out of your head on Drink & Drugs

Andy From Sligo

I need a recap on being so inebriated on drink and whacked out on drugs - I need to get my head around how one is legal and the other is not legal - its not surely all down to taxes are paid to government on one but not on the other is it?

Both can get to the stage when used in excess that the 'user' is not in charge of their faculties and cannot remember what they are doing/were doing when high or highly intoxicated.

whiskeyman

You sure picked a great day to recap on drink and drugs begorrah!!

Ferrari3600

Idiot groups with no shape or form
Out of their heads on a quid of blow
The shapeless kecks flapping up a storm
Look at what they are: a pack of worms

Andy From Sligo

whiskeyman wrote: »

You sure picked a great day to recap on drink and drugs begorrah!!

my timing is always impeccable

the day is young yet, I bet when I ask some of my friends "how was your St. Patrick's Day" they wil most probably say "i dont know, good I think - I cant remember!"

Junkyard Tom

It starts with irresponsible parents bringing their kids to playgrounds so they can experience weightlessness, excitement, and fun-fear with thier thrill-seeking peers. A kids playground is essentially a rave without drugs. Playgrounds should be banned.

Andy From Sligo

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It starts with irresponsible parents bringing their kids to playgrounds so they can experience weightlessness, excitement, and fun-fear with thier thrill-seeking peers. A kids playground is essentially a rave without drugs. Playgrounds should be banned.

some irresponsible parents should be banned too ...

andekwarhola

Not sure you need mind-altering substances.

drunkmonkey

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It starts with irresponsible parents bringing their kids to playgrounds so they can experience weightlessness, excitement, and fun-fear with thier thrill-seeking peers. A kids playground is essentially a rave without drugs. Playgrounds should be banned.

Ring a Ring o' Roses, the original gateway drug.

Jack the Stripper

Andy if I were you I would forget these trivial issues and go away and take your wife on a vacation. God knows she needs it.

Andy From Sligo

Jack the Stripper wrote: »

Andy if I were you I would forget these trivial issues and go away and take your wife on a vacation. God knows she needs it.

Can't afford it have you seen the price of flights and accommodation these days? ....

Arghus

It's largely social conditioning that makes alcohol more outwardly acceptable.

Enjoy your national holiday tomorrow = get thrashed.

Peregrinus

Actually, in circumstances where "being out of your head" is illegal - e.g. when you're in charge of a motor vehicle - it's illegal regardless of whether it's due to drink or drugs or a combination of the two.

The difference in the legal treatment is in relation to possessing/selling much more than consuming or being influenced by.

As for why the difference, it's a cultural preference. Our culture generally recognises - and had recognised for a long time - that there can be harmless and even beneficial uses of alcohol, and we have all kinds of long-established social and community rituals in which alcohol is involved. There's the tradition of a toast, for example, or of a shared meal enhanced with wine. And while we recognise that alcohol poses dangers, we have social conventions and legal controls intended to minimise the abuse of alcohol. They're of limited effect, certainly, but they're there.

This is true to a much lesser extent, or not at all, of drugs. So restricting or banning drugs doesn't question or threaten established cultural attitudes and social practices in the same way that restricting or banning alcohol does, or would. Hence, we're more prone to restrict or ban drugs.

Cupcake_Crisis

My out of my head days are behind me. From the ages of 18 to 22 I'd be out every weekend drinking whatever I could get my hands on. Now I have 2 glasses of wine and I get the urge to clean me kitchen.

On the rare occasion I do go over board I can't stand that not in control of your limbs feeling. Old age is a terrible thing.

Winterlong

People have been making alcohol for 9000 years now. Banning it would be a bit of a challenge (US prohibition) in most 'normal' countries.

Peregrinus

Banning dope is increasingly a bit of a challenge too.

But the OP doesn't ask whether we can effectively ban either or both of them. He asks why we apparently want to ban the one but not the other.

Conor Bourke

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

I need a recap on being so inebriated on drink and whacked out on drugs - I need to get my head around how one is legal and the other is not legal - its not surely all down to taxes are paid to government on one but not on the other is it?

Both can get to the stage when used in excess that the 'user' is not in charge of their faculties and cannot remember what they are doing/were doing when high or highly intoxicated.

Was expecting this to be a thread about how the state should provide free drink and drugs to people who can't afford to get buzzed on Paddy's Day.

You're losing your touch, Andy.

Glenster

why is walking around with a hurl legal but walking around with a sword against the law.

why is swatting a fly legal but swatting a dog is illegal

why is imbibing chemicals in the form of an apple legal but imbibing chemicals in the form of heroin illegal.

Just because. Now leave everyone alone.

