(whisper) drugs?

Shinji · 06-03-2001 2:03pm

What sort of a percentage of people your age and in your area are doing/have done illegal drugs (be it dope or coke or whatever)?

Pretty much every single person I know in my peer group and the industry in which I work have done drugs, or use them on a regular basis now. It isn't seen as a problem unless it gets serious. It may seem hypocritical that a few of us can sit around smoking joints and discussing whether there's anything we can do about a friend who we think may be doing cocaine, but I personally, and the vast majority of people I know, consider smoking a joint to be just something you do to relax and chill out a bit - a normal part of life.

FYI, despite the huge number of dope smokers I know, none of them have ever done heroin, only two have ever snorted coke - and only one on more than one occasion - and very few of them have ever taken E. Some of them don't even drink alcohol!

Paladin · 06-03-2001 8:26pm

Originally posted by CB:

And more importantly what is the velocity of an unladed sparrow?

An African or European ? (Its supposed to be a swallow! doh!)

And here's a strange thing...
I dont smoke! OMG! But its sooo easy to get. I mean, if its easily available then I should do it man!

Hash, is never gonna be smoked as much as regular tobacco. Therefore the dangers associated with heavy smoking are not present. So why is it illegal anyway? Although, tbh, Im not sure Id like to see ppl driving after smoking hash. They are prolly capable of driving perfectly albeit a little disintrested in the task

, but that would be a concern of mine. Then again, thats a problem with drinking atm anyway.
Drink is MUCH MUCH MUCH more dangerous to drive after, and is responsible for waay more deaths.

If Irelands culture was go to the pub and smoke joints with our friends we would all be healthier and there would be fewer deaths related to drink driving obviously or liver failure. And if you only smoked socially, then cancer and heart disease wouldnt significantly increase either.

So a joint smoking Ireland rather than an alcaholic Ireland? Anyone up for it?

Frodo@work@home · 07-03-2001 12:32am

im already out of the blocks on that 1

Shiminay · 07-03-2001 10:32am

Good call Pal!

This could be the start of something...

All the best,

Dav
@B^)

Prepare yourself - The Beefy King stirs from his slumber...

neuro-praxis · 07-03-2001 8:11pm

Originally posted by darthmise:

<<So am I a bad person because I used to experiment a little?>>

Of *course* not! I know a lot of great people who have experimented a lot more than just a "little". I'm sure you're great, darthmise, and I propose that moral standards are *very* different to ethics, although often intertwined...

Basically, I take this issue from a moral standpoint, and from a health standpoint...and also because I have seen serious destruction that began with a few joints over a few years.

So, I don't actually give a damn what any of you do to your bodies, but I won't take a verbal bashing for taking my standpoints from where I did.

People are embarassed when the word "moral" comes into any equation. Having values and morals (and I don't pretend that I am some sort of ideal being) is tough in this society because the reaction is often so similar to your, darthmise. I am glad to have my standards set. It's not about naievety.

So, straightforward, that's it. I'm not here for a fight. I'm being honest.

Give me back my towel. I'll sue.

Shiminay · 08-03-2001 4:38pm

Neuro, it's like this...

If you haven't done it for yourself, you are in no position to comment about it.

I'm sure what you've seen is/was horrific (and we've all seen it or something like it at some stage or another), but in all honesty, I firmly believe that as a drug, cannabis is a much healthier and safer alternative to alcohol. I've seen and experienced worse things as a result of drink abuse that I've ever heard of through cannabis abuse. I can't back any of this up with figures and facts as you can as I've never researched the thing!

You come of as very "holier than thou" and "preachy" and while I'm sure you don't mean it, it's almost insulting to have someone who's never experienced/used it telling me what it'll do to me and that is why a lot of the folks here who've cut you down probably feel too.

This post isn't meant to "have a go" or "snap" at you, it's opinion (and I gladly await your reply). I don't speak for everyone here, just me and while morals and opinions are healthy, it's just plain ignorance to try and force yours onto other people.

"Each to their own!"

All the best,

Dav
@B^)

Prepare yourself - The Beefy King stirs from his slumber...

[honey i] violated [the kids]

Chubby · 08-03-2001 4:58pm

Originally posted by Kharn:
...but in all honesty, I firmly believe that as a drug, cannabis is a much healthier and safer alternative to alcohol.

