Yet another sign that parental standards are dropping.

First topic message reminder :

Following on from the news that a head teacher had written to parents appealing to them to refrain from wearing slippers and pyjamas when dropping their kids off at school in the morning, last week a head wrote to parents asking them not to use the school playground as a toilet.....someone obviously had. She pointed out that all children and parents knew where the toilets were, so to use them in future if the need arose.

Latest in the news, a primary school deputy head in Manchester, has written to parents telling them to refrain from smoking cannabis when they drop off and pick up their children from school.

More proof that some people are simply not fit to rear children?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/primary-school-tells-parents-to-stop-smoking-cannabis-outside-school-gates-a6877371.html

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:


Not concerned where they are doing this, as its just smoking

What is being smoked is just different

So how does it in anyway be different from tobacco smoking?

Its not

In other words you are still being a smob

And you accused me of not answering your question.

I would have no problem with someone drinking either to be honest, if they had finished work and was having one beer after what would be the big deal?

None, just people again thinking their shit smells better than most

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:

Have you been indulging a bit yourself? You cant seem to get a 3 letter name in the right order tonight.

Thought my spelling was more appropriate but at least it shows you have conceded every point when this is all you have left to..

Seriously take that lump of coal out of your arse, it must be a diamond now love

I see you have been to the forum school of posting that is..."When stuck for an answer keep repeating the same old crap....when that's been sussed... insult.

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:


Thought my spelling was more appropriate but at least it shows you have conceded every point when this is all you have left to..

Seriously take that lump of coal out of your arse, it must be a diamond now love

I see you have been to the forum school of posting that is..."When stuck for an answer keep repeating the same old crap....when that's been sussed... insult.

lol how is that when I just posted it on this thread

lol how desperate are you after I have made your arguments moot lol

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:

And you accused me of not answering your question.

I would have no problem with someone drinking either to be honest, if they had finished work and was having one beer after what would be the big deal?

None, just people again thinking their shit smells better than most

I think it's clear that as far as rearing kids go you are either inexperienced or useless.

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:


I would have no problem with someone drinking either to be honest, if they had finished work and was having one beer after what would be the big deal?

None, just people again thinking their shit smells better than most

I think it's clear that as far as rearing kids go you are either inexperienced or useless.

Really, I see Polish parents do- this many times after school, as they do shift work, are you saying they are bad parents the men?

Of course not, do not dare come out with that shit when I have raised 3 girls, I do not judge others for what they are unlike you you utter snob

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:

I think it's clear that as far as rearing kids go you are either inexperienced or useless.

Really, I see Polish parents do- this many times after school, as they do shift work, are you saying they are bad parents the men?

Of course not, do not dare come out with that shit when I have raised 3 girls, I do not judge others for what they are unlike you you utter snob

You have gone through this thread insulting people and judging everyone who doesn't agree with you.
If you don't like it back don't give it out.

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:


Really, I see Polish parents do- this many times after school, as they do shift work, are you saying they are bad parents the men?

Of course not, do not dare come out with that shit when I have raised 3 girls, I do not judge others for what they are unlike you you utter snob

You have gone through this thread insulting people and judging everyone who doesn't agree with you.
If you don't like it back don't give it out.

Really calling you a snob is spot on dear, because again I am not the one trying to claim my shit smells better than most

You were the idiot starting a thread trying to be the self righteous prick in being a wonder woman parent

I would not myself do things, but I do not judge others the fact you would pull something that low shows not only had you lost the debate but you sink to such vile levels

Now hope you feel better you utter twat

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:


Answer the question and stop avoiding with inane drivel

Is it wrong for a parent to have a drink in front of them

Yes or no?

You are funny. You talk about people looking down on others and feeling superior, yet the way you post makes you come across as the most pedantic little man barking out insults and orders......sod off.

I have already  answered your barkings.....drinking is not against the law so it's not wrong to drink responsibly in front of their kids.
The key word here is RESPONSIBLE.....when cannabis is made legal I'm sure the debate will be different, till then what I have already said stands.

