earth

[sandywinder]

oldpunkette said:

sandywinder said:

Well Op I don't think your anecdotal evidence is proof of anything much.

I did not find it very hard to find a case of one dealer who sold both cannabis and cocaine - and in Scotland as well.

news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1162&id=341592007



<<< Central Scotland caught one 15-year-old dealing three kinds of drugs: cannabis, diazepam, and cocaine; >>>


And there is evidence that cannabis use does make it more likely that heroin experimentation will lead to addiction.

www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn9488&feedId=teenagers_rss20

Sandy

NOT ONE of the drug dealers in the links you posted was selling both hash and heroin, proving my point. That they were or were not selling cocaine or ritalin or whatever is neither here nor there.

Not a single one was selling both heroin and hash.

And your medical article suggests that cannabis use makes the brain more susceptible to heroin addiction. It does not suggest that there is a behavioural link, or add any evidence to the (wrong) proposition that hash is a gateway drug to smack.

The point I was making OP was that drug sellers sell drugs just as alcohol shops sell beer, wine and spirits.

It is nonsense to suggest that a drug seller will only sell one particular drug.


Look at it the other way around.

Would a heroin drug seller be bovvered about selling cannabis to anybody?

I don't think so. And I am sure neither do you.

Would a burglar only burgle houses where the resident was rich? I don't think so.

Would a cannabis seller only sell it to adults. I don't think so.

These drug sellers are scum - WHATEVER they sell.


www.fact-uk.org.uk/site/media_centre/cs_wales.htm



<<< A search warrant was executed on a residential address as a result of an operation on a local market in North Wales. Approximately 4000 DVDs and music CDs were seized from the property. Police also found drugs in the premises consisting of quantities of heroin and cannabis. >>>


archive.theargus.co.uk/1999/12/14/196055.html



<<< When he was arrested Brown was found to be carrying an extendable baton and packages of heroin and cannabis as well as scales.

Brown admitted possessing an offensive weapon, three counts of supplying heroin and one count each of possessing heroin, herbal cannabis and temazipan. He was sentenced to 30 months in prison.>>>

[sandywinder]

madrigalman said:

Yeah I think thats correct, OP.

Its akin to saying people who are addicted to alcohol are more likely to take drugs than teetotaller. That doesnt prove a link between alcohol or suggest that alcohol is a gateway to drug abuse.

It simply means that some people are more prone to addiction/or to be more harsh, they are more prone to weakness of will.

You are also forgetting the association factor.

Once people get into the company of others who take drugs like cannabis, they are MORE likely to then get into the company of people associated with other drugs, including heroin.



And taking cannabis followed by heroin DOES lead to people being more likely to become addicted to heroin from the chemical activity of the cannabis as well as a predisposition to become addicted.

That is what this scientific study showed at any rate.

But as it contradicts a lot of what people have been saying I expect it to be ridiculed.

[sandywinder]

madrigalman said:

<< Alcohol is already legal. If it was illegal I would say we shouldn't make it legal >>

;D

I'm sorry, Sandy, but you really MUST stop talking this twaddle!

Not only that but alcohol and red wine in particular has HUGE health benefits..its a seriously healthy pursuit (in moderation). You really are talking the most complete bollox..if it wasn't legal they'd be prescribing the stuff.

It prevents heart attacks for god sake!

It also leads to the early deaths of many people through overuse.

Ask George Best's friends.

There are far better ways to stop people getting heart attacks than prescribing alcohol.

Alcohol is a poison.

[sandywinder]

////Unlike your 'belief' system which means everything you say has to be right.////

<<< Nope – I derive my opinion from various personal experience, and from experts who have been working and researching in this field for yonks, and know ‘the scene’ pretty well.

What did you post on another thread (can’t remember where) – something about whose opinion you should trust more – scientists who got man to the moon and back, or Daz’s.

Well precisely Sands. What makes /you/ the expert whose opinion I should trust? >>>

I am not asking for you to listen to just my opinion but to that of experts rather than people with little knowledge of the dangers involved.

Try reading this site of a drug treatment centre.

www.marijuana-detox.com/m-dangers.htm



<<< Apart from your own /opinions/ and /one/ New Scientist article (cited in your last post) you have only quoted/posted highly biased sources of American (…renowned child abusers amongst them, if I may remind you) or err…Singaporean ‘drug squads’. And you /seriously/ expect me to say: ‘Umm yeah he’s got a point’? >>>


Well now you have another opinion. No doubt being American they will be highly biased whereas all your evidence comes from perfectly unbiased sources?

Yeah right.

////Yes off course you know everything Pixie so it is not really surprising is it? If you think you aren't getting a sensible discussion (which is presumably one in which everybody agrees with every word you say) why do you bother?////

<<< Awww....don’t be so oversensitive Sands. Here – have a tissue..... >>>

The quality of oversensitivity is not often attributed to me but I thank you for it nevertheless.