Somehow I doubt that. Alcohol is not really the problem. It's the people abusing it who're wrecking their lives and others. If cannabis is legalised, becomes socially acceptable and is widely available in every newsagent etc, you'll get people who'll abuse it just as much as they abuse alcohol. Legalising drugs will only make it hard for criminals to exploit people and profit from it that's all.

Shiminay · 08-03-2001 5:33pm

Ya, my bad - I didn't get the point I was trying to make across properly, so I'll try again...

When drink is abused and someone becomes drunk, they often go one of 2 ways - they can tend towards the agressive or they can collapse

Before I continue, I'm pointing out this is the biggest generalisation ever, so don't shoot it down straight away.
When dope is abused and someone is stoned, they tend to sit there and go all giggly or they can sometimes get all philosophical (sp?) and ponder life.

My point is, GENERALLY stoned people (as a result of dope) are less troublesome than a drunken person and certainly a lot easier to handle and coax into going home and going to bed etc.

An example...
I've never heard of someone who was stoned on dope beating the seven shades of s**t (or worse) outta someone, but you hear about it happening quite regularly when people get drunk.

By all means point out something that can refute this as I can only comment on my experiences.

All the best,

Dav
@B^)

Prepare yourself - The Beefy King stirs from his slumber...

[honey i] violated [the kids]

darthmise · 08-03-2001 6:31pm

<<Basically, I take this issue from a moral standpoint, and from a health standpoint...and also because I have seen
serious destruction that began with a few joints over a few years.>>

I think it's great that there are so many posts here regarding the health risks. I've even learned a couple of things.

You've argued this from the health standpoint
throughout this thread.. you haven't given any reasons or backing to your claim that it's a moral issue.

I have to echo Kharn's point here and admit that I am pizzed off and a bity insulted that someone who doesn't know both sides of this will tell me that my actions are morally flawed.

What would you say to someone who took the moral highground with regards to alcohol,and who did not drink themselves?.

Is drinking bad for you?
Yes.

Are you a person of lesser morals because you drink?
No.

THIS IS NOT A MORAL ISSUE.

TwoShedsJackson · 08-03-2001 6:48pm

Taking the moral high ground is something that is exceptionally easy to do in a debate like this.

For some people it's not enough that they don't take drugs or want to live their lives according to a literal interpretation of the Bible (to name but one other possibility) - they have to try and force it on everyone else as well.

C B · 08-03-2001 6:58pm

Originally posted by Kharn:

My point is, GENERALLY stoned people ... are ... a lot easier to handle and coax into going home and going to bed etc.

Dav thats probabluy a crime and you shouldn't tell the world about it.

Paladin · 08-03-2001 7:57pm

Morally, if you are not hurting other people or yourself, and you are a generally nice person, then thats a high enough moral standard for me.

I have absolutely no idea why smoking dope is a moral issue (other than its breaking the law

). This is especially highlighted, when someone says that drinking in moderation is morally ok, but smoking hash in moderation is morally below them.

Neuro, I dont await your reply. Not in this thread anyway. Your views on drugs, morals, and your superior attitude and arrogence, simply does not compare to my superior attitude and arrogence in this case

.

You are talking through the cakehole as it were, and from every standpoint you are wrong.

Why can you not simply say "smoking hash isnt terrible dangerous, it isnt morally a big nono, but it isnt for me".
Thats all you had to say, without attempting to justifying yourself with misinformed information, and contradictary moral standards.

neuro-praxis · 08-03-2001 8:34pm

It's not a case of "taking the moral highground". I apologise for any condescending connotations that were picked up, it's not my aim here. I can't help it if my opinions are contrasting to somebody elses's. "Each to their own" always sounds like a wet liberal statement to me, at the risk of sounding offensive. I am not about to change my gut feelings on this issue and say weakly, "Well, it's not my thing, but sure, whatever" blah blah usual laissez-faire attitude.

I hate drugs and their effects, I am strongly pro-life - and therefore I will fight, as is my right, to keep drugs and abortion out of this crappy little country.

If I believe strongly in an issue, it is only right that I stand up and talk about it in any discussion. Why is it that if I talk about how I feel, it is "preaching" but other people talking about what they feel is "expressing an opinion". I don't appreciate being told not to be preachy. Back it up with something other than "I don't agree with you" to justify it.

On being asked of what my backing for my moralistic view on this issue is...I have already explained. It's illegal. It's part of the seedy drug-pushing world. Crime. Addictions. More crime. Morals is always a dodgy word to use, because people immediately feel that their "goodness" is threatened.

