Ecstacy, class A- are politicians mad?

[upinwath 10]

You're another user, aren't you?

 

I don't know if that was supposed to be funny but I really was.

[*_ash_* 88]

I already posted the response in line with some others, and you do not seem to follow the argument at all.

I'm following quite well thank you.

 

Given England and it's wonderful media, I'm quite aware that whenever there is any excuse to publicise a case of trouble/death related to taking pills, they are right in there!. Doesn't seem to happen much though does it.

There is no conclusive statistics. As much as there is no systematic system to get all the correct data with regards to Es. There are no statistics to prove that E is harmless, and that it does not create a nuisance in society. Which is what the government base its decision on.

I never said it was harmless. Very little is.

 

It proves nothing, and if you are a user, then you are a user. I am not here to persuade and disuade anyone. Actually, I do not give a damn really, despite some personal protest. If that is the case, then I think that people should indeed pay more taxes, if they ever use the NHS more because of drugs.

Did you not read Teafan's post?

 

That is why they are being curbed now. As there are more solid evidence to link the causes directly.

Curbed? Putting a tiny message in the corner of TV adverts saying 'please drink responsibly'?

 

That message is just about as pointless as anything I've ever read. It means nothing. I really wonder how many people watch the adverts and think, 'ah, that's nice, the government really care about us, look at that message'..

If there are more solid evidence in the future for Es and cannabis and so forth, which links directly to its harm to the human body, or socially. Do you agree that it should then have a harsher regulation and sentencing in reducing the effect it has on society?

How much do you want to see? I've seen plenty in here already, and I am keeping up with the thread.

 

I don't know if that was supposed to be funny but I really was.

Are you on an extended lunch or summat?

[upinwath 10]

Are you on an extended lunch or summat?

 

Though you were supposed to be in bed.

 

My lunch break is well over. I've done a bit of work on my bike and even washed it.

Bloody DJs on drugs.

 

I'm listening to Old Harry's game. Proves you can laugh without drugs.

[Phanerothyme 12]

Written by tokers

[*_ash_* 88]

Thought you were supposed to be in bed.

 

My lunch break is well over. I've done a bit of work on my bike and even washed it.

Bloody DJs on drugs.

 

I'm listening to Old Harry's game. Proves you can laugh without drugs.

 

Tried to sleep, but some builders on speed are hammering away on the fire exits downstairs.

 

I did laugh at your post, which may have proved that I can laugh without drugs, had I not had a ciggy in hand at the time.

 

Glad the bike's done

[upinwath 10]

When a druggie can have a good time without a pill I'll claim to have seen a pink elephant.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

When a druggie can have a good time without a pill I'll claim to have seen a pink elephant.

 

Ok, lets put being provocative to one side. Are you seriously trying to suggest that people who take ecstasy can only have a good time when they take it?

[upinwath 10]

Ok, lets put being provocative to one side. Are you seriously trying to suggest that people who take ecstasy can only have a good time when they take it?

 

If you can have a good time without it why would you bother?

 

I still suggest that if you need drugs you have a problem.

[*_ash_* 88]

I still suggest that if you need drugs you have a problem.

 

I won't argue with that.

[splodgeyAl 10]

If you can have a good time without it why would you bother?

 

I still suggest that if you need drugs you have a problem.

 

I can have a good time with my eyes shut. Using this logic, should I gouge my eyes out?

[JFKvsNixon 11]

If you can have a good time without it why would you bother?

 

If you can have a good time without playing rugby then why bother? If you can have a good time without climbing a cliff why bother. If you can have a good time without horse riding why bother? I'm sure you get the point.

 

For many taking ecstasy is a recreational activity amongst a lot others.

 

I still suggest that if you need drugs you have a problem.

 

I agree, if you need to take drugs to have a good time you do have a problem. I would also continue by suggesting if you need to do any single leisure activity to have a good time you have a problem.

 

So do you still think that people who take ecstasy can only have a good time when they take it?

Edited March 23, 2009 by JFKvsNixon

[shinobi 10]

binge drinking is sooooo mxuh worse for your health. its mora about socail taboo imo