////Which proves my point that prescribed drugs are much more likley to be used 'sensibly' than those you can buy for yourself at any time in whatever quantity you like.////

<<< Eh? In what way does that prove your point?>>>

Because drugs are much more likely to be prescribed 'sensibly' by GPs than by people just pic-n-mixing in wildly varying quantities and strengths from drug sellers.

I would have thought you could have grasped that.


<<< And again – prescription drugs are as readily available on the illegal market as drugs that are controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Do you know how many people resort to illegal market supplies for valium etc when /legal/ (ie prescribed) supply sources have dried up? >>>

That is not necessarily the fault of GPs prescribing badly but the normal standard of competence we have come to expect of the NHS.
But it is no reason to allow drugs like valium to be freely available.


////But drugs like heroin are not like sweets or cups of coffee. They are very dangerous, addictive and soul destroying. To put them in the same bracket as coffee is plainly ridiculous.////

<<< Oh really –it is ‘ridiculous’?

Caffeine is a stimulant Sands, meaning it stimulates the central nervous system. Effects on the body set in after just 1 cup. And long-term health problems (if used regularly) can set in from anywhere between 2-7 cups a day, and over, depending on the individual/individual ‘proneness’ to reactions to caffeine (just as with other drugs). >>>

Come off it. Caffeine is nothing like as bad as cannabis or illegal drugs. Millions of people in the UK have caffeine every day. It is not just found in coffee but tea, pop and chocolate and other substances.

Do millions of people have cannabis every day? I don't think so. The mind boggles at the health problems and social problems that similar use of that drug would have on this country.

So it is nonsense to put caffeine an cannabis in the same category. Even alcohol is not as likely to cause the same extent of problems as cannabis if taken at similar levels.

<<< It can cause serious heart disease, nausea, sleep disturbances/insomnia, headaches, anxiety attacks/depression, even delirium, light flashes and ear ringing, gastrointestinal problems, decrease of overall immunity and may be a partial causal factor for stomach ulcers. The list goes on. I wouldn’t exactly call that harmless or ‘ridiculous’. Just because you may consume caffeine ‘sensibly’ doesn’t mean everyone else does. >>>

And water can kill you if you drink to much. So are you going to say that water and cannabis cause the SAME problems?

I think you need to get some perspective.


<< It also causes physical withdrawal symptoms when someone stops consuming caffeine, meaning it has highly physically addictive potential. >>>

Yes Pixie but there is no sensible comparison between the dangers of cannabis and caffeine.

It's like saying speeding and rape are just as bad as each other.

<<< It’s a /drug/ Sands. Full-stop. Just a socially accepted one, and I doubt you’d accuse anyone of ‘self-inflicted’ health problems if they suffered cardiovascular problems as a consequence of too much caffeine intake. And neither are you the only one. If people go to the doc/hospital with illnesses related to caffeine misuse, they might be told to ‘cut down’ or stop drinking coffee/tea altogether, but no-one will make a fuss about the health effects that caffeine can have. It certainly doesn’t make the local papers: “Caffeine addict rushed into hospital after heart failure from exessive use.” >>>

Caffeine is also beneficial to health:

www.fitwise.com/Benefits_Caffeine.asp

Please not that this site also mentions the downsides of caffeine as well, especially for children.

It is even used as a tonic when people are ill.

It improves mental and physical performance (unlike cannabis).

It is used to alleviate asthma, dilates bronchial passages and can help alleviate headaches. You forgot to mention the health 'advantages' of caffeine.


////Do you suggest we should legalise the sale of guns to children?////

<<< In fact the only defence you keep banging on about is that alcohol is ‘healthy’ (in moderation), completely ignoring the fact that /in reality/ the costs of alcohol to society (and to overall health) by /very/ far outweigh /any/ ‘health benefits’, making the ‘health’ ‘excuse’ look pathetic and ridiculous. >>>


I am not saying that alcohol is on balance good for people. I thought I had made that quite clear. Evidently not. But there health benefits when taken in small quantities. That is undeniable. What I want to see is the cost of alcohol being made increasingly more expensive (via taxation) so that it is LESS likley to lead to health problems from overuse.

Surely that makes sense? Instead the cost of alcohol has come down a long way in relative terms over the last twenty years. And I believe that is a major reason why alcohol cause so many social problems. It is TOO easily available.

Yet you want other drugs to become as easily available.


<<< And to make another point clear <deep breath>: I’ve never advocated legalising drugs to children, just as alcohol and tobacco aren’t /legally/ accessible to children. What I advocate for children/young peeps (and for adults actually) are /preventative/ strategies (for drugs /and/ alcohol), and not some silly, pathetic, finger-wagging school lessons along the lines of ‘tut tut! drugs are bad for you’. >>>

But if the parents can have easy access to drugs as you
suggest then their children (and even infants) will ALSO get easier access. Not only that but they will also be more tempted to indulge in the same drugs when they become teenagers.


Can you grasp that?

