Legalise all drugs

[Chris]

Originally posted by Andy McGregor
Depends.

Well if there's a 'depends' at all, it means that there are certain circumstances in which you would smoke

reminds me of the joke about the woman who thought she might sleep with someone for million pounds . . . (after agreeing to think about it she was then offered a fiver. "no way, what do you think I am?" - to which came the reply "we have already established that, we are just arguing about the price!!")

[Andy McGregor]

Originally posted by Chris
Well if there's a 'depends' at all, it means that there are certain circumstances in which you would smoke

There is a certain pleasure/pain axis.

Pain - If the pain factor meant that my life would be extended by smoking - ie, gun to my head and I would be shot if you didn't take a puff.

Pleasure - If my dream date with Kylie was at Ashtons, Rochester or Bromley Ceroc I'd probably go...

..maybe

Let's get real though, what are the chances of either of those things happening (he says hoping to tempt fate on the Kylie axis )

[TheTramp]

Originally posted by Andy McGregor
Let's get real though, what are the chances of either of those things happening (he says hoping to tempt fate on the Kylie axis )

Very slim to none.

Well, actually, none to none. But I didn't want to depress you too much!

Steve

[ChrisA]

Originally posted by TheTramp
Very slim to none.

100:1, apparently, depending on who you are.

http://www.itv.com/news/1293403.html

Chris

[TheTramp]

Ummmm.

But they saw the student when he was placing his bet. He might be good looking and smart and have his own hair and everything.

Wonder what odds they'd give Andy if he did the same thing

Steve

[ChrisA]

Originally posted by TheTramp
Wonder what odds they'd give Andy if he did the same thing

What part of "depending on who you are" didn't you understand, then, Trampster???

Chris

[TheTramp]

Originally posted by ChrisA
What part of "depending on who you are" didn't you understand, then, Trampster???

Is this a language thing.

Your statement, 'depending on who they are', states that there is a difference, but doesn't indicate that you are interested in this difference at all (although that may be implied, depending on the reader).

My 'wondering' realises your difference, but raises you an 'actively interested in what that difference might be'.

Which is the difference between our two statements. I wasn't merely repeating you.

Steve

[bobgadjet]

Originally posted by Jive Brummie
Are you always this patronising? I was having an OPINION. With 2 drug abusing sons i'd have thought you would be a bit more concerned about the drug scene.When my breath stinks as much as your attitude.....thats when i'll worry.

melanie

It was not my choice to have two "drug abusing" sons, as you put it, they are old enough to make their own decisions, and I DO have very strong opinions about drugs, their dangers, and their use, or should I say mis-use. They both know how I feel about what they do, but I do know they are sensible (if that's possible) users. It's fortunately not that bad that it costs them their wages, or worse, every week. Their "drug abuse" does not affect anybody else.

I also have very strong opinions about smokers, and was a smoker many years ago, but I realised it was a bad habit, so kicked it. That was about 32 years ago.

I should really ask if you have full considreration for others around you when you decide where and when to smoke.
Would you ask a person at the next table in a non-segregated restaurant if they minded if you smoked?
If you walk down the road smoking, would you apologise to somebody if you exhaled smoke when you passed them?

To a smoker it is hard to explain how one feels when taking in the odours and smoke second hand.
Please be a little more considerate if you MUST smoke, and think of the many many others that may be in your company who will be affected by your abuse of tobacco.

[Chris]

Firstly on the serious side I'd like to go into the question of drug abuse a bit more, quite separate to cigarettes in this particular question (simply for clarity).

It's often thought that we have a straightforward choice - legalise or don't legalise.

The law is not such a blunt instrument - it can be much more precise.

What are the objectives?

1) we want to reduce the human misery of drug addiction
2) we want to reduce associated violence and crime
3) we might want to reduce the drain on the resources (financial and otherwise) for addicts
4) we might want to reduce the chance of associated illness - eg hepatitis through needle sharing
5) we might want to allow responsible use (eg cannabis for multiple sclerosis sufferers, or even 'safe' recreational use
6) we might want to be seen (as a society) to be taking a responsible attitude, both in terms of a duty of caring for citizens and also in terms of heeding the large groups of people in different and seemingly opposing lobbies.