  I was thinking more hormonal spinster virago.  But I digress.

Ironically, I agree that cannabis should be legal.   There are more deaths and harm done from legal drugs and whilst those with mental health issues can be badly affected by cannabis, particularly  skunk,  the majority of heavy users suffer more from terminal lethargy than psychosis.  I've got first hand experience of the effects of recreational drugs which I won't go into here.  Suffice to say,  I've seen what it can do to someone and how it can ruin lives.

All I'm seeing in this thread is faux outrage from a certain person  for anyone daring to voice an opposing opinion.

Hence why drugs should be legalized to make safer and cut crime levels

You can still keep speaking around me Hotlips, but it just proves you are a coward love

How rude....cannabis doesn't seem to be working it's magic on you tonight.

Syl wrote:How rude....cannabis doesn't seem to  be working it's magic on you tonight.

Oh why, did you pick that out of the 5 year old mentality stage in your life
 lol happy you lost the debate and it shows petall

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:They are illegal for a reason ...

Yea and i will bet my last penny you don`t know why (chance for you to look it up) come back let me know what you found

Not if you speak to me in that patronising manner.

Why is there so many prudes now on this forum

They seem to have been brought here by Doctor who from the 19th century lol

I think the law is fine as it is. Some people do smoke cannabis, but they're sensible enough not to do it in public places, and a blind eye is turned by the police in that case.

I don't think there's any need for it to be legalised. Perhaps there is an argument for it to used medically, but in that case it would be prescription only.

Which means you are happy for gangs to continue to make a fortune out of such drugs and ensure more deaths, when it could be made far safer all round

Deaths? I thought cannabis was supposed to be "safe".

Raggamuffin wrote:Deaths? I thought cannabis was supposed to be "safe".

Gang deaths

If gang members kill each other, that's up to them.

Didge wrote:Hence why drugs should be legalized to make safer and cut crime levels

You can still keep speaking around me Hotlips, but it just proves you are a coward love

Be patient and don't be greedy, Didge, and wait your turn. 

No, I don't think all recreational drugs should be legalised.   For obvious reasons.

Raggamuffin wrote:If gang members kill each other, that's up to them.

2 Eliminate the criminal market place
The market for drugs is demand-led and millions of people demand illegal drugs. Making the production, supply and use of some drugs illegal creates a vacuum into which organised crime moves. The profits are worth billions of pounds. Legalisation forces organised crime from the drugs trade, starves them of income and enables us to regulate and control the market (i.e. prescription, licensing, laws on sales to minors, advertising regulations etc.)

3 Massively reduce crime
The price of illegal drugs is determined by a demand-led, unregulated market. Using illegal drugs is very expensive. This means that some dependent users resort to stealing to raise funds (accounting for 50% of UK property crime - estimated at £2 billion a year). Most of the violence associated with illegal drug dealing is caused by its illegality

Legalisation would enable us to regulate the market, determine a much lower price and remove users need to raise funds through crime. Our legal system would be freed up and our prison population dramatically reduced, saving billions. Because of the low price, cigarette smokers do not have to steal to support their habits. There is also no violence associated with the legal tobacco market.


http://www.urban75.com/Drugs/drugten.html

HoratioTarr wrote:

Didge wrote:Hence why drugs should be legalized to make safer and cut crime levels

You can still keep speaking around me Hotlips, but it just proves you are a coward love

Be patient and don't be greedy, Didge, and wait your turn. 

No, I don't think all recreational drugs should be legalised.   For obvious reasons.

What obvious reasons?

I think all should be legalizsed as you will make those unsafe, safe to use

I don't think it's a good reason to legalise it.

I suggest you learn more as already stated rags, because it will have more than just the effect on crime

Syl wrote:How rude....cannabis doesn't seem to  be working it's magic on you tonight.

 

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:How rude....cannabis doesn't seem to  be working it's magic on you tonight.

 

lol you are a tad slow on the uptake ha ha

Raggamuffin wrote:I think the law is fine as it is. Some people do smoke cannabis, but they're sensible enough not to do it in public places, and a blind eye is turned by the police in that case.

