• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

If you think drugs related incidents, (i.e. crimes, costs etc) are bad now, just wait and see them rise ten-fold, if drugs were legalised.

I've done (nearly) every drug you can think of, and had a whale of a time whilst on them. However, I know, no good can ever come from legalising them. It's quite simply, a recipe for disaster.

Well technically your only think their will be based on your own experiences , and the people you were with at the time . So what you mean is people you know who took drugs would probably do more damage , for no reason , that they did when it was illegal . So its actually the people on the substances .
 
Illegality isn't a barrier, as many have testified on here. Would more people try drugs if they were legal, probably... however I genuinely don't believe that out there are 1,000's of potential addicts who are waiting to get hooked but it's just the law from preventing them. Many people have dabbled in drugs but not become hooked. I believe that it's down to many complex issues which determine whether a person decides to regularly take drugs. Stress, lifestyle, confidence, mental health issues, emotion trauma etc etc etc.

Drug crime is obviously down to the illegal nature of illegal drugs. This would pretty much disappear if drugs were legalised. I guess there would still be a group of people who are seriously addicted and need crime to fund their habit.

Drug deaths is a complex issue:

With heroin, a lot of deaths are due to the fact that heroin is cut down with a lot of ****. Either the agent used is dangerous, or the user gets a potent fix and accidently OD's. Both of these causes of death would be eliminated.

With cocaine and other stimulants, they can cause a heart attack. It's very rare, and more likely in patients with pre-existing heart disease... however they are dangerous drugs, and seeing as other recreational 'drugs' such as drinking and smoking can cause heart disease... they really aren't a good idea.

With Ecstasy, the deaths are caused to mis-information, and users drinking too much/too little water. Much better info can be given if the drug is legalised.

Cannabis has medicinal benefits, and my officemate did a big research project in MS sufferers. However it's likely to cause psychosis, depression and schizophrenia in certain heavy users. It's not a drug to be taken lightly.

My issue however comes down to the fact that the deaths per user rate for alcohol and smoking is miles higher than that of cannabis, ecstasy, cocaine and heroin. Therefore to everyone the current policy just seems completely illogical. None of the drugs are 'good' for you, and for most of them the answer is just "we don't know". We don't know the true long-term effects because prohibition means we can't do proper long term studies.

I really don't understand why ecstasy isn't class C or de-classified and sold in registered premises. With cannabis, heroin and cocaine, I'm really not sure.

totally agree , a friend of mine in the medical profession pointed out that long term heroin uses a fine as long as they keep getting the same dosage , their major issues come when its not available, and as Pubey said what it is mixed with .

All drugs will have differnet affects on people, as each and every person is different in varying ways . I can't stand or go near the Cannabis for instance (mild allergy) , but i take nootropic drugs for day to day usage .(Though these are legal )
 
I really don't understand why ecstasy isn't class C or de-classified and sold in registered premises. With cannabis, heroin and cocaine, I'm really not sure.

I think cases like Leah Betts, which was certainly made a focal point of drug use when I was growing up, have fuelled great levels of misinformation which has caused stigma around the drug. If you were to declassify ecstasy, it would almost certainly stop people looking for alternatives in plant food and bath salts which are probably even worse for you, but I just can't see it happening because of the negative aura that surrounds it.
 
Illegality clearly isn't a bar for you, so why do you think it's a bar for other people?

In what way do you mean?

But how much of that crime is due to people stealing to raise money for their next fix?
When you were taking whatever it was, did you start behaving worse in public than usual?

Do people steal for a fix? Yes of course. But look at it like this, people are classed as "desperate", when they want it but can't have it, and are willing to do anything to get it. So, if you make them legal, how do you stop these "desperation crimes"? Surely the only solution would be to make it free? Do you honestly think the government would do that? No. A) because people would be overdosing left right and centre and B) because the Government could/would make a bundle of dough from taxing drugs.

Secondly, It's not only the "desperate" who will do it. Do you believe drug dealers would become extinct? No chance. All that happens is, they start robbing it from shops and knocking it out even cheaper, meaning they are back in business.

Well technically your only think their will be based on your own experiences , and the people you were with at the time . So what you mean is people you know who took drugs would probably do more damage , for no reason , that they did when it was illegal . So its actually the people on the substances .