Too often people rush to support a solution to show their sincerity for a particular view. That's why it's important to focus on the goals - the benefits for people.

Now, I am not here advocating legalising drugs. I am trying to show how the law can be more creative than it is often given credit for.

Say you have legislation that makes the sort of drugs we are talking about (from hash to crack cocaine) illegal but permits the possibility of exceptions under a tight framework.

You would include in the legislation (statute) provision for a Schedule that might come into force at a later date after appropriate investigation and review. You could define the aims (eg benefits listed above) in the initial defining of the schedule. You might want to clarify these a bit more first, with things like public focus groups, input from various bodies and authorities, members of the public, or even a Royal Commission.

The schedule (unlike the statute) would be reviewable and adaptable (say every four years) to see how well it was working. In arranging the means to achieve the aims you would again not necessarily rely on anything as crass as dispensing machines (cigarettes), pub licensing or 'turning a blind eye'. Barbiturates, for instance, are so carefully controlled that they are almost impossible to obtain except for certain illnesses (and even with chemists dispensing there are many options - from over the counter, to chemists' discretion, to prescription required, to prescription with extensive checks and safeguards.)

At the moment there is reasonable support for the idea of cannabis for sufferers from certain diseases where it's usefulness if fairly beyond doubt. This might be a good point to start when test driving the various systems we want to consider.

There is also considerable evidence that rehabilitation and support is more effective at getting people off drugs and related crime than chasing drug dealers (which also takes vast amounts of money and resources from tackling other areas of need). That is not an argument for anything so simple as not putting police resources into trying to stop drug trafficking, but it maybe suggests a long time focussing on priorities and public awareness. Education could probably be improved and a lot more sophisticated.


On the more flippant question of "what does it take to get Andy McG to have a fag", I suggest it is not as black and white as he has suggested. OK, there might be practically no chance of Kylie tempting him or someone threatening him with a gun to smoke, but is it not conceivable that a prestigious filmmaker might spot him and ask him to do a cameo in a film? (this is exactly what happened to Cyd Charise). If, once he was signed up (maybe at a large sum, for the sake of argument, and in a film that would promote dancing as he believes it should be promoted say), if then the prestigious choreographer (in Cyd' case it was Gene Kelly), if that choreographer suggested it was imperative for him to open the dramatic dance with a cigarette, to inhale and exhale it, would he refuse?

I suggest that if his answer is "no" then it is possible to shift the factors slightly until it becomes "yes" (Hello Hegel).

[stewart38]

Originally posted by bobgadjet
I also have very strong opinions about smokers, and was a smoker many years ago, but I realised it was a bad habit, so kicked it. That was about 32 years ago.

I should really ask if you have full considreration for others around you when you decide where and when to smoke.
Would you ask a person at the next table in a non-segregated restaurant if they minded if you smoked?
If you walk down the road smoking, would you apologise to somebody if you exhaled smoke when you passed them?

To a smoker it is hard to explain how one feels when taking in the odours and smoke second hand.
Please be a little more considerate if you MUST smoke, and think of the many many others that may be in your company who will be affected by your abuse of tobacco.

Nothing worse then a reformed smoker

I'm a non smoker and always have been,feel free smokers to smoke away

Chris ideas seem good, seems my campaign on speed cameras is working with the conservatives taking on board my comments

[bobgadjet]

Originally posted by stewart38
Nothing worse then a reformed smoker

I'm a non smoker and always have been,feel free smokers to smoke away

Chris ideas seem good, seems my campaign on speed cameras is working with the conservatives taking on board my comments

Aha !
A non-smoker promoting smoking. Whatever next ?

If that doesn't stir up a few comments ?

Nothing worse than sombody promoting something they've never tried or done ! ! !

[Andy McGregor]

Originally posted by Chris
On the more flippant question of "what does it take to get Andy McG to have a fag", I suggest it is not as black and white as he has suggested. OK, there might be practically no chance of Kylie tempting him or someone threatening him with a gun to smoke, but is it not conceivable that a prestigious filmmaker might spot him and ask him to do a cameo in a film? (this is exactly what happened to Cyd Charise). If, once he was signed up (maybe at a large sum, for the sake of argument, and in a film that would promote dancing as he believes it should be promoted say), if then the prestigious choreographer (in Cyd' case it was Gene Kelly), if that choreographer suggested it was imperative for him to open the dramatic dance with a cigarette, to inhale and exhale it, would he refuse?

