Ecstacy, class A- are politicians mad?

[Smithster]

Upinwath - With every post you make on this thread you just serve to further prove what an ignorant, bigoted moron you are. You seem to be absorbed in the Daily Mail view that ALL drug users, the world over, are hopeless addicts, junkies, dropouts and workshy scroungers who would sell their own granny to get a hit. This is sooooooooo far from the truth, but you are so blinkered in your views that you cannot and will not accept what people have told you over and over and over again on this thread.

 

Who wants a society of drug abusers. I don't care if you can buy the stuff in the corner shop the social problems would still be there but at a far greater level.

 

Well of course nobody wants a society full of drug abusers. But to suggest that every person who has ever taken drugs is an 'abuser' is so ridiculously small-minded that I cannot even begin to understand the thought process behind making such an assumption. Alcohol is legal - does that make everyone who has ever had a pint an 'abuser'? Loads of politicians have admitted that they tried smoking marijuana while they were at uni - does that make them 'abusers'? Drug use and drug abuse are two completely different things Wath. If you can't acknowledge that then maybe you should stop reading the Daily Mail.

 

The stupid and scummy would get of their heads, still not be bothered about work and still be pinching to get their weed, junk or whatever.

 

Christ, where do I begin with this one? Are you suggesting that everyone who has ever tried drugs is a thief? In all my years I have NEVER known anybody go and beat up an old granny just so they can buy a pill that costs £5 at most. The huge majority of drug users I know are hard-working professional people who just like to relax and enjoy themselves at weekends. Just as the large majority of alcohol users in this world are responsible users who know their limits, why would drug users be different? The idea of stealing to satisfy a habit relates solely to addicts, and even the police would confirm to you that this generally only applies to heroin and crack abuse, substances which we are all agreed on this thread are harmful and should be kept as class A. Again, using the fact that alcohol is legal as a reference point, I'm sure that if you checked you would find that plenty of alcoholics (that is - people addicted to a legal drug) have stolen in order to fund their addiction in the past, but to apply that logic to anybody who likes a drink is just absurd and you damn well know it.

 

I see you STILL haven't answered the question regarding the ethics of the oil trade, or the illegal wood trade. Here's another one for you - do you drink coffee? What do you think about the coffee farmers who are being expolited and forced off their lands all over South America thanks to global corporations? Care to answer that one? Of course you would, because according to your logic only drug users avoid questions which justify their habits.

 

We're also still waiting for you to post a link showing official figures of deaths in the ecstasy trade. I'm sure that you must have some documented evidence about it, because surely no non-drug user would ever be so prejudiced as to make such claims without researching it properly first?

 

I won't hold my breath Wath. Clearly you are quite happy sitting up there in your ivory tower passing judgement on the rest of the world. What on earth would make you want to accept that maybe, just maybe, there is an ounce of truth in what some lowlife druggie scum are telling you.

[pem123]

 

The stupid and scummy would get of their heads, still not be bothered about work and still be pinching to get their weed, junk or whatever.

 

 

Mate, by putting the words 'weed' and 'junk' in the same sentence, not as a comparison, but rather to imply association/lack of difference, you immediately expose yourself as not having a scooby what you're on about.

 

An analogy: it is like saying 'those theives who nick complimentary soap from hotels/rob pensioners at knifepoint

[Ruby79]

See again what I'm saying.

 

IF IT WAS LEGAL.

 

It's not an unlikely to be so stop bothering with the point.

 

Who wants a society of drug abusers. I don't care if you can buy the stuff in the corner shop the social problems would still be there but at a far greater level.

The stupid and scummy would get of their heads, still not be bothered about work and still be pinching to get their weed, junk or whatever.

There is almost no one here stupid enough to use drugs and the crime rate is tiny. The whole of this area (comparable with Rotherham and about 8 miles around) saw 73 reported crimes this month.

I wonder how much of the difference is down to drug users or the lack of them.

 

 

MMMMMMMMM Wath, i just copied this about the areas profile

 

neighbourhood profile

 

Often, many of the people who live in this sort of postcode will be families and single parents living in semis and terraces. These are known as type 48 in the ACORN classification and 1.91% of the UK’s population live in this type.