Yes, different drugs will affect different people. There is no set formula or pattern you can follow. One person could do a bit of sniff, and would be talkative and happy. Whereas someone else could take it and react completely different, i.e. aggresive, angry, paranoid etc. I was always the previous, and never once got angry or lost control when on any drug, be it weed, pills, MDMA or coke. But, of course, I have seen the flipside, and what happens when someone turns nasty when on it. The trouble is, they could be one of the nicest people you could meet, when sober, but all it takes is that chemical reaction to bring out some deep hidden emotions, and that's the touch paper lit. So how do you differentiate between the two types? How do you know who will act OK, and who will act like a mug? Simple answer is..... you can't. But by legalising all drugs, you are in effect, giving those capable of doing bad things, a chance to do these bad things. Whereas, surely you should try and prevent it?

Of course Osy, you're right, I can only go on what I, myself, have seen and experienced. But I don't for a second think I've seen/experienced anything too different from what goes on in every town/city throughout the UK.

The next factor, Look at the Clean up bill for a friday/saturday night in hospitals etc. Now tell me, what's more expensive/costly? treating some gattered person for a scratch on their head? or pumping someone's stomach, because they don't know their drug limits and have OD? You see it and hear all the time on the news stories and clips of youngsters who have been out drinking and have done so much, that they end up laying in the street puking their guts up. Now luckily, when on drink, all they're going to do is wake up with a banging hangover. However, you OD and you might not wake up at all.

Another key point. Everyone knows about Amsterdam. You go to Amsterdam, get bang out of your nut, and generally run riot. Now if we were to legalise gear, we'd have the same problem over here, possibly on a larger scale. And with our lax policing, don't you think it would be a recipe for disaster?

Then of course comes the chancers who will concoct their own recipe's and flog it cheap. That's how Methadrone (meow meow, Mkat, plant food) came about. How do they government (who have now leaglised drugs) stop this cheap crap flooding the streets?

The truth is, legalising drugs is a bullsh*t idea. And that's coming from someone who has done it all, and enjoyed it even more. But I know, that legalising it would be a monumental f*ck-up
 
In what way do you mean?



Do people steal for a fix? Yes of course. But look at it like this, people are classed as "desperate", when they want it but can't have it, and are willing to do anything to get it. So, if you make them legal, how do you stop these "desperation crimes"? Surely the only solution would be to make it free? Do you honestly think the government would do that? No. A) because people would be overdosing left right and centre and B) because the Government could/would make a bundle of dough from taxing drugs.

Secondly, It's not only the "desperate" who will do it. Do you believe drug dealers would become extinct? No chance. All that happens is, they start robbing it from shops and knocking it out even cheaper, meaning they are back in business.



Yes, different drugs will affect different people. There is no set formula or pattern you can follow. One person could do a bit of sniff, and would be talkative and happy. Whereas someone else could take it and react completely different, i.e. aggresive, angry, paranoid etc. I was always the previous, and never once got angry or lost control when on any drug, be it weed, pills, MDMA or coke. But, of course, I have seen the flipside, and what happens when someone turns nasty when on it. The trouble is, they could be one of the nicest people you could meet, when sober, but all it takes is that chemical reaction to bring out some deep hidden emotions, and that's the touch paper lit. So how do you differentiate between the two types? How do you know who will act OK, and who will act like a mug? Simple answer is..... you can't. But by legalising all drugs, you are in effect, giving those capable of doing bad things, a chance to do these bad things. Whereas, surely you should try and prevent it?

Of course Osy, you're right, I can only go on what I, myself, have seen and experienced. But I don't for a second think I've seen/experienced anything too different from what goes on in every town/city throughout the UK.

The next factor, Look at the Clean up bill for a friday/saturday night in hospitals etc. Now tell me, what's more expensive/costly? treating some gattered person for a scratch on their head? or pumping someone's stomach, because they don't know their drug limits and have OD? You see it and hear all the time on the news stories and clips of youngsters who have been out drinking and have done so much, that they end up laying in the street puking their guts up. Now luckily, when on drink, all they're going to do is wake up with a banging hangover. However, you OD and you might not wake up at all.

Another key point. Everyone knows about Amsterdam. You go to Amsterdam, get bang out of your nut, and generally run riot. Now if we were to legalise gear, we'd have the same problem over here, possibly on a larger scale. And with our lax policing, don't you think it would be a recipe for disaster?

Then of course comes the chancers who will concoct their own recipe's and flog it cheap. That's how Methadrone (meow meow, Mkat, plant food) came about. How do they government (who have now leaglised drugs) stop this cheap crap flooding the streets?