I suggest that if his answer is "no" then it is possible to shift the factors slightly until it becomes "yes" (Hello Hegel).

I did smoke a cigar once. I didn't need such a complicated device as given above, it was a prop in a '30s murder mystery night. I didn't inhale it but I did suck the smoke into my mouth and blow it out stylishly. The flavour went quite nicely with the port I was drinking. But that experience left me even more convinced that smoking is a bad thing. The whole of the following day I couldn't taste anything or even feel my own tongue properly - I even bit it a couple of times

[stewart38]

Originally posted by bobgadjet
Aha !
A non-smoker promoting smoking. Whatever next ?

If that doesn't stir up a few comments ?

Nothing worse than sombody promoting something they've never tried or done ! ! !

Wasn't promoting smoking I just don't feel the need to shoot someone who smokes

I have tried smoking but never more then for the odd week in my youth, so I guess my last comment was not correct

This is becoming another smoking thread

Andy would you have a fag for children in need ? I'd put a £1 in the bucket

[bobgadjet]

Originally posted by Andy McGregor
I even bit it a couple of times

Perhaps that's what a few more people should do on this forum ???

[Andy McGregor]

Originally posted by bobgadjet
Perhaps that's what a few more people should do on this forum ???

I'm just trying to work out which members of the forum I would like to have bite my tongue

[Chris]

Originally posted by Andy McGregor
I did smoke a cigar once. I didn't need such a complicated device as given above, it was a prop in a '30s murder mystery night. I didn't inhale it but I did suck the smoke into my mouth and blow it out stylishly. The flavour went quite nicely with the port I was drinking.

Sounds a bit weak to me Charise had to inhale and then breathe it out through her nostrils.

Port drinking - now there's another topic - whether to sip or swig, and whether to avoid traditional 'port' glasses (which prevent you from swigging it to the back of the throat and so leave you with a comparatively sugary taste.)

[Pammy]

Originally posted by Andy McGregor
I'm just trying to work out which members of the forum I would like to have bite my tongue

and more importantly, which ones you wouldn't!

[Dreadful Scathe]

Originally posted by bobgadjet

Would you ask a person at the next table in a non-segregated restaurant if they minded if you smoked?

Why should she? Personally, I would think it strange if i sat next to the smoking area and was asked if i gave permission for the person to smoke. I dont sit next to the smoking area as I dont like smoke! Simple!

Originally posted by bobgadjet

If you walk down the road smoking, would you apologise to somebody if you exhaled smoke when you passed them?

In any city you're likely to breath in a lot worse than a brief smokers exhale. I dont think suggesting she apologies to people she passes is any more sensible than getting out of your car and apologising for the exhaust fumes.

Originally posted by bobgadjet

Please be a little more considerate if you MUST smoke, and think of the many many others that may be in your company who will be affected by your abuse of tobacco.

Hmm, you're assuming flithycute is inconsiderate, do you have evidence ? shes seems quite considerate to me. Smoking, although less socially acceptable than it used to be, its still quite normal. I really dont think smoking cigarettes is the same as partaking in hard drugs despite your attempts to link the two. Your arguments are dubious at best.

"abuse of tobacco" is a slightly suspect term, as filthycute says, its hardly likely to drive you nuts ... unlike "abuse of alcohol" or "abuse of cocaine", you could equally berate a flatulant friend for their "abuse of cabbage". Is it "abuse" in that context ? The dictionary suggests that abuse means "Using substances in a bad way" i.e. You have 16 pints of Stella; thats alcohol abuse. Having 16 cigarettes is hardly likely to affect you in the same way, its your long term health that'll suffer but there is little short term affect. You could argue that because cigarettes are bad for your health that you could use "abuse" in that context for even just the one cigarette - but fat is also bad for you, would one bacon roll be "fat abuse" . So as I said "abuse of tobacco" is a slightly suspect term

[TheTramp]

Originally posted by Dreadful Scathe
Why should she? Personally, I would think it strange if i sat next to the smoking area and was asked if i gave permission for the person to smoke. I dont sit next to the smoking area as I dont like smoke! Simple!

