Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 19, 2006 at 12:51 pm in reply to: Oi! Laaaahnanaaaahs! Fancy a christmas pen and ink? #41716
xdczigzag
Participant@TurksMeister wrote:
technically it’s “the ham”
…not many gooks… but plenty of… cooks!
Turks mate, that’s really bad punnage!
well done 😀
xdczigzag
Participantoh please mark this NSFW next time!!!!
There are times I wish I was blind ❗
xdczigzag
ParticipantLOL 😆 I need coordinates for these guys 😈
xdczigzag
ParticipantThere weren’t enough bad album covers…I needed more!!!
http://www.zonicweb.net/badalbmcvrs/
Metal has a lot to answer for!!!
xdczigzag
ParticipantI know what you’re talking about and I’m not even on TS…
There might be a reason for that! 😛
xdczigzag
Participant@Lensman wrote:
Prohibition was never enacted in Britain, so that argument is that all our current alcohol problems are due to that is entirely without substance.
I am not saying it’s due to prohibition. I am saying that having lived in several different countries I have noticed a strong correlation between relaxed drinking laws and mature attitudes to drinking. I am convinced the UK drink problems partially stem from our out-dated approach to its regulation.
@Lensman wrote:
Booze is legal, and if anything there is MORE crime related to that than to drugs.
I’d love to see the statistics on that.
@Lensman wrote:
Popularising something will increase the associated problems because hard drugs are highly addictive.
Since when has legalising something been equated with popularising? Walking naked through a swamp with a broom stuck up your jacksie is legal but hardly going to be popular. Often legalising something has the opposite effect…it reduces its popularity.
@Lensman wrote:
People steal for fag money already – just because they can be purchased over the counter does not change how people acquire the funds.
And people get drunk and fight, go home and beat up their wives, plough their cars drunk through innocent pedestrians etc. etc. This doesn’t mean we should ban alcohol, because the majority of people do not do this to get their “fix”. People steal for fag money! Well yeah, but we can’t ban cigarettes because that happens…
And who said anything about purchasing? The really hard drugs could maybe be made available to addicts in conjunction with some form of medical assistance to break the habit. And that is just one of many suggestions.
@Lensman wrote:
Legalising such drugs says society deems it acceptable to become dependent upon them.
No it doesn’t. What it says is that society has a mature attitude to problems inherent with drugs. What it says is that should you get into trouble, society will attempt to help you. What it says is that the consumption of hard drugs is a serious problem which is not solved through prohibition (how many more years do people want to watch the flawed policy fail?), and that society was smart enough to try another approach.
@Lensman wrote:
That’s what drugs do – make you dependent. The same is not true of alcholol – in itself it is not addictive. Most people who consume alcohol do not become addicted; most people to consume hard drugs do. Worse than that, for some drugs like heroin you need ever increasing doses to get the same “hit”.
Alcohol is addictive. Alcoholism is a dependence on alcohol. The amount of alcohol consumed in order to become drunk also increases as our body becomes used to ever increasing amounts. But we saw what happened when alcohol was banned in the States, it didn’t reduce the problems but drove them underground. The same is true of drugs.
@Lensman wrote:
I don’t see how legalising something and, by implication, easing access to it could result in less people trying it, and therefore a reduction in addicts. The opposite would be true.
well one reason is the “cool” factor. People are known to try things simply because they are illegal and/or taboo. I can guarantee now that if heroin became the drug of choice for the over 70’s it’s popularity would fall amongst the under 30’s. And legalising doesn’t have to mean “easing” access to something. To most people addicted to illegal drugs access isn’t even difficult…funding is. I could tell you now where to go to score pretty much anything you want, if you have the cash. Legalisation would remove this black market to a large extent and may even make access harder.
@Lensman wrote:
Can someone explain how a small increase in tax revenue can possibly compensate for allowing more young people to become junkies?
Who said small?Think about the billions spent fighting the unwinnable “war against drugs”. Who said more junkies? My whole argument is that this approach would probably reduce dependence in the long run.
@Lensman wrote:
I’m fairly agnostic on legalising of cannabis, to be honest – it’s a Class C drug that I don’t know too much about, other than it’s addictive qualities are pretty low (much lower than nicotine, I believe).
But legalising Class A drugs – pure and utter madness. And no, I don’t read the Daily Mail.
Class A? Class C? Class bollox. The classification system is almost completely arbitrary, with most experts agreeing it does nothing to in anyway help the situation. The classification of drugs in this way is more often political than scientific and should have nothing to do with a debate about legalisation.
Lensman, I’m not having a go at you personally, and I respect people having different viewpoints, but my thesis is that prohibition doesn’t work. It has never worked. It will never work. Faced with this I can do nothing other than suggest a new approach. An approach which therefore removes the failed prohibition policy is by nature something that advocates some form of legalisation.