There is no need to emphasise that you are a good person despite using drugs - as this is surely true and undoubtedly irrelevant anyhow. However, I am willing to argue against you if you want drugs legalised, and if you take them but prefer the illegal way of doing it then...your views are mixed up.

Don't bother wasting my time attempting to tell me that my differing belief (and personal non-use of drugs) on the issue has insulted you, because I simply won't believe it! I have not in the least been insulted or offended by all the opposite views. People treating me like a moron has been a little insulting (although this does not apply to everybody here of course). I have not, and will not, use drugs, but I do have experience of their effects, even if it was not in my own body.
Not just once or twice, not just with fleeting consequences.

My statement on morals and ethics...ethics are the philosophy of morals, the science of them...and so ethics from a distant standpoint are very different to morals, which are personal. It's like, people seem to think either (a) there is no "good" or "bad" at all, or (b) there is a common ground for accepting what is good and bad, and only an idiot would not know the difference. So I was basically saying, that ethically we are probably in the same place, but morally, in an entirely different place. Does anybody understand what I mean?

On the question of alcohol...I sincerely respect anybody who would decide not to drink, especially in this pressure laden culture that we are all so proud of. My boyfriend is a non-drinker at almost twenty, (a rarity), and I drink. But, I am not doing anything illegal by drinking, and I am responsible. I am not breaking any laws or codes or rules. I am not encouraging, through my buying and consuming of alcohol, any kind of crime. I don't drink and drive. So basically, I don't think I am doing anything wrong, and if anybody disagrees with that, that is fine with me. I don't care what people think of my personal habits and I never attempt to justify them if I feel they are okay.

So anyway, I apologise for my lengthiness. I am not trying to convert people here to my point of view - I'm just stating my own, and trying, without going into too much detail, to make people *understand* my view on the subject.

So go smoke your poison.

Give me back my towel. I'll sue.

Paladin · 08-03-2001 10:03pm

Originally posted by Neuro Praxis:
My boyfriend is a non-drinker

God fúcking help him.

Paladin · 08-03-2001 10:07pm

Originally posted by Neuro Praxis:
On being asked of what my backing for my moralistic view on this issue is...I have already explained. It's illegal.

Did you ever download any mp3's?
Did you drink alcahol when you were under the age of 18?
Did you ever make a tape copy of music you didn't buy?
Did you ever crawl out of that deep deep hole you dug and fart?

neuro-praxis · 08-03-2001 11:50pm

Mature, Paladin. No reply for you. That was it. I am officially done here. Somebody always lowers it below the belt to please the crowd. Whatever. Bye.

Nobody bother talking to me, I am not coming in here again.

Canaboid · 09-03-2001 12:08am

But who will save us ?

Soz, couldn't resist.

Paladin · 09-03-2001 12:12am

Below the belt?

Looks more like you are out argued and are avoiding the sticky questions which would throw your whole argument down into that pit of self righteous denial with you.

Whats that smell?

LOL btw canaboid

Paladin · 09-03-2001 12:20am

Or did you mean the boyfriend dig? That was just taking the píss i.e. joking because an opportunity presented itself. If that makes me immature than William Hague and Tony Blair are a little immature to be leaders of a country.

But the chickening out of questions thatowu show you hold completely hypocritical double standards seems more immature to me, although wait, no, you said you didnt mean to condescend to people. Another doublestandard?

I on the otherhand made no such claim and at this stage (not really previous to this) would openly condescend to you, had it not been for the fact that you show yourself to be a person in fitting with my definition of a decent person, and obviously are quite intelligent if a little naive.

You have lost this argument on every single front.

I apologise for the 'dig' if it offended, but Im quite sure you will live to fight another day.

Canaboid · 09-03-2001 1:58am

Originally posted by neuro-praxis:
I propose that moral standards are *very* different to ethics, although often intertwined...

They are the same.

moral·ly adv.

Synonyms: moral, ethical, virtuous, righteous.

ethics. (used with a sing. verb)The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.

syn·o·nym (sn-nm)
n. Abbr. syn.

A word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or other words in a language.
A word or an expression that serves as a figurative or symbolic substitute for another.

[This message has been edited by Canaboid (edited 08-03-2001).]

Winning Hand · 09-03-2001 2:51am

I tried to have my say when this topic was still on one page but the crappy college comps lost its connection so ill try again.