I'd like to point out that Bob did say in a non-segregated restaurant. One that doesn't have a non-smoking area. Although, obviously, I wouldn't actually ever be in one of those, so the question is moot.

Originally posted by Dreadful Scathe
In any city you're likely to breath in a lot worse than a brief smokers exhale. I dont think suggesting she apologies to people she passes is any more sensible than getting out of your car and apologising for the exhaust fumes.

The difference is that cars do tend to have a positive side for most people (although, we could all go back to horse riding, but I'm allergic to them too ). Cigarette smoking only has a positive side for the person doing the smoking.

Originally posted by Dreadful Scathe
"abuse of tobacco" is a slightly suspect term, as filthycute says, its hardly likely to drive you nuts ... unlike "abuse of alcohol" or "abuse of cocaine", you could equally berate a flatulant friend for their "abuse of cabbage". Is it "abuse" in that context ? The dictionary suggests that abuse means "Using substances in a bad way" i.e. You have 16 pints of Stella; thats alcohol abuse. Having 16 cigarettes is hardly likely to affect you in the same way, its your long term health that'll suffer but there is little short term affect. You could argue that because cigarettes are bad for your health that you could use "abuse" in that context for even just the one cigarette - but fat is also bad for you, would one bacon roll be "fat abuse" . So as I said "abuse of tobacco" is a slightly suspect term

I think that this is dependant on your point of view. For me, any cigarette smoke is abuse of my rights to clean air. I have split up with one girlfriend previously, because after starting dating her when she wasn't smoking, she then started, and I couldn't be around her (maybe that's why she started - thought I'd better get that in before anyone else does). I would never date anyone in the future who smoked. And one of the reasons that I don't go down to my parents house to visit as often as maybe I should, is that my mother still smokes. For people with asthma problems, smoking isn't just unpleasant.

Originally posted by Dreadful Scathe
Hmm, you're assuming flithycute is inconsiderate, do you have evidence ? shes seems quite considerate to me. Smoking, although less socially acceptable than it used to be, its still quite normal. I really dont think smoking cigarettes is the same as partaking in hard drugs despite your attempts to link the two. Your arguments are dubious at best.

Well. I don't think I've ever seen FC with a lit cigarette, so I'd have to agree. However, I think that within a number of years, smoking will lose that socially acceptable thing. And roll on the day when that happens.

However, we're still off topic (just for a change). Which isn't about the smoking v any other substance topic. It's all about whether or not drugs should be legalised. Come on now. Focus

Steve

[Dreadful Scathe]

Originally posted by TheTramp
I'd like to point out that Bob did say in a non-segregated restaurant. One that doesn't have a non-smoking area. Although, obviously, I wouldn't actually ever be in one of those, so the question is moot.

ooops, missed that. But as you say, you wouldnt go into a restaurant that wasn't segragated and allowed smoking - even if you did it would be on the understanding that its obviously acceptable to smoke in that restaurant, and it may well happen.

Originally posted by TheTramp

The difference is that cars do tend to have a positive side for most people (although, we could all go back to horse riding, but I'm allergic to them too ). Cigarette smoking only has a positive side for the person doing the smoking.

But bob was talking about breathing in smoke in the street, wether smoke is good for the smoker or not is not relevant in that context. My point was there are lots of things you can breath in in a street that arent good for you and you dont expect apologies for them: car exhausts, smells/fumes from rubbish, dust from building sites, local industry fumes etc...

QUOTE]Originally posted by TheTramp

I think that this is dependant on your point of view. For me, any cigarette smoke is abuse of my rights to clean air. [/quote]

That wasnt the point, we were talking about abuse of a substance by the person, not the resultant abuse that a bystander would experience. If its "what you do to other people" then we're back to drug abuser burglaries and alcohol abusers attacking people in the street, different thing entirely.

QUOTE]Originally posted by TheTramp

However, we're still off topic (just for a change). Which isn't about the smoking v any other substance topic. It's all about whether or not drugs should be legalised. Come on now. Focus
[/QUOTE]

Threads within threads - its all relative isnt it.

I am focused - hey you look like Marilyn Monroe !!