The truth is, legalising drugs is a bullsh*t idea. And that's coming from someone who has done it all, and enjoyed it even more. But I know, that legalising it would be a monumental f*ck-up

Our attitude to mental health would dictate what would happen . Lets take alcohol as an example , Depression but also an de-inhibitor in larger quantities. If legalised you on certain types of drugs would have to get some form of psych evaluation to agree to take it . It like alcohol is down to you to discover your own limits . Its personal responsibilty again . It carries across the whole spectrum of human affairs . If you try it don't like it far better you were in a controlled sterile environment to find out . Stomach pumping occurs far more for alcohol abuse then for drugs. Alocholo posining kills just as much as any other form of ODing .

By your own experinces and self knowledge you can . As you use beer etc you know your taste what works what dosn't , but we don;t all go out drinking ethanol striaght to see what happens its refined to be drinkinable and enjoyable , as well as "safe" as possible , the same would happen with recreational drugs . Also greater research could produce results into the pleasant side affects less addictive qualities and damage (as well as more research into neurology that is required anyway )

The getting out of your nut is an extension of our drinking culture in UK society , we "repress" ourselves all week in work then smash it up in 2 days . How much can we down how great is it we can do this that or teh other , rather then relax and enjoy is (anyone who has had 30+ year fine wines or spirit's will know this ) .

As already mentioned before what reason are you doing these substances for , and that is your responsibility to find out . To legalise it will make it safer for people to do so.
 
Psych-evaluations to predetermine your "ability" to take drugs would never work, as certain drugs alter your current state of mind, while prolonged use can cause permanent damage/effects to your mental state. Half the patients my parents have dealt with were perfectly ordinary teenagers until they started abusing on a regular basis and they developed schizophrenia, manic depression or various other mental impairments as a result of drug abuse.

What are you going to do, give them a card that says they're clinically sane enough to take drugs? And how long is it until someone can clone the cards or even go and buy the drugs for someone else? You can't legalise drug-use for a section of the community while forbidding it for another, it's all or nothing, which is why the vast majority of people will inevitably lean towards "nothing".
 
Last edited:
Psych-evaluations to predetermine your "ability" to take drugs would never work, as certain drugs alter your current state of mind, while prolonged use can cause permanent damage/effects to your mental state. Half the patients my parents have dealt with were perfectly ordinary teenagers until they started abusing on a regular basis and they developed schizophrenia, manic depression or various other mental impairments as a result of drug abuse.

What are you going to do, give them a card that says they're clinically sane enough to take drugs? And how long is it until someone can clone the cards or even go and buy the drugs for someone else? You can't legalise drug-use for a section of the community while forbidding it for another, it's all or nothing, which is why the vast majority of people will inevitably lean towards "nothing".

I'd disagree and point you towards the early research of Tim Leary and his early work (for his was a scientist ) on the effects of LSD .
Neurotransmiters are affected by everything you do and see , its the level or drug you take that alter these and teh individual as gray's has already said he didn't have the same affect that others had . And this is true of everyone , and every activity we do . It all has risk , but we still do it , but in as controlled manner as possible .

That wouldn't happen its like people who are allergic to say mushrooms , they are legal (well most ) but some people will die if they eat mushrooms . Do those who have the knowledge of this blindly take them . And as all psych evals wold be personal and voluntary it would be like people who have a wide sex life and have regular STU checks . The individual is responsibility for themselves and must learn the consequences of those actions , but the prohibition and flat denial has caused this to be a far greater problem , if we do this and provide means for people to make the educated choice then it is down to the individual , if they die it was their own choice to do so.

Actually EB id like to your your folk's views as well.
 
Last edited:
In what way do you mean?

Do people steal for a fix? Yes of course. But look at it like this, people are classed as "desperate", when they want it but can't have it, and are willing to do anything to get it. So, if you make them legal, how do you stop these "desperation crimes"? Surely the only solution would be to make it free? Do you honestly think the government would do that? No. A) because people would be overdosing left right and centre and B) because the Government could/would make a bundle of dough from taxing drugs.
Secondly, It's not only the "desperate" who will do it. Do you believe drug dealers would become extinct? No chance. All that happens is, they start robbing it from shops and knocking it out even cheaper, meaning they are back in business.
We might differ on this one GJB

But if Drugs were affordable as are Cigarettes and alcohol, people would find the money should they choose to do so.
You don’t really have many fag and beer dealers in the same way as you have drug dealers.

Also, you seem to be assuming that if they were readily available, everyone would want to use them. Im sure most people would realise the damage they would do and avoid them at all costs.

I would be very interested in the old man’s view on the subject.
 
Our attitude to mental health would dictate what would happen. If legalised you on certain types of drugs would have to get some form of psych evaluation to agree to take it .

It simply wouldn't work. What's to stop someone else, who is classed as sane, getting the drugs and passing them on?