Now where’s my Guardian?….
xdczigzag
ParticipantAlways… 😀
And can I also say that from experience the hard drugs are fecking deadly…as is the use of unclean needles…Having known people on the receiving end of the grim reapers’ sharp ‘un doesn’t make me want to carry on making them illegal though…quite the opposite…legal but controlled on the hard stuff…
The rest should just be a free-for-all 😀
Legalising wouldn’t have driven those I knew into heroins’ deadly embrace, they did that of their own accord when it was illegal…giving them some hope/ability to get out of the addiction might have saved them though…
Ask our Dutch boys how cool it is to smoke weed in Holland?…Most of the Dutchies I have met consider it completely uncool..simply because it’s available…(they might all be gheyers though! 😛 )
Ask a German how cool it is to go binge drinking? It aint…probably because the laws allow the consuption of alcohol at an earlier age, and their society has a more mature attitude to alcohol than I ever see when I get back to the old sceptered isle…but the Germans practically invented quality beers…they also know that binge drinking turns you into a tw@t and on the whole they don’t do it..Us Brits think it’s cool, as do the yankee cousins, and I guess a whole lot of that has to do with the “coolness” of only being able to get a drink from the age of 18/21.
Right…rant over!
xdczigzag
ParticipantSmoking joints and driving should be regulated as alcohol and driving is…you shouldn’t work/drive on either.
making harder drugs illegal doesn’t solve the problem, it just drives it underground which makes it harder to control, and the only people to profit from it are criminals…
Regulating the production of harder drugs would make them purer, removing a significant danger when someone buys drugs, i.e. impurity.
Regulating/taxing drugs would provide revenue to the government to deal with the social issues which often give rise to drug taking in the first place. It may increase the cost of the drugs..it may on the other hand decrease them as less people in the chain would be profiting…
Reducing the stigma surrounding drug taking may increase the number of people seeking help and actually reduce the number of people addicted in the long term…People addicted to “hard” drugs need treatment as much as people addicted to alcohol.
Drug taking is as ancient and prevalent in society as the consumption of alcohol…although the distinction is absurd, as all are drugs. Alcohol may actually be newer in the sense that it requires production and fermentation whereas one can get high by merely chewing cocoa leaves. In fact many illegal drugs are found growing naturally in nature. In the future people may well regard the “war on drugs” in the same way prohibition is regarded now…A failed policy that was a kneejerk reaction to a perceived problem, instigated by a over-paternalistic state.
In no way should drugs being legal mean that children should be brought up to think it is perfectly OK to stick a needle in their arm in order to get a high. Just as now it is taught that it is not wise to consume so much alcohol that one becomes an alcoholic, the dangers of drug abuse should be taught to all. legalising drugs and reducing the stigma surrounding them does not make them cool…It does, however, make them safer.
A mature approach to drug abuse is probably too much to ask in a nation of Daily Mail readers…But regulating/controlling the production of drugs would probably solve more problems than it creates. In fact we have the problems already, can anybody show me how the present system of prohibition has worked in any way, shape or form? It hasn’t…it has failed completely…drug taking has increased massively over the last 50 years…Legalise it, control it’s production and even let the government supply the harder drugs (for a price) in pharmacies for all I care…To registered consumers over the age of 18…It can’t be any worse a solution to the “solution” we have now.
xdczigzag
Participant@=XDC= MadHippy wrote:
@XDC_Wolf wrote:
broke the law = deserved punishment. No if’s or buts.
I would love to post it on my ftp site for ya mate but your statement in an earlier thread made me think again – Sorry
……..
Still love ya tho Paddy ! 😉 😉
Justice!!!!! 😀
xdczigzag
ParticipantQuality!!!! 😀 Nice find!
xdczigzag
ParticipantYeah I couldn’t be arsed looking after you chavs nicked all the good ones, so I guessed…
Invisible man is def there though…and star wars should be!!
xdczigzag
ParticipantShe is convinced it’s yours…
I Mentioned the inner tube, she said that was only while doing her up the poop shoot…Then she produced the proof….
Pretty conclusive mate…get out the check book…
xdczigzag
ParticipantSenheisser FTW!!!
xdczigzag
Participant@=XDC=OldPhart wrote:
Between Wold and Zigzag I am trying to figure who wants to die more, and sooner 😡
Well before you make that choice, be aware I spent time recently in Waterkloof and have photographic evidence of some of the mingers you pulled, gladly handed over by jilted bar staff everywhere and which I am sure the missus would be interested in…
And if you think I’m bluffing…how about the voyeuristic shot of your last conquest in the shower, for example:
Or that one you pulled after the boks game against the All Blacks…
I have more!!!
xdczigzag
ParticipantStar Wars
The Graduate
Montage
The invisible man
War Games
Daydream of a Photoplay Artist (1912) -
AuthorPosts