I don't think there's any need for it to be legalised. Perhaps there is an argument for it to used medically, but in that case it would be prescription only.

Who in their right mind would campaign for the legalisation of heroine or crystal meth?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:If gang members kill each other, that's up to them.

2 Eliminate the criminal market place
The market for drugs is demand-led and millions of people demand illegal drugs. Making the production, supply and use of some drugs illegal creates a vacuum into which organised crime moves. The profits are worth billions of pounds. Legalisation forces organised crime from the drugs trade, starves them of income and enables us to regulate and control the market (i.e. prescription, licensing, laws on sales to minors, advertising regulations etc.)

3 Massively reduce crime
The price of illegal drugs is determined by a demand-led, unregulated market. Using illegal drugs is very expensive. This means that some dependent users resort to stealing to raise funds (accounting for 50% of UK property crime - estimated at £2 billion a year). Most of the violence associated with illegal drug dealing is caused by its illegality

Legalisation would enable us to regulate the market, determine a much lower price and remove users need to raise funds through crime. Our legal system would be freed up and our prison population dramatically reduced, saving billions. Because of the low price, cigarette smokers do not have to steal to support their habits. There is also no violence associated with the legal tobacco market.


http://www.urban75.com/Drugs/drugten.html

So, why do you suppose hard drugs are not legalised?

Do you think the Government would dish out heroine willy nilly, or do you think they'd govern and restrict it to 'safe' levels for the users?   In the meantime, the drug dealers still make money.

The moment you regulate something, is the moment someone else makes a killing from selling it underground.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I think the law is fine as it is. Some people do smoke cannabis, but they're sensible enough not to do it in public places, and a blind eye is turned by the police in that case.

I don't think there's any need for it to be legalised. Perhaps there is an argument for it to used medically, but in that case it would be prescription only.

Who in their right mind would campaign for the legalisation of heroine or crystal meth?

People who think that it's a good idea on the grounds that suppliers would no longer kill each other.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Didge wrote:


2 Eliminate the criminal market place
The market for drugs is demand-led and millions of people demand illegal drugs. Making the production, supply and use of some drugs illegal creates a vacuum into which organised crime moves. The profits are worth billions of pounds. Legalisation forces organised crime from the drugs trade, starves them of income and enables us to regulate and control the market (i.e. prescription, licensing, laws on sales to minors, advertising regulations etc.)

3 Massively reduce crime
The price of illegal drugs is determined by a demand-led, unregulated market. Using illegal drugs is very expensive. This means that some dependent users resort to stealing to raise funds (accounting for 50% of UK property crime - estimated at £2 billion a year). Most of the violence associated with illegal drug dealing is caused by its illegality

Legalisation would enable us to regulate the market, determine a much lower price and remove users need to raise funds through crime. Our legal system would be freed up and our prison population dramatically reduced, saving billions. Because of the low price, cigarette smokers do not have to steal to support their habits. There is also no violence associated with the legal tobacco market.


http://www.urban75.com/Drugs/drugten.html

So, why do you suppose hard drugs are not legalised?

Do you think the Government would dish out heroine willy nilly, or do you think they'd govern and restrict it to 'safe' levels for the users?   In the meantime, the drug dealers still make money.

The moment you regulate something, is the moment someone else makes a killing from selling it underground.

Again the above makes no sense when I want to see all drugs legalized, which renders then answering all your points.

Again do you understand about making drugs safer?

Drug dealers have less safe drugs, people will have cheaper safer drugs rendering the dealers mainly out of buisness


Really, so why has nobody made a killing on alcohol?

