AndyRM
Elder Goth
I'm happy to agree to disagree with your first point.
And happy to agree with your outlook on the second.
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
I'm happy to agree to disagree with your first point.
And happy to agree with your outlook on the second.
theclaud
Reading around the chip
Not sure I need to provide positives, as I'm not arguing it's a state to aspire to, but I do think there's a point about bodily autonomy, and about people with few other forms of control over their lives having agency. I'm sure you'll ponder this point with an open mind over Pints #7 and 8.
Last edited:
icowden
Squire
You can't buy people, and especially not leading ladies.
icowden
Squire
They don't do petty crime. Just grand larceny, fraud, extortion and occasionally violence. That petty stuff is beneath them...
icowden
Squire
Sort of. It would tell an addict that they don't have to worry about the heroin being cut with rat poison or other dodgy compounds. Decriminalisation or legalisation isn't about creating more addicts, it's about controlling and helping those you already have.
Presumably you'd rather put up with muggings and shop thefts.
That might well be the case one day. It's not that hard to envision a world where you pay with a finger print and exceeding your permitted alcohol consumption for the week or day invalidates your life insurance etc. It's a bit Black Mirror but we already have a system for car insurance where you can fit a black box that monitors your driving to lower your premium.
D
Deleted member 28
Guest
Don't be a dick!
D
Deleted member 28
Guest
I wouldn't but I'm not young and impressionable that may be under pressure from my peers.
fozy tornip
At the controls of my private jet.
I'd try heroin if it was legal and purity assured: not because I'm young, impressionable and under peer pressure, but because it's supposed to be really nice.
multitool
Pharaoh
Social attitudes towards drug use are interesting.
There is a stigma attached to drug use which associates it with either crime or pathology. And yet this same stigma is not apparent for use of alcohol, despite the social harms being more pronounced. A trip to A&E, or the police cells on a weekend night demonstrate this amply. Violence, especially domestic, is largely alcohol-fuelled. RTAs are often ascribable to alcohol use. Only at an extreme and chronic end of usage is alcohol seen as 'problematic', and even then it is dealt with in the domain of public health rather than (as with 'drugs') within public order.
This Manichean attitude towards drugs makes no sense, and as I said earlier, I would welcome a paradigm shift from treating drug misuse from a public order issue to a public health issue.
What is it to which we actually object with drug use? Is it harm? In which case a harm reduction model would be the most rational response. We can see these in operation at a local level, but generally not through national policy. Festivals may have drug testing tents operating in a tacit legal grey area, but nevertheless demonstrably reducing harm.
Or is it that we object to people having fun in certain ways? There seems to be a social proscription around drug use that does not apply to more dangerous leisure activities such as dangerous sports.
At any level it is not rational, but what is worse is that a rational discourse at a political level is impossible because of atavistic reactionary views and the weaponisation of them by political factions.
There is a stigma attached to drug use which associates it with either crime or pathology. And yet this same stigma is not apparent for use of alcohol, despite the social harms being more pronounced. A trip to A&E, or the police cells on a weekend night demonstrate this amply. Violence, especially domestic, is largely alcohol-fuelled. RTAs are often ascribable to alcohol use. Only at an extreme and chronic end of usage is alcohol seen as 'problematic', and even then it is dealt with in the domain of public health rather than (as with 'drugs') within public order.
This Manichean attitude towards drugs makes no sense, and as I said earlier, I would welcome a paradigm shift from treating drug misuse from a public order issue to a public health issue.
What is it to which we actually object with drug use? Is it harm? In which case a harm reduction model would be the most rational response. We can see these in operation at a local level, but generally not through national policy. Festivals may have drug testing tents operating in a tacit legal grey area, but nevertheless demonstrably reducing harm.
Or is it that we object to people having fun in certain ways? There seems to be a social proscription around drug use that does not apply to more dangerous leisure activities such as dangerous sports.
At any level it is not rational, but what is worse is that a rational discourse at a political level is impossible because of atavistic reactionary views and the weaponisation of them by political factions.
D
Deleted member 49
Guest
Nice is a bag of crisps and pot of Hummus...not a word I'd associate with Heroin.
D
Deleted member 49
Guest
Im not really meaning you can go and get a bag of smack at the local Nisa...although that's where we are now almost.If you look at somewhere like Portugal Heroin isn't legal but has been decriminalized.Im pretty sure addiction and overdoses have not increased.In fact I'll think you'll find addiction has fallen through education and support.I really don't want to go down the misspent youth but everything was easily available to me when younger,just as it is to kids now.Feck you can order your gear off TikTok 24/7 ! Are we actually getting anywhere with the war on drugs.
D
Deleted member 28
Guest
The power of the internet eh!
D
Deleted member 28
Guest
Why not just try some anyway, I would imagine you've broken the speed limit on occasion so what's the difference?
D
Deleted member 28
Guest
You lot fill yer boots, it's all immaterial anyway because can you see ANY government decriminalising class A drug use anytime soon?
