they part of my generation?

winky said:
It isn't class A, easy to answer.
Click to expand...

:lol: ill take that as a yes. but because its not illegal and has a more dominant history in this country you dont think its a problem. if it was new it would be class A and you would be saying its terrible to take it
 
JohnChard said:
were they part of my generation?
Click to expand...

I have no idea how old you are Chard. People started taking e's during mine when I was younger but I never faniced it and didn't like the rave music is was synonomous with anyway. Besides, I was in the army and it was illegal, a piss test would have had me out on my jacksie.

JohnChard said:
were they part of my generation?



:lol: ill take that as a yes. but because its not illegal and has a more dominant history in this country you dont think its a problem. if it was new it would be class A and you would be saying its terrible to take it
Click to expand...

You'll take it as a 'no'. It's an utterly stupid question without any real point.
 
winky said:
I have no idea how old you are Chard. People started taking e's during mine when I was younger but I never faniced it and didn't like the rave music is was synonomous with anyway. Besides, I was in the army and it was illegal, a piss test would have had me out on my jacksie.
Click to expand...

24.
so youve jsut been saying its our generation then admit previous generations including yours were taking drugs.
 
Why we should legalise drugs.

(i) More people die as a result of drug abuse because it's illegal. Drugs are currently cut with rat poison etc. which risks lives. If they were legal and cut with something safe they'd be less dangerous. In the US under prohibition the number of people who died from alcohol poisoning increased hugely as peopel drank moonshine rather than proper drinks.

(ii) Where the money from drug sales goes. Currently, it funds criminals, who then use the money for things like trafficking kids etc. If it legal and taxed it would fund the health service, but currently there's no tax receipts from drugs.

(iii) It is economically inefficient to have them illegal. Think about the policing costs we currently have and still any idiot can get drugs. What about the drug gang wars etc.

(iv) There's no regulation on who gets drugs. Its just as easy to get it age 12 as it is age 30.

(v) Evidence suggests abuse rates fall with decriminalisation (eg. Portugal 50% fall in heroin abuse rates when decriminalisation took place. Treat it as a problem and not a crime and then you're half way to dealing with the problem).

Not to mention the moral argument, which imo, is key. If I want to take drugs and I know the risks, who are you to tell me not to? If I pay take on the drug and fancy having an E tablet every now and then or a joint, why shouldn't I?

How are these 6 people any different to alcohol companies? (In terms of the dealing, not the fact they're probably involved in other crime).

& so I post it again. Replies anyone? I'm not justifying my own actions at all. This is what I believe in.
 
winky said:
From wiki:
A large, unselected population-based study, published in British Journal of Psychiatry (2008), examined cannabis use and prodromal symptoms of psychosis at age 15–16 years and concluded that cannabis use was associated with prodromal symptoms of psychosis in adolescence

You must be logged on to see external links
Click to expand...

That's the keyword pal. Correlation does not equal cause.

I take it you have no idea of how to interpret scientific writing.

Fwiw, the source I've mainly used is articles published in the Lancet. No bias toward approval of drug use at all.
 
Behind Enemy Lines said:
For the record, the less you masturbate the higher your testosterone levels, thus the more likely women are to be attracted to you.
Click to expand...

As we're all throwing figures around, can you back the first bit up up? Because I can find a study that says there's no change for 2-5 days, then testosterone peaks after 7 days...and then doesn't change any more.

And while we're on the subject, can you back the second bit up, because I can also find lots of links to studies which don't show a link between testosterone levels in men and perceived attractiveness for women.

All sounds a bit like one of those ads for pheremone sprays that will make you Unstoppably Attractive To Women.

As I said before, when I gave it up the improvement in the women I was pulling and the way in which people were treating and interacting with me in general was incredible. Human beings pick up on this shit, if only at a sub-concious level.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt you saw a change. If you, for whatever reason, felt good about yourself because you were Master Of Your Domain for six months, then you'll have been more confident, and confident people are generally more attractive. Nothing to do with not wanking, it could equally have been because you were f***ing someone every night, regularly scoring the winning goal at five aside, absolutely nailing your job, or doing anything else that made you feel good about yourself.
 
Behind Enemy Lines said:
Tbh mate I don't really give a shit if you do coke, I don't mix with your sort these days so it doesn't really affect me. But just know that you ARE weak and that does come across to people, even subconciously. There is nothing a woman likes more than a man who exudes control. More importantly it makes you feel tons better within yourself too to have that level of control. Far better in the long-term than that brief high you experience on coke, trust me.

This doesn't just apply to drugs btw. I once gave up masturbation for 6 months as a personal goal I set for myself. The results were f***ing incredible, honestly you wouldn't believe the difference in the way I felt in terms of self-control and the way this was projected to others, particularly women.

Just my advice anyway, take it or leave it.
Click to expand...

You seem a bit unstable tbh, probably best you leave drugs well alone
 
Charmless Man said:
That's the keyword pal. Correlation does not equal cause.

I take it you have no idea of how to interpret scientific writing.

Fwiw, the source I've mainly used is articles published in the Lancet. No bias toward approval of drug use at all.
Click to expand...

You must be logged on to see external links


I'll wager that you would have been one of those in the 1960s arguing that a correllation did not prove that tobacco was related to lung cancer.
 
Last edited:
JonMc said:
You must be logged on to see external links


I'll wager that you would have been one of those in the 1960s arguing that a correllation did not prove that tobacco was related to lung cancer.
Click to expand...

Does it really matter though? I mean do people really give a fuck about this? Everyday you put the news on or read the paper and theres health warnings about something or other. The other day there was summit about fish increasing the risk of summit or other. If you take notice of this shit youll never leave the bed
 
robin hood said:
Does it really matter though? I mean do people really give a fuck about this? Everyday you put the news on or read the paper and theres health warnings about something or other. The other day there was summit about fish increasing the risk of summit or other. If you take notice of this shit youll never leave the bed
Click to expand...

Yes it does matter. Professor Murray, quoted in that article has carried out tests showing that cannabis does increase psychosis in rats but that psychosis decreases when the drug is stopped but that the younger the subject - the more likely that any psychosis will be permanent.

Like I say the 60s and tobacco come to mind. The evidence is appearing but some folk will always stick their fingers in their ears. I imagine there would have been people back then saying 'I mean do people really give a fuck about this? Everyday you put the news on or read the paper and theres health warnings about something or other' about tobacco smoke.
 
JonMc said:
Yes it does matter. Professor Murray, quoted in that article has carried out tests showing that cannabis does increase psychosis in rats but that psychosis decreases when the drug is stopped but that the younger the subject - the more likely that any psychosis will be permanent.

Like I say the 60s and tobacco come to mind. The evidence is appearing but some folk will always stick their fingers in their ears. I imagine there would have been people back then saying 'I mean do people really give a fuck about this? Everyday you put the news on or read the paper and theres health warnings about something or other' about tobacco smoke.
Click to expand...

Aye and people still dont give a fuck when the health hazards are well known. Virtually everything seems to increase the risk or somthing
 
JonMc said:
Yes it does matter. Professor Murray, quoted in that article has carried out tests showing that cannabis does increase psychosis in rats but that psychosis decreases when the drug is stopped but that the younger the subject - the more likely that any psychosis will be permanent.

Like I say the 60s and tobacco come to mind. The evidence is appearing but some folk will always stick their fingers in their ears. I imagine there would have been people back then saying 'I mean do people really give a fuck about this? Everyday you put the news on or read the paper and theres health warnings about something or other' about tobacco smoke.
Click to expand...

he's right when he says correlation does not equal cause though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top