Right I have things to do but have a read as this makes sense:




We've come a long way since Reefer Madness. Over the past two decades, 16 states have de-criminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana, and 22 have legalized it for medical purposes. In November 2012, Colorado and Washington went further, legalizing marijuana under state law for recreational purposes. Public attitudes toward marijuana have also changed; in a November 2013 Gallup Poll, 58 percent of Americans supported marijuana legalization.
Yet amidst these cultural and political shifts, American attitudes and U.S. policy toward other drugs have remained static. No state has decriminalized, medicalized, or legalized cocaine, heroin, or methamphetamine. And a recent poll suggests only about 10 percent of Americans favor legalization of cocaine or heroin. Many who advocate marijuana legalization draw a sharp distinction between marijuana and "hard drugs."


That's understandable: Different drugs do carry different risks, and the potential for serious harm from marijuana is less than for cocaine, heroin, or methamphetamine. Marijuana, for example, appears incapable of causing a lethal overdose, but cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine can kill if taken in excess or under the wrong circumstances.
But if the goal is to minimize harm — to people here and abroad — the right policy is to legalize all drugs, not just marijuana.


In fact, many legal goods cause serious harm, including death. In recent years, about 40 people per year have died from skiing or snowboarding accidents; almost 800 from bicycle accidents; several thousand from drowning in swimming pools; more than 20,000 per year frompharmaceuticals; more than 30,000 annually from auto accidents; and at least 38,000 from excessive alcohol use.


Few people want to ban these goods, mainly because while harmful when misused, they provide substantial benefit to most people in most circumstances.
The same condition holds for hard drugs. Media accounts focus on users who experience bad outcomes, since these are dramatic or newsworthy. Yet millions risk arrest, elevated prices, impurities, and the vagaries of black markets to purchase these goods, suggesting people do derive benefits from use.


That means even if prohibition could eliminate drug use, at no cost, it would probably do more harm than good. Numerous moderate and responsible drug users would be worse off, while only a few abusive users would be better off. And prohibition does, in fact, have huge costs, regardless of how harmful drugs might be. First, a few Economics 101 basics: Prohibiting a good does not eliminate the market for that good. Prohibition may shrink the market, by raising costs and therefore price, but even under strongly enforced prohibitions, a substantial black market emerges in which production and use continue. And black markets generate numerous unwanted side effects.


Black markets increase violence because buyers and sellers can't resolve disputes with courts, lawyers, or arbitration, so they turn to guns instead. Black markets generate corruption, too, since participants have a greater incentive to bribe police, prosecutors, judges, and prison guards. They also inhibit quality control, which causes more accidental poisonings and overdoses.


What's more, prohibition creates health risks that wouldn't exist in a legal market. Because prohibition raises heroin prices, users have a greater incentive to inject because this offers a bigger bang for the buck. Plus, prohibition generates restrictions on the sale of clean needles (because this might "send the wrong message"). Many users therefore share contaminated needles, which transmit HIV, Hepatitis C, and other blood-borne diseases. In 2010, 8 percent of new HIV cases in the United States were attributed to IV drug use.


Prohibition enforcement also encourages infringements on civil liberties, such as no-knock warrants (which have killed dozens of innocent bystanders) and racial profiling (which generates much higher arrest ratesfor blacks than whites despite similar drug use rates). It also costs a lot to enforce prohibition, and it means we can't collect taxes on drugs; my estimates suggest U.S. governments could improve their budgets by at least $85 billion annually by legalizing — and taxing — all drugs. U.S. insistence that source countries outlaw drugs means increased violence and corruption there as well (think Columbia, Mexico, or Afghanistan).


The bottom line: Even if hard drugs carry greater health risks than marijuana, rationally, we can't ban them without comparing the harm from prohibition against the harms from drugs themselves. In a society that legalizes drugs, users face only the negatives of use. Under prohibition, they also risk arrest, fines, loss of professional licenses, and more. So prohibition unambiguously harms those who use despite prohibition.


It's also critical to analyze whether prohibition actually reduces drug use; if the effects are small, then prohibition is virtually all cost and no benefit.On that question, available evidence is far from ideal, but none of it suggests that prohibition has a substantial impact on drug use. States and countries that decriminalize or medicalize see little or no increase in drug use. And differences in enforcement across time or place bear little correlation with uses. This evidence does not bear directly on what would occur under full legalization, since that might allow advertising and more efficient, large-scale production. But data on cirrhosis from repeal of U.S. Alcohol Prohibition suggest only a modest increase in alcohol consumption.