It like alcohol is down to you to discover your own limits . Its personal responsibilty again . It carries across the whole spectrum of human affairs . If you try it don't like it far better you were in a controlled sterile environment to find out

The difference is, with beer (for example) once you have a taste, you know instantly whether you like it or not. But certain drugs can take ages to kick in and come off. Mushrooms (LSD) for example. That buzz can last for days on some people, and once you're buzzing, you can't turn it off, you just have to ride it out, which is easier said than done. Ecstacy and MDMA are the same, eccept it doesn't last as long, but you'll still be away for a good 4-5 hours. Now go back to my point about beer. Iimagine you take a sip of beer, and don't like it. You stop sipping it. But you can't get the taste out of your mouth for days. That's when problems occur.

By your own experinces and self knowledge you can . As you use beer etc you know your taste what works what dosn't , but we don;t all go out drinking ethanol striaght to see what happens its refined to be drinkinable and enjoyable , as well as "safe" as possible , the same would happen with recreational drugs . Also greater research could produce results into the pleasant side affects less addictive qualities and damage (as well as more research into neurology that is required anyway )

You're basing your assumptions on the working of someone who is cautions about taking stuff. There are very many reckless people who wouldn't be cautious and dive right in at the deep end.

As already mentioned before what reason are you doing these substances for , and that is your responsibility to find out . To legalise it will make it safer for people to do so.

People take drugs to broaden their horizons and experience events differently from normal. Drugs, whilst loosening our inhibitions, also heighten our senses and make you feel more euphoric with your surroundings.
Leaglising it may make it safer for people to try, but it also raises the dangers of those people to react badly on it. What's more important?
 
It simply wouldn't work. What's to stop someone else, who is classed as sane, getting the drugs and passing them on?



The difference is, with beer (for example) once you have a taste, you know instantly whether you like it or not. But certain drugs can take ages to kick in and come off. Mushrooms (LSD) for example. That buzz can last for days on some people, and once you're buzzing, you can't turn it off, you just have to ride it out, which is easier said than done. Ecstacy and MDMA are the same, eccept it doesn't last as long, but you'll still be away for a good 4-5 hours. Now go back to my point about beer. Iimagine you take a sip of beer, and don't like it. You stop sipping it. But you can't get the taste out of your mouth for days. That's when problems occur.



You're basing your assumptions on the working of someone who is cautions about taking stuff. There are very many reckless people who wouldn't be cautious and dive right in at the deep end.



People take drugs to broaden their horizons and experience events differently from normal. Drugs, whilst loosening our inhibitions, also heighten our senses and make you feel more euphoric with your surroundings.
Leaglising it may make it safer for people to try, but it also raises the dangers of those people to react badly on it. What's more important?

The important part is your taking personal responsibility away from the people who take it for no reason other then you think they may act in inappropriate manner . I agree people could buy for others who are not etc , it happens with alcohol now , with fags.
The effects of drugs and how long they take have already been recorded in studies , so it wouldn't be a great stretch to say to a person ok you weight such and such , this tab will roughly take 1-2 hour's . The LSD experiments from Tim Leary showed that environment and current mental health had the largest imprint . Like anything that involves risk or possible long term damage or death its down to the educated mature individual to make that choice . By the criteria you listed all motor racing could be banned ?

Cautious or not the choice when information is available is still theirs if long term affects happen it was down to them even more so if it was available and they choose not to heed it.
 
Also, you seem to be assuming that if they were readily available, everyone would want to use them. Im sure most people would realise the damage they would do and avoid them at all costs.

Not neccessarily. Certain people just get addicted to these things. I'll use this as a perfect example...

When I was younger, and i was with all my mates down the pub, many of them would be smoking. Despite knowing all the risks, after a few beers, I would have a couple of puffs. This carried on steady, until the point came where (not wanting to seem like a ponce) I started buying my own fags to smoke down the pub. The next thing you know, I'm smoking when i've not had a beer. And 6-7 years later, I smoke X amount every day.

The point is, it started as a little bit, just trying it here and there, and ended up being a full-time smoking habit, despite knowing how bad they are. Through peer-pressure and lowered inhibitions, people will try/use drugs, if it was legal.
 
Actually EB id like to your your folk's views as well.

Well, considering that their job would be made significantly harder were drugs to be legalised, I'd say they wouldn't be the most neutral of view points, to be honest...

The problems they see are predominately caused by cannabis, with the stronger strains proven to increase the likelihood of psychosis, schizophrenia and a number of mental health impairments. From an NHS perspective, if cannabis was to be widely available, the strain that mental health facilities would be put under with the increased numbers of those suffering a wide variety of mental health issues would be enormous, and the funding caused just wouldn't be enough to compensate.
 