Neuro: Please shut up. In almost every post of yours you have displayed an amazing lack of knowledge of anything your trying to talk about. You have tried repeatedly to have the last word, continuously finishing your posts with "this is my last post"
The saddest thing is you wont allow people to have their own opinions, and try as you might you do have a "holier than thou" attitude.
Your attempt to back your beliefs up with medical knowledge is laughable to say the least. You have displayed a set of morals that changes with every post you make.
I could go on for ages but ill finish on two points

1. In the topic on underage drinking a while back you spoke of going into clubs and pups while underage........ thats illegal

2. Your boyfriend is almost 20 right?
And you're at least under 18 right?
Well in that case you boyfriend may be commiting statutory rape. Which is also illegal. Yes i have made a presumption but its nothing worse than your assumption that everyone who does drugs are no-good junkies who are a hazard to society

P.S.Sorry if i sound like a jackass

[This message has been edited by Winning Hand (edited 09-03-2001).]

TwoShedsJackson · 09-03-2001 10:42am

Originally posted by neuro-praxis:
I hate drugs and their effects, I am strongly pro-life - and therefore I will fight, as is my right, to keep drugs and abortion out of this crappy little country.

Well if this country's so crap why don't you do the decent thing and fu<k off?

Neuro, anytime you are losing an argument (mainly because you never seem to be able to back up what you say) - you simply refuse to debate any further. That's as immature as it gets.

How old are you?

Chubby · 09-03-2001 10:50am

All you meanies drove neuro away!!

Shiminay · 09-03-2001 11:06am

First up - CB - LOL

Shot!

Anyway...
I've been nice in my other posts, so I'll continue to be nice (against better judgement as I'm more than a little annoyed).

Neuro, you talk a lot about health issues. If a tee-totaler came up to you and started ranting and raving about the ill effects of alcohol (which we all know), wouldn't you be inclined to hit them a frickin' slap as they've got no clue as to what it does to you on a personal level.

You can see my point on this can't you?

It's absolutely insane for you to come along here and tell us what we should be doing etc. Most of us here are older than you and have a little bit more life experience under our belts (personally, I'm only 22, but Castor Troy's an old bastid

)

You're a smart girl and well able to debate - and I respect that, but this has been a loosing battle from the start pruely because you personally have never done it and you have no right to preach to us about it's ill effects. You're arguement is trying to twist what it is a lot of us have admitted to doing into something akin to the Holocaust! and I quote...

It's part of the seedy drug-pushing world. Crime. Addictions. More crime.

Jesus - it happens to people, but if people on this board were junkies, they wouldn't have computers to answer you with because as everyone knows a junkie sells everything they own and robs their granny's confirmation money to get their next hit.

As I said already - it is nothing more than ignorance to try and force your views on an unwilling audience - especially when they're old enough to have made up their own minds. As Pal said, you have lost this arguement on every front.

All the best,

Dav
@B^)

Prepare yourself - The Beefy King stirs from his slumber...

[honey i] violated [the kids]

C B · 09-03-2001 12:31pm

Originally posted by Chubby:
All you meanies drove neuro away!!

No she'll be back once everybody has forgotten that she ignored the difficult questions. She has already done so twice in this forum alone.

darthmise · 09-03-2001 6:29pm

Don't drop out of this conversation just because your getting a bit of stick. The annonimity of this forum gives alot of people the balls to say things they wouldn't normally say.

At least have the courage of your convictions and stop backing down every time you get a tongue lashing.

I'm sure you check this thread every day anyway, you a debater!

But your post pi$$ed me off in so many parts:

QUOTE:

<>

<<Morals is always dodgy word to use, because people immediately feel that their "goodness" is threatened.>>

<<there is a common ground for accepting what is good and bad, and only an idiot would not know the difference.>>

Those my dear are condecending statements.
In your last few posts you have just called everyone here an "ammoral idiot"

You say you've experienced the effects of drugs second hand.. tell us about it then and shut us up.

The law does not define what is morally right or wrong, that is something you will learn with time.

--Kaiser-- · 10-03-2001 10:24am

Neuro-praxis => there is a common ground for accepting what is good and bad, and only an idiot would not know the difference

Hee hee hee,

thats the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard!

[This message has been edited by --Kaiser-- (edited 10-03-2001).]

Excelsior · 10-03-2001 5:05pm

I've stayed out.
Now I am coming in with one post.
That is all, I make the disclaimer only because I can see it will be a long post. Please read it.