To the extent prohibition does reduce use drug use, the effect is likely smaller for hard drugs than for marijuana. That's because the demands for cocaine and heroin appear less responsive to price. From this perspective, the case is even stronger for legalizing cocaine or heroin than marijuana; for hard drugs, prohibition mainly raises the price, which increases the resources devoted to the black market while having minimal impact on use.


But perhaps the best reason to legalize hard drugs is that people who wish to consume them have the same liberty to determine their own well-being as those who consume alcohol, or marijuana, or anything else. In a free society, the presumption must always be that individuals, not government, get to decide what is in their own best interest.

http://theweek.com/articles/445005/why-all-drugs-should-legal-yes-even-heroin

Syl wrote:Following on from  the news that a head teacher had written to parents appealing to them to refrain from wearing slippers and pyjamas when dropping their kids off at school in the morning, last week a head wrote to parents asking them not to use the school playground as a toilet.....someone obviously had. She pointed out that all children and parents knew where the toilets were, so to use them in future if the need arose.

Latest in the news, a primary school deputy head in Manchester, has written to parents telling them to refrain from smoking cannabis when they drop off and pick up their children from school.

More proof that some people are simply  not fit to rear children?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/primary-school-tells-parents-to-stop-smoking-cannabis-outside-school-gates-a6877371.html

There should not be any smoking or drinking alcohol in front of the school gates, period. It's up to the individual school and the other parents to insist a smoke free zone.

The fact that they can't even get dressed to drop,their children says it all.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Syl wrote:Following on from  the news that a head teacher had written to parents appealing to them to refrain from wearing slippers and pyjamas when dropping their kids off at school in the morning, last week a head wrote to parents asking them not to use the school playground as a toilet.....someone obviously had. She pointed out that all children and parents knew where the toilets were, so to use them in future if the need arose.

Latest in the news, a primary school deputy head in Manchester, has written to parents telling them to refrain from smoking cannabis when they drop off and pick up their children from school.

More proof that some people are simply  not fit to rear children?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/primary-school-tells-parents-to-stop-smoking-cannabis-outside-school-gates-a6877371.html

There should not be any smoking or drinking alcohol in front of the school gates, period. It's up to the individual school and the other parents to insist a smoke free zone.

The fact that they can't even get dressed to drop,their children says it all.

Coming from a Muslim who has people judge them over how they dress is very amusing, when you are now judging others

Again how does bed clothes become taboo to wear to taking kids to school?

Its just a perceptive view, one people take such an anal view over for no utter reason

You hold religious views on smoking and drinking again, its not you or others to impose on others what they do

Its time you go t that in your head.

People are free to do as they will, as long as this does not effect others and this does not effect others

Didge wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

So, why do you suppose hard drugs are not legalised?

Do you think the Government would dish out heroine willy nilly, or do you think they'd govern and restrict it to 'safe' levels for the users?   In the meantime, the drug dealers still make money.

The moment you regulate something, is the moment someone else makes a killing from selling it underground.

Again the above makes no sense when I want to see all drugs legalized, which renders then answering all your points.

Again do you understand about making drugs safer?

Drug dealers have less safe drugs, people will have cheaper safer drugs rendering the dealers mainly out of buisness


Really, so why has nobody made a killing on alcohol?

There are illegal sales of alcohol.  Just as there are illegal sales of cigarettes.    No matter what you try to make safe, there'll always be a market for the illegal version.  

How would you make heroine safer?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Didge wrote:

Again the above makes no sense when I want to see all drugs legalized, which renders then answering all your points.

Again do you understand about making drugs safer?

Drug dealers have less safe drugs, people will have cheaper safer drugs rendering the dealers mainly out of buisness


Really, so why has nobody made a killing on alcohol?

There are illegal sales of alcohol.  Just as there are illegal sales of cigarettes.    No matter what you try to make safe, there'll always be a market for the illegal version.  

