An adult conversation about drugs?!

[Spindles]

Habitual drug users of certain class A substances, namely heroin or crack cocaine. Sorry, local term I guess. It's the term for an addict around my way.

[worm]

A person who is commissioned to do something knows who their client is and cashes the cheque from that client.

It's also the case that the client knows the name of the person they commission.

You're some sort of weird fucking saddo.

[eFestivals]

So you lie about something I've not said based on your lack of information, steal my line and now insult me. And there's no personal vendetta. Interesting theory.

You categorically stated that you were commissioned by the govt. You were not commissioned by the govt.

Where's the lie, apart from yours?

You really are unbelievable.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Oops double post

Edited December 14, 2012 by Rufus Gwertigan

[eFestivals]

So Nick Clegg thinks it is time for a rethink and a Royal Commission on decriminalisation. I think given the changes happening in the USA and elsewhere it is about time. I don't know if anything will come of this but I have been of the opinion that once action is taken on alcohol then drugs will be on the agenda.

it's been 'time' for decades already, but it's still the Daily Hate Mail and not intelligence which is setting the drugs agenda.

I think Clegg put it perfectly in saying "if you're anti-drugs then you should be pro drugs-law reforms" (and I'm not even anti-drugs ). The USA during prohibition in the 20s &/or 30s gets to show what the effects of banning are over-and-above the effects of the banned substance - it sets up the criminal world to rake in the cash, which then causes further problems within society (all extra to the effects of the drug-taking itself).

The problem is that even if reforms do come about, it's the 'anti-drugs' people who will drive them and so they'll still be far from sensible. For example, if the UK went the Portuguese way (they won't go the American way, those changes are too recent) which seems the most likely, that would deem someone like me who smokes a bit of weed now and then as someone with a 'medical problem' and yet the same would never be said about someone who drinks now and then.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

it's been 'time' for decades already, but it's still the Daily Hate Mail and not intelligence which is setting the drugs agenda.

I think Clegg put it perfectly in saying "if you're anti-drugs then you should be pro drugs-law reforms" (and I'm not even anti-drugs ). The USA during prohibition in the 20s &/or 30s gets to show what the effects of banning are over-and-above the effects of the banned substance - it sets up the criminal world to rake in the cash, which then causes further problems within society (all extra to the effects of the drug-taking itself).

The problem is that even if reforms do come about, it's the 'anti-drugs' people who will drive them and so they'll still be far from sensible. For example, if the UK went the Portuguese way (they won't go the American way, those changes are too recent) which seems the most likely, that would deem someone like me who smokes a bit of weed now and then as someone with a 'medical problem' and yet the same would never be said about someone who drinks now and then.