Andy From Sligo

Glenster wrote: »

why is walking around with a hurl legal but walking around with a sword against the law.

why is swatting a fly legal but swatting a dog is illegal

why is imbibing chemicals in the form of an apple legal but imbibing chemicals in the form of heroin illegal.

Just because. Now leave everyone alone.

Good points raised - let's not ban anything then ..... Or ban everything, because there sometimes just seemed no logic ... As you have just pointed out with some classic examples!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

I need a recap on being so inebriated on drink and whacked out on drugs - I need to get my head around how one is legal and the other is not legal - its not surely all down to taxes are paid to government on one but not on the other is it?

Both can get to the stage when used in excess that the 'user' is not in charge of their faculties and cannot remember what they are doing/were doing when high or highly intoxicated.

Not to be pedantic, but being inebrieted on drink IS being whacked out on drugs.

The only official reason is because they are dangerous (which, as anyone who's ever taken some of them will tell you, is bull****) so we have:

Conspiracy theory 1: because certain drugs have an enlightenign effect that the Powers that BE rather you wouldn't have. It'd totally **** up the dumbing-down process (assuming you beieve there is a dumbing-down process going on at the moment)

Conspiracy throery 2: because the drinks markets have too much sway and people on drugs drink less (if at all). The highs are far more interesting and enjoyale and (unless abused) far safer to the people taking the drug.

I go with #1. It's the only logical explanation that actually ticks all the boxes.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Glenster wrote: »

why is walking around with a hurl legal but walking around with a sword against the law.

why is swatting a fly legal but swatting a dog is illegal

why is imbibing chemicals in the form of an apple legal but imbibing chemicals in the form of heroin illegal.

Just because. Now leave everyone alone.

I'd rather the government didn't make laws for the reason of "just because".

Yourself isit

Glenster wrote: »

why is walking around with a hurl legal but walking around with a sword against the law.

Because one is a weapon and the other is for sport. Yes the hurl can be used as a weapon but so can most things. A large battery. A stick. But that's not their primary purpose.

why is swatting a fly legal but swatting a dog is illegal

Because we have a legal order which is a bit speciest. We have to have some hierarchy or we would ban anti biotics

why is imbibing chemicals in the form of an apple legal but imbibing chemicals in the form of heroin illegal.

Because one is more harmful than the other.

Just because. Now leave everyone alone.

Not just because.

Andy From Sligo

so... if drugs were legalised and bought in the same way as alcohol is with the same restrictions where would we be - would there be more drugs usage or less? (I think we came to the decision that you can be just as out of it on alcohol as you can on drugs didnt we? - and both are as bad as each other, and both is abused is bad for your health mentally and physically and people under the influence of drinks and/or drugs are not aware of their cognitive abilities)

So, anyway why do people frown more on someone who gets high on drugs rather than someone who is inebriated by alcohol if they both have the same effect? <feeling a bit philosophical at the moment>

Being intoxicated in a public place IS an offence

Andy From Sligo

bubblypop wrote: »

Being intoxicated in a public place IS an offence

... but not enforced it seems

Andy From Sligo

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

So, anyway why do people frown more on someone who gets high on drugs rather than someone who is inebriated by alcohol if they both have the same effect? <feeling a bit philosophical at the moment>

Which people?
Old people might, don't think younger people do.
Showing your age there Andy!

DontThankMe

I like to drink weed and smoke beers.

pablo128

andekwarhola wrote: »

Not sure you need mind-altering substances.

Really? Why is there so many pubs selling pints of mind altering substances then?

It's not actually a crime to be out of your head on any substance actually once you are not bothering anyone.

pablo128

bubblypop wrote: »

Being intoxicated in a public place IS an offence

Would you think a person would get prosecuted for simply walking out of a public house with 4 pints sloshing around in their belly?

Or would it be more likely they would get done if they were making a nuisance of themselves?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

So, anyway why do people frown more on someone who gets high on drugs rather than someone who is inebriated by alcohol if they both have the same effect? <feeling a bit philosophical at the moment>

Because they read too many tabloids or listen to Joe Duffy would be my guess. One way or the other, it's basically ignorance.

Yourself isit

pablo128 wrote: »

Would you think a person would get prosecuted for simply walking out of a public house with 4 pints sloshing around in their belly?

Or would it be more likely they would get done if they were making a nuisance of themselves?

Both laws exist (public drunkenness and drunk and disorderly). The police in this country rarely enforce either.

Andy From Sligo

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

... but not enforced it seems

You must not have spent my time in the district courts!
Hundreds charged every week

Andy From Sligo

Yourself isit wrote: »

Both laws exist (public drunkenness and drunk and disorderly). The police in this country rarely enforce either.