How would you make heroine safer?

But it is minimal and nothing like illegal sales of drugs, the point you miss

Again we are talking about how you take away the many means from where illegal drugs are also unsafe, the point you also miss and most of all what you fail to grasp is people are always going to take drugs

http://www.heretohelp.bc.ca/factsheet/safer-injecting-heroin-crack-and-crystal-meth

Also

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

There should not be any smoking or drinking alcohol in front of the school gates, period. It's up to the individual school and the other parents to insist a smoke free zone.

The fact that they can't even get dressed to drop,their children says it all.

Coming from a Muslim who has people judge them over how they dress is very amusing, when you are now judging others

Again how does bed clothes become taboo to wear to taking kids to school?

Its just a perceptive view, one people take such an anal view over for no utter reason

You hold religious views on smoking and drinking again, its not you or others to impose on others what they do

Its time you go t that in your head.

People are free to do as they will, as long as this does not effect others and this does not effect others

People are free to do as they will, but where do you draw the line with hard drugs?   Is it ok for a mother to use heroine when she's pregnant, for example? So that the child is born addicted and must go through agonising withdrawal?   If you make hard drugs legal, that means anyone can purchase it.    So how would you stop this?   Or regulate it?   It's a no brainer.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Didge wrote:


Coming from a Muslim who has people judge them over how they dress is very amusing, when you are now judging others

Again how does bed clothes become taboo to wear to taking kids to school?

Its just a perceptive view, one people take such an anal view over for no utter reason

You hold religious views on smoking and drinking again, its not you or others to impose on others what they do

Its time you go t that in your head.

People are free to do as they will, as long as this does not effect others and this does not effect others

People are free to do as they will, but where do you draw the line with hard drugs?   Is it ok for a mother to use heroine when she's pregnant, for example? So that the child is born addicted and must go through agonising withdrawal?   If you make hard drugs legal, that means anyone can purchase it.    So how would you stop this?   Or regulate it?   It's a no brainer.

We are not talking about hard drugs here though at the school

So that is no relevance to the school issue here

Didge wrote:Also

Everyone knows alcohol is damaging.  I'd rather be in a room full of people taking Ecstasy than a roomful of pissed up drunks.   But, the reason they dare not ban drink is for the very reasons you stipulate for legalising drugs.  Prohibition proved disastrous.   Regulation though, hasn't stopped the deaths and damage drink causes as your chart shows, so what makes you think it will work with drugs?

Didge wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

People are free to do as they will, but where do you draw the line with hard drugs?   Is it ok for a mother to use heroine when she's pregnant, for example? So that the child is born addicted and must go through agonising withdrawal?   If you make hard drugs legal, that means anyone can purchase it.    So how would you stop this?   Or regulate it?   It's a no brainer.

We are not talking about hard drugs here though at the school

So that is no relevance to the school issue here

Don't try to deflect. You said all drugs should be legal.   Answer the question.   How would you regulate heroine to make it safe?

Again my point is people are going to take drugs, so why even attempt to stop it when you can make it safer all round with reduce costs and cleaner drugs itself. You deny many of the criminal sources as well. You elude to the point people will take anyway, so its pointless making them illegal when people are still going to gain access to and use them
The war on drugs has been one continuous failure and we would free up so many from being sent needlessly to jail

HoratioTarr wrote:

Didge wrote:Also

Everyone knows alcohol is damaging.  I'd rather be in a room full of people taking Ecstasy than a roomful of pissed up drunks.   But, the reason they dare not ban drink is for the very reasons you stipulate for legalising drugs.  Prohibition proved disastrous.   Regulation though, hasn't stopped the deaths and damage drink causes as your chart shows, so what makes you think it will work with drugs?

In fact, that chart sums it up. The only legal substance is the one that causes most harm to others.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Didge wrote:


We are not talking about hard drugs here though at the school

So that is no relevance to the school issue here

Don't try to deflect. You said all drugs should be legal.   Answer the question.   How would you regulate heroine to make it safe?