Many people have said that this is a great post. The members of the Boards.ie have complimented and congratulated themselves on what seems to be an excellent argument.
However, I notice something everytime congratulations along those lines is written. The arguments that are worthy of such applause are terrifically one-sided. There have been 3 people on what I will refer to as Neuro's side: Baz, Take-It and Chubby.
The rest have been on Castor's side (so called because he is the most intelligent poster on that side).

My primary point, as someone quite intruiged by the philosophical implications of the question is, as Kharn put it:

"you can't speak about something of which you have no experience."

1) I have no experience of the Pyramids.
2) I have not murdered humans
3) I have no experience of the Irish Civil War
4) I have no experience of the holocaust
5) I have no experience of the design of computer hardware.

1) Can I not talk about the great pyrmaid of Chepos?
2) can i not say murder is wrong?
3) can i keep writing my essays on the war in the hope that someday they can be published?
4) do you mean i have to stop writing about that too?
5) should i stop arguing with classmates when they have the inevitable amd-intel fight?

the answer to all 5 is no. i can talk about all those topics that i have no experience of. the inheirited knowledge i have gained from what philosophers refer to as "authority", and what actually refers to reading, watching, books, newspapers, films, websites, allows me to talk about them. seperate from some inexplicable comments from the like of winning hand, i have felt nuero was pretty capable of quoting her sources.
(winning hand- "Please shut up. In almost every post of yours you have displayed an amazing lack of knowledge of anything your trying to talk about")

i hope to have clarified that an abscence of direct experience should not hinder someone in an argument. it seems to be a rather heavy handed technique, coming from the side that argues in favour of a lifting of that kind of unsubtle brute force law they see the government applying with regards to drugs.
so, one can argue, as has already gone before me, that the sources of "authority" are weak, are biased.
the drawing of a conclusion, by a source is not inherently weak. if a pamphlet or a discussionary piece draws a conclusion, one can not deem it biased simply for sake of conclusion.
this examination of sources would lead us also, by logic to examine the first hand experiences of drug users. i think it was the economist, Keynes who said, "a personal experience is an anecdote, not a statistic."
they are notoriously and inherently subjective.

i write like this, to undermine the overwhleming tone of this argument so far. your experience, as rewarding or as paranoiac as it may have been, puts you in no advantage over neuro, baz, take it, or anyone else who disagrees with you and MAY never have experienced illegal drugs.
so smelly socks' commanding query,
"What drugs have you ever taken?"
has, i would argue, no relevance whatsoever.

now i love to travel. it it is one of those things that, i feel, geuninely expands your horizons, broadens your mind, and one day i hope to experience the pyramids. (i'll keep a log and if you'd like, i'll share it with you...

)
and on my travels, no city has grabbed me like Copenhagen. i might be wrong, but was there not a legalised prostitution and cannibas zone south of the Carlsberg brewery, at Ny Carlsberg Glypotek, that they destroyed in the 90's because it failed so miserably?
that is in response to:
frodo@work@home "if its such common sence the why has the decriminalisation of dope worked so well for so long in holland, and why has belgium adopted the same stance."
is christiania, the dope zone island in Copenhagen not in dispute with city councils over the supply of services right now? and are a few tourist organisations not staying clear of it (and as a result in dispute with Christiania's leaders because of lost revenue) due to an increase of heroin in the city. correct me if i'm wrong, my sources are residents in Copenhagen and in Malmo, so they are unofficial.
Frodo later stated:
"why are the majority of police groups in the uk and ireland calling for a change in the laws concerning dope?"
back that up. i really need to see the evidence.

i am going to do something controversial now.
paladin is out of line. he has behaved like an idiot.
"You are talking through the cakehole as it were, and from every standpoint you are wrong."

"Did you ever crawl out of that deep deep hole you dug and fart?"

"Looks more like you are out argued "

out argued by wit like that pal? i don't think so. these are not the posts of a topic that has been shot, or a good game. these are the posts of someone so confident in their intellectual dominance that they revert to the laziest and most ignorant of arguments to back up opinions that have cemented in their heads. i can hear his internal monologue coming up with something ingenius right now.

i have not shared an opinion on drugs yet. just to remind you, i have just done a recap and a personal, highly subjective re-evaluation of the quality of posts here.

canaboid on the difference between ethics and morality- "They are the same."

