I haven't suggested otherwise and you're a fool if you think I have. If you took the trouble to go a short distance back in the general convetsation you would see that. The only distinction I have made is that of legality, which is indisputable, but you probably will. A pharmist peddles legal drugs, prescription and nonprescription. I solh drink and tobacco, both legal. Somé businesses sell food to obese people, all quite legal. It's intetesting to me that one of the loudest protagonists on this thread has an argument weaker than piss and totally without sense. I believe that the social use of drugs should be managed in far more intelligently and far more responsibily. That doesn't mean I think they are good or clever, just as I think that someoneone who bases their argument on drink and drugs being equally bad, is not seeing the reality of it all. You teally should draw a line, Off The Line.
Just a question, but when you were a Publican, did you feel as though you were distributing and cultivating joy and well-being or misery and despair?
You are correct, the evidence is indisputable. I don't think that drugs are equally bad (notice how I didn't distinguish between them), alcohol is up there with the worst of them as various scientific studies have proven.
I think you miss the point about pubs. They are regulated, the landlord is personally responsible for the welfare of the patrons. Pubs are licensed, the drinks come in prescribed measurements. In the vast majority of cases the purchaser knows exactly what they are buying. Anyone who sells alcohol in this country has to have a license, the purchase is limited by age. Compare that to the sale of drugs. In fact there is a comparison, fake booze. I drink, and celebrate it. Would I inject swallow or inhale something sold to me on the street by a dealer, no on your life.
Much of the first and a little of the second. At both ends of the scale the law required me to exercise judgement in when to withdraw my service - I not only did that, but I usually went out of my way to help them get home safely, if that was possible. I also worked closely woth the police and other authorities to manage a social environment that folk wanted to use. (Remember the problems of prohibition?). Show me a drug dealer who does this - in my world they were a big part of the problem and none of the solution. Just a question: why do you go to great lengths to criticise a legitimate business, that, by and large, provides a decent social service, so you can justify an illegal trade that uses violence, intimidation and a total lack of public spirit to further its ends? What is your purpose, as it certainly isn't to the benefit of society, which I think is how you are trying (very poorly) to come across?
Kinnel, there's some really naive nonsense on this thread, it's like some people's entire experience of recreational drugs came from watching Grange Hill.
I haven't criticised anything. Nor am I trying to justify an illegal trade. As I stated earlier in the discussion, current legislation doesn't help with the situation on any side of the debate. I was merely pointing out that if you own a pub, you sell drugs. If you're an alcoholic, you're a drug addict. Until this is universally accepted in this country, nothing can change. Go ahead, bury your head in the sand, why change now eh?
Evidence that Alcohol More Dangerous Than Heroin Evidence that alcohol is more dangerous than heroin has been supplied by a recent study in the UK. Researchers used a number of criteria to determine the potential damage of different drugs including alcohol – it included such things as damage to health and problems with relationships. Each drug was given a danger score out of 100. Alcohol scored the highest with a danger of 72; heroin scored 55 and crack cocaine scored 54 – cannabis only scored 20.
Isnt it the case - and I could be completely wrong here - that nobody has ever or would ever die from heroin? It's the **** that it's mixed with to be sold on the streets that kills people. Might be completely wrong here but it rings a bell from a previously seen documentary.
I believe so. Certainly a great deal of the withdrawal symptoms are due to what it's been cut with. I should also point out that the study was paid for by the government and promptly ignored, by the very same government. Much like Fez will when he sees it.
It's not true, if you injected pure heroin, you'd almost certainly die of an overdose, it's always cut with something. The deaths caused by overdoses generally come about due to people normally using heavily cut poor quality stuff, then getting hold of some stronger stuff and injecting their normal amount before they realise.
I think this thread shows some are probably taking drugs, and others probably should be. I'm not going to say which is which though.
I did love when they employed a 'drugs tsar' to fully review government policy and stance on illegal recreational drugs, and then promptly ignored all the findings and subsequent recommendations.
I have in the past but not for a long time, more than a decade. I'm fully aware of the dangers of what I did, both short and long term, but I would also never be so hypocritical to deny that I had a ****ing great time*. When you get Leah Betts' mum saying that there should be opportunity for people (estimated in excess of a million each weekend) to test their drugs in nightclubs before they take them, then you know it's time to perhaps review policy. *One of the very best nights was actually on magic truffles, which were completely legal at the time and legally acquired. What's the stance on something like that which the law says is fine but I know had a bigger impact on me than anything illegal that I had?