Its no deflection , you jumped onto a reply that I made to zack with schools

So your point was utterly moot

You now want to answer how to regulate heroine to be made safer, they are called safe rooms, have you never heard of them

Or people smoke it instead which is safer

Dont go down the road or being an inane twat or I will treat you as one

Didge wrote:Again my point is people are going to take drugs, so why even attempt to stop it when you can make it safer all round with reduce costs and cleaner drugs itself. You deny many of the criminal sources as well. You elude to the point people will take anyway, so its pointless making them illegal when people are still going to gain access to and use them
The war on drugs has been one continuous failure and we would free up so many from being sent needlessly to jail

I get your point, and I see where you're coming from.  But it won't work.  I truly believe that.  Human nature being what it is.   There are valid reasons why hard drugs are banned.

HoratioTarr wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Everyone knows alcohol is damaging.  I'd rather be in a room full of people taking Ecstasy than a roomful of pissed up drunks.   But, the reason they dare not ban drink is for the very reasons you stipulate for legalising drugs.  Prohibition proved disastrous.   Regulation though, hasn't stopped the deaths and damage drink causes as your chart shows, so what makes you think it will work with drugs?

In fact, that chart sums it up. The only legal substance is the one that causes most harm to others.

And you miss the points is down to people what they do with their bodies which even more tax could be made from to then further fund the NHS

Did you think of that?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Didge wrote:Again my point is people are going to take drugs, so why even attempt to stop it when you can make it safer all round with reduce costs and cleaner drugs itself. You deny many of the criminal sources as well. You elude to the point people will take anyway, so its pointless making them illegal when people are still going to gain access to and use them
The war on drugs has been one continuous failure and we would free up so many from being sent needlessly to jail

I get your point, and I see where you're coming from.  But it won't work.  I truly believe that.  Human nature being what it is.   There are valid reasons why hard drugs are banned.

So your reason it wont work is you say it wont

Well that does not convince me at all

Humans have progressed over many changes, so your point is moot

There is no valid reason why they are banned

As seen for many reasons they should not be as it creates for more problems

Didge wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Don't try to deflect. You said all drugs should be legal.   Answer the question.   How would you regulate heroine to make it safe?

Its no deflection , you jumped onto a reply that I made to zack with schools

So your point was utterly moot

You now want to answer how to regulate heroine to be made safer, they are called safe rooms, have you never heard of them

Or people smoke it instead which is safer

Dont go down the road or being an inane twat or I will treat you as one

Safe rooms are being used for those already addicted.   Are you saying you'd like to see heroine available for all? Would you take it?

Didge wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

In fact, that chart sums it up. The only legal substance is the one that causes most harm to others.

And you miss the points is down to people what they do with their bodies which even more tax could be made from to then further fund the NHS

Did you think of that?

So, let's get a nation addicted to heroine to fund the NHS?   LOL

HoratioTarr wrote:

Didge wrote:


Its no deflection , you jumped onto a reply that I made to zack with schools

So your point was utterly moot

You now want to answer how to regulate heroine to be made safer, they are called safe rooms, have you never heard of them

Or people smoke it instead which is safer

Dont go down the road or being an inane twat or I will treat you as one

Safe rooms are being used for those already addicted.   Are you saying you'd like to see heroine available for all? Would you take it?

I would not take it but as people do take it, why ban it?

You are not going to make people stop using it

I have also read studies that drug use decreases with legalizing also

Again I would like to see all drugs made legal and also to be taxed

At least then the money can be added to the NHS

HoratioTarr wrote:

Didge wrote:


And you miss the points is down to people what they do with their bodies which even more tax could be made from to then further fund the NHS

Did you think of that?

So, let's get a nation addicted to heroine to fund the NHS?   LOL

Which really is an immature reply as again do you know where drugs have been decriminalized usage decreases

Or are you that immature to not waste my time with such an imbecile?

For the child to educate himself on

http://mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal-decriminalized-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening#.lzPUd0JrT