Well, considering that their job would be made significantly harder were drugs to be legalised, I'd say they wouldn't be the most neutral of view points, to be honest...

The problems they see are predominately caused by cannabis, with the stronger strains proven to increase the likelihood of psychosis, schizophrenia and a number of mental health impairments. From an NHS perspective, if cannabis was to be widely available, the strain that mental health facilities would be put under with the increased numbers of those suffering a wide variety of mental health issues would be enormous, and the funding caused just wouldn't be enough to compensate.

Though that is skunk , and your making the assumption that wouldn't be the first product to lose its market . If a safer version (and im sure there is one out there) were available the hard stuff would lose out very quickly , as before its the difference between fine Napoleonic brandy and ethanol . Though a schizophrenia and paranoia are normally driven by sensory or psych based issue in the person already has, therefore sensible mental health procedures would probably help reduce the effect of softer canaboid usage . I guess here we're arguing are we going to create a new breed of addicts when as already shown tabacco usage and alcohol already cause far more harm and damage
Dosnt long term cannabis use also destroy short term /working memory ? Or is it all memory ?
 
"There is always a choice."
"You mean I could choose certain death?"
"A choice nevertheless, or perhaps an alternative. You see I believe in freedom. Not many people do, although they will of course protest otherwise. And no practical definition of freedom would be complete without the freedom to take the consequences. Indeed, it is the freedom upon which all the other are based."
- Lord Vetinari and Moist
 
Not neccessarily. Certain people just get addicted to these things. I'll use this as a perfect example...

When I was younger, and i was with all my mates down the pub, many of them would be smoking. Despite knowing all the risks, after a few beers, I would have a couple of puffs. This carried on steady, until the point came where (not wanting to seem like a ponce) I started buying my own fags to smoke down the pub. The next thing you know, I'm smoking when i've not had a beer. And 6-7 years later, I smoke X amount every day.

The point is, it started as a little bit, just trying it here and there, and ended up being a full-time smoking habit, despite knowing how bad they are. Through peer-pressure and lowered inhibitions, people will try/use drugs, if it was legal.

The point you are missing is that people try/use drugs already. I'm surprised you don't get this point seeing as you admit to having done so yourself. You have first hand experience that the current approach doesn't work.

As for the addiction point, not all drugs are as addictive as each other. Drugs like LSD, cannabis and ecstasy aren't as addictive as tobacco. Alcohol is a drug, but not everyone who is addicted to smoking is addicted to drinking. Again, you are an example of this. You are addicted to nicotine, but you have tried pretty much every drug under the sun, and how many of those are you addicted to?

Is the only thing stopping you being a heroin/LSD/ecstasy addict the fact that it is illegal?
 
The point you are missing is that people try/use drugs already. I'm surprised you don't get this point seeing as you admit to having done so yourself. You have first hand experience that the current approach doesn't work.

I don't think you're understanding my point really. It's because of my knowledge/experiences etc why I feel, allowing it to made widely available would do more harm than good. I've seen the good times and i've seen the bad times. I dread to think what that would be like on a larger more tolerated scale.

As for the addiction point, not all drugs are as addictive as each other. Drugs like LSD, cannabis and ecstasy aren't as addictive as tobacco. Alcohol is a drug, but not everyone who is addicted to smoking is addicted to drinking. Again, you are an example of this. You are addicted to nicotine, but you have tried pretty much every drug under the sun, and how many of those are you addicted to?
I wasn't guarenteeing people would become addicted, but merely pointing out to Steveo how peopele, despite how against it they may be, could/would get on to trying it.

Whilst drugs aren't addictive (to me anyway), there are many times where people feel the need to get them. Not because they need to, but because they enjoy it.

Is the only thing stopping you being a heroin/LSD/ecstasy addict the fact that it is illegal?
Who really knows? I'd like to think I would stick well clear, but I always thought, growing up, that i'd stick well clear of fags. Maybe the biggest reason so many are addicted to smoking, is because fags are so widely available. Would it be the same with drugs? Who knows?
 
Whilst drugs aren't addictive (to me anyway), there are many times where people feel the need to get them. Not because they need to, but because they enjoy it.

Who really knows? I'd like to think I would stick well clear, but I always thought, growing up, that i'd stick well clear of fags. Maybe the biggest reason so many are addicted to smoking, is because fags are so widely available. Would it be the same with drugs? Who knows?

Actually its the addictive nature of tobacco itself . I can see what your saying re differnet affects on people but food is becoming just as bad as we see the level of obesity rise .
 
Back
Top