 

Neighbourhoods fitting this profile are often found in former industrial cities in the north and north-east such as Newcastle upon Tyne, Middlesborough and Sunderland. Examples elsewhere in the country include Wrexham, Nottingham, and Wolverhampton. Here is an overview of the likely preferences and features of your neighbourhood:

 

Family income Very low

Interest in current affairs Very low

Housing - with mortgage Very low

Educated - to degree Very low

Couples with children Medium

Have satellite TV Medium

 

These are large families living in semi-detached council housing.

 

Many families have three or more children, and half of all families are headed by a single parent. Housing is generally two or three bedroom council semis and terraces.

 

Incomes are very low and a fifth of families feel in need of a loan. Unemployment levels are among the highest of any type, being double the national average. Where there is paid work, it tends to be routine jobs in nearby factories or shops. Travel to work is on foot or by public transport. Car ownership is very low.

 

There is little money for fashion shopping. Cheaper clothing is bought from discount stores and supermarkets.

 

Leisure activities include fishing, betting, listening to music and cookery, although take-away and fast food are consumed more than average. Magazines such as OK! or Bella and newspapers like The Sun, Daily Mirror, and Daily Star are all relatively popular reading.

 

What was it you said about people being not stupid enough to take drugs!! Bet you get you 'educated' views from Bella !!!:hihi:

[donkey]

 

Here is an overview of the likely preferences and features of your neighbourhood:

 

Family income Very low

Interest in current affairs Very low

Housing - with mortgage Very low

Educated - to degree Very low

Couples with children Medium

Have satellite TV Medium

 

These are large families living in semi-detached council housing.

 

Many families have three or more children, and half of all families are headed by a single parent. Housing is generally two or three bedroom council semis and terraces.

 

Incomes are very low and a fifth of families feel in need of a loan. Unemployment levels are among the highest of any type, being double the national average. Where there is paid work, it tends to be routine jobs in nearby factories or shops. Travel to work is on foot or by public transport. Car ownership is very low.

 

 

Leisure activities include fishing, betting, listening to music and cookery, although take-away and fast food are consumed more than average. Magazines such as OK! or Bella and newspapers like The Sun, Daily Mirror, and Daily Star are all relatively popular reading.

 

What was it you said about people being not stupid enough to take drugs!!

 

Bet you get you 'educated' views from Bella !!!:hihi:

 

 

 

As soon as the Jeremy Kyle show is over, this will kick off big time.

Edited February 20, 2009 by donkey

[Ruby79]

As soon as the Jeremy Kyle show is over, this will kick off big time.

 

I couldnt resist, it was from a reliable source... seems to sum Upinwath up , dont you think ?

[donkey]

I couldnt resist, it was from a reliable source... seems to sum Upinwath up , dont you think ?

 

He's called so many other people loosers so many times, that he surely couldn't be one himself

[Ruby79]

He's called so many other people loosers so many times, that he surely couldn't be one himself

 

Upinwath , are you are Bella reader ?

[donkey]

Upinwath , are you are Bella reader ?

 

There's nothing wrong with that, as long as you develop a balanced view on current affairs and society with the Reader's Digest and the Daily Mail.

[Ruby79]

There's nothing wrong with that, as long as you develop a balanced view on current affairs and society with the Reader's Digest and the Daily Mail.

 

Interest in Current Affairs in Wath - very low:hihi:

[Bago]

I quote all of your post but respond by asking you one question....

 

What do you think of my views upon making consumer products SAFE?

 

You know what, you seem to think that the government should work their laws FOR you, but how wrong you are. As I see that the government should keep US (citizens) safe! That also means thethings which we consume, and affects our health, and actually over a period of time changes our bodies biologically. I applaud that actually.

 

I tried to come back into this discussion that difference between the scientific angle, and the laymen perspective from the average joe. I cannot believe you will call yourself a chemist, and do not have the ethical stance behind what you say either. If you wite moot arguments that way, then I really have nothing more to say. As you obviously seem to actually want to use drugs, and you think that government should in any which way oblige that.

 

I do not agree at all.