for me this sums canaboid's history of posts up. you can go to any ethicist for a differentiation. i will go to nina rosenstad, a professor at san diego university. "Morality refers to the moral rules we follow. Ethics is generally defined as theories about these rules."
Ethics is the meta class. Morality is the day to day, down to business stuff of life. And as these drugs are illegal, you are dealing with a moral dilema, one where ethics must be applied, and both thought structures can easily support both arguments.

so to darthmise:
"I don't disagree for a second that morals shape a person, but I don't see how it's relevant here."
perhaps what i just wrote clears up some things about morality and ethics for you. drugs, (heroin to alcohol) cause health issues, and drugs are dominated by nefarious corporations ( phillip morris, diageo) or by criminal (terrorist) drug cartels. so on those topics, and their damage to the individual, to the society and to the culture, it falls under the bracket of morality and ethics.
i should hope one can see that this is not a case of the (darthmise) "pulpit talk we could do without." i approach this rationally. i intend to fill out the argument as i see it, and as is my right on bulletin boards.

i have considered whether the next paragraph will make my whole post unreadable to many. i've decided to write it anyway as it is the fully honest thing to do. it may make me terrifically bIased. but full disclosure seems to be demanded.
i am the much discussed boyfriend of neuro. regretfully, i am not committing statutory rape, winning hand. i am 19. neuro is 18. i do not drink. i do not smoke. i do not do any illegal drugs. i am capable of arguing in favour or against drugs all the same, because i have educated myself on the sociological, medicinal and ethical considerations of drug use.
the primary reason i don't do drugs is a complex one that centers, rather obtusely i will admit, on philosophy. my rationality is what defines me. i think therefore i am. to pollute my brain with drugs, and to dilute my rationality is to dilute my essence of self.
so i am personally against drugs. but i am also generally against them. i feel that the threat posed by "harder" drugs is about as massive as any to personal freedom. i worry about the intellectual naivety of arguing in favour of drugs as a liberal standpoint. there is no liberty in leaving people free to be enslaved by chemicals. for me, there is a cop out there. i fully believe, my moral position in fact, is that i must treat all people like a brother. i must take responsibility for their poverty, and take pleasure in their success. by extension, some things should not be permitted. and if utopia existed, alcohol would be gone too.
i am a citizen of this country. and a resident.
castor-"Well if this country's so crap why don't you do the decent thing and fu<k off?"
soon, we will. but until then i follow the laws of this country. which state i can't be murdered. which state that we no longer claim the 6 northern counties. which state that some substances are illegal.

i have laid it out as i see it.
as is my right by nature of the web.
i am coming back in 10 days time, so be wary of that in your response. if you want to be condescending or insulting, it will have to be extra sharp to get me.

thanks for reading this. i have to go ring neuro.

logic1 · 10-03-2001 5:18pm

1) Can I not talk about the great pyrmaid of Chepos?
2) can i not say murder is wrong?
3) can i keep writing my essays on the war in the hope that someday they can be published?
4) do you mean i have to stop writing about that too?
5) should i stop arguing with classmates when they have the inevitable amd-intel fight?

the answer to all 5 is no.

I think the answer to the third one should be yes actually.

.logic.

Take it · 10-03-2001 6:07pm

I wasn’t going to reply anymore because everyone has their own views and will stick to them and nearly every point that can be made has been made so far. But there’s a few things I will comment on.

I'd like to know the names of the 'sizeable' number of TD's elected with racist agendas.

I’d like to know the name of TD's elected with an agenda of legalising hash!

Whatever happened to responsibility? Do people accept any liability for their actions any more? Is it the general view that people are so weak minded that they cannot choose for and look after themselves?

Yea sure **** it why not legalise all drugs and let people be responsible. Ireland cant handle the legal drugs at the moment with a MASSIVE drink problem don’t add other drugs to the list.

Also yes I have tried it once

For some people it's not enough that they don't take drugs or want to live their lives according to a literal interpretation of the Bible (to name but one other possibility) - they have to try and force it on everyone else as well.

OMG castor of all people ffs we aren't trying to stop no one the argument is weather it should be legal or not many of my mates smoke hash I choose not to and am voicing my opinion next time you voice your how about everyone just agrees with you would that make it easier?

Within this post there are a lot of ignorant FUKKERS yes I have taken some points on board one being that its so easy to get now that it might as well be legal but everyone else seems to think there right and don’t give a fukk what anyone else says there right that’s it.

Kharn I didn’t drink till I was 18 and when asked why not I said because I don't need it to have a good time and even though I didn’t try it before I was right I didn’t need it and was better of with out it.

(whisper) drugs?

Comments