I am too'ing and fro'wing I think but I think even if drink or drugs are not making a person a nuisance in a public place or to others .. even if they are rolling around incognitive, puking up or not puking up even if they are not bothering others .. I still think the law should stand, your drunk or high on drugs 'in public' and therefore you have/are committing a criminal offence, sounds harsh but most rules are in place for a certain reason not just the fun of it.

We might laugh at others who are rolling around drunk or high (I know I have) but in all seriousness do we want children out in public and events see'ing this as 'the norm' or risk a calm pacif drunk or high person hallucinating or taking something the wrong way in public like this just changing their mood in a split second, looking at it seriously like if we are being honest?

Andy From Sligo

bubblypop wrote: »

You must not have spent my time in the district courts!
Hundreds charged every week

do you get fined €100eur every time? -

Andy From Sligo

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

do you get fined €100eur every time? -

No.
Depends on the judge, the circumstances, the offender whether or not they are first time offenders, if it's out of character etc.
Whether there were other factors involved.
That's fair enough I think.

I don't think anyone in the country just wants people fined just because they are intoxicated. Depends on what they do when intoxicated. Don't you think?

pablo128

bubblypop wrote: »

.

I don't think anyone in the country just wants people fined just because they are intoxicated. Depends on what they do when intoxicated. Don't you think?

Absolutely. If they want to get inebriated/fcuk themselves up, that's their decision. When it's interfering with other people, annoying or upsetting them or putting them in danger, that's also due to their decision and they should be held responsible.

Rough Sleeper

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

I am too'ing and fro'wing I think but I think even if drink or drugs are not making a person a nuisance in a public place or to others .. even if they are rolling around incognitive, puking up or not puking up even if they are not bothering others .. I still think the law should stand, your drunk or high on drugs 'in public' and therefore you have/are committing a criminal offence, sounds harsh but most rules are in place for a certain reason not just the fun of it.

We might laugh at others who are rolling around drunk or high (I know I have) but in all seriousness do we want children out in public and events see'ing this as 'the norm' or risk a calm pacif drunk or high person hallucinating or taking something the wrong way in public like this just changing their mood in a split second, looking at it seriously like if we are being honest?

Like genuinely, can we really, truly say that we want this in all earnestness?

Glenster

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'd rather the government didn't make laws for the reason of "just because".

well they do.

Widdershins

I don't know. Some illegal drugs can kill quickly, and some might be more addictive than say, wine? It's less predictable or measurable, I think. Some of them have worse effects than alcohol. Have seen people turned into much worse than just drunks, as bad as some people are when drunk.

Yourself isit

Glenster wrote: »

well they do.

No they don't.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Glenster wrote: »

well they do.

Thinking that is just pure laziness.

Samuel T. Cogley

Why not do both?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Why not do both?

Mixing drugs is something that relly should be done with research and care, in fairness!

Samuel T. Cogley

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Mixing drugs is something that relly should be done with research and care, in fairness!

Trail and error would benefit everyone IMHO.

Andy From Sligo

I think I heard on the news this paddy's night that gardai are 'asking' people not to drink on the street's.... Not 'it is an offence to be drunk or drinking in a public area' .

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Trail and error would benefit everyone IMHO.

Why? There's enough honest info and comprehensive websites out there and they will all tell you the consequences and potential negative effects of taking certain drugs with certain other drugs.

Andy From Sligo

How are we on the comparison side of things , is there evidence that long-term drug taking is more dangerous than long term alcohol abuse? I suppose they can both kill, but I suppose even though they are both mind altering you can OD on drugs , maybe this is what makes one legal and the other one illegal?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

How are we on the comparison side of things , is there evidence that long-term drug taking is more dangerous than long term alcohol abuse? I suppose they can both kill, but I suppose even though they are both mind altering you can OD on drugs , maybe this is what makes one legal and the other one illegal?

You switched terms there (perhaps accidently) and completly changed your stance:

Abuse of any drug substance - including alcohol - is dangerous and can kill.
Long term drug-taking - inclucing alcohol - can enhance and make life more enjoyable. Can it kill? Can you prove it can? I mean, a guy who drinks a couple fo days every week until he's in his nineties and dies a natural death is a long-term drug user, but he's not killed by the substance.

Graces7

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Ring a Ring o' Roses, the original gateway drug.

? No!

Samuel T. Cogley

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Why? There's enough honest info and comprehensive websites out there and they will all tell you the consequences and potential negative effects of taking certain drugs with certain other drugs.

:rolleyes:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

:rolleyes:

That's actually one of the more intelligent anti-drug arguments I've heard in my time. Bravo, Sir!

Samuel T. Cogley

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

That's actually one of the more intelligent anti-drug arguments I've heard in my time. Bravo, Sir!