<<< I’m also advocating ‘normalising’ drugs (since that is what they are – ‘normal’ to humans), so that people don’t break out into a blind panic if young peeps /do/ (illegally) access drugs (and alcohol). Total prohibition (even for young peeps) leads to greater curiosity, the ‘forbidden fruit’ effect, and a greater likelihood of young peeps wanting to try drugs/alcohol ‘for the sake of it’. Still - most will do so without being in /any/ danger of becoming addicted. As soon as their lives have a /real/ meaning (ie they have adult responsibility) they will stop using drugs. Young peeps rebel against ‘authority’, that’s in their youthful nature. It’s part of growing up and learning to assert themselves. To an extend, it’s /essential/ for their own healthy development that they do just that - rebel. They need clear boundaries, yes, but boundaries that are /reasonable/ and ‘productive’, authoritative, rather than authoritarian, and not based on some irrational fear society has about them becoming ‘junkies’ because they smoked a bloody joint or got drunk on a few cans of cheap cider. >>>

They mainly rebel out of boredom. The answer is not to encourage them to experiment with drugs but to give them a purpose in life from an early age. Instead of which they are often left to make their own entertainment, which often turns out to be a negative or destructive one.

Sports, arts, music and so on should be encouraged but that requires government funding to make the facilities available. And the government has far higher priorities in which to squander taxpayers money instead.

<<< But the likelihood that they will ‘rebel’ more /today/ is greater than ever, because ‘youth’, ie transition from childhood to adulthood is a much longer process than it used to be. With more and more young peeps accessing university/college education, they are financially dependent on their parents/families for far longer than they used to be. They marry much later, they can’t afford to buy houses/have a family until they are well established in their jobs (if they are lucky). Plus we wrap children/young peeps up in cotton wool (at least those that are ‘precious’)....... >>>

Yes I think we are on common ground there.


<<< I think it’s about bloody time /we/ gave young peeps some of their /rights/ back – the /right/ to be accepted and a responsibility-worthy part of this society – within their ‘youthful’ means – ie allowing ‘mistakes’. And not just responsibility for themselves, but also for others. That would do /a lot/ for (or rather against) their inclination to indulge in too much drinking, and drug taking.>>>


No it is not their rights that are the problem but their responsibilities that are lacking.

They are not taught responsibility nowadays but whenever they misbehave they certainly know their rights. They have never had as many rights throughout British history.


////Yes it is a complete misconception that heroin use destroys the lives of so many addicts, Pixie. It must be all in my mind. No wonder you can't have a serious discussion.////

<<< No we can’t because you constantly ignore my argument that:

1. I don’t /advocate/ smack use – I’m advocating /effective/ prevention strategies.

2. Most of these destructive factors are caused by the illegal market.>>>

1. So what exactly are these strategies again that have never been tried before?

2. No - the destructive factors are caused by drug USE, no matter what the source of the drugs are.


<<< It is not the drug /itself/ that is ‘soul destroying’ (whatever that means) – it’s the illegal market life-style that comes with addiction, adulterated drugs /and/ the addict’s proneness to ‘giving in’ to the prevalent concept of addiction (as it stands today).>>>

Nonsense - drugs like heroin destroy the soul whatever the source.

Do you seriously believe that the free unadulterated prescription of methadone has transformed the lives of heroin addicts?

Well?

<<< Would you say that Byron, Shelley, Blake, Keats, Coleridge, Wilberforce etc etc (the list goes on, and not just among writers and philosophers) were ‘soul-destroyed’? They were all addicted to opiates.

Most of them for /all their life/. As were many ‘respected’ physicians and members of the upper/middle classes. In fact many were addicted to higher doses than some of the heaviest junkies take /today/. Society didn’t break down, in fact, most people didn’t even know or realise. At the time there were no illegal market effects that destroyed these people’s lives, and the opiates were /clean/. >>>

See above.

////err... no it is not the same at all. Just because YOU have decided that a 'belief' is misguided does not automatically mean that your view is the correct one. I have mentioned this characteristic about you before Pixie. You are just like a God bother who says 'God is all round' and just can't understand how people can hold a different opinion.////

/I/ haven’t ‘decided’ anything. But I don’t rely on (ie /believe/ in) dodgy sources and popular media images of drug use. I have used drugs myself. Saying that, I /still/ use drugs now – I drink alcohol, I smoke cigs, I drink tea and coffee, I ‘even’ smoke cannabis. Jezz – and I haven’t gone mad yet (…although you will probably disagree). >>>

Well I think you are Upton Park.


That is two stops short of Barking.

But how do you you judge that your sources are no less dodgy than mine?

<<< I have many drug-taking friends (ex and current –recreational- users), I have supported /many/ drug users (‘problem users’) over the years, and I have read /extensively/ on the subject. I started off with very different perceptions, and I have changed most of them /because/ of all the information and ‘real-life’ experiences around drug use I have gained and accessed. And I tell you what – I have /yet/ to come across the ‘innately evil’ drug user that you seem to believe in. The people I have met (and I have met /many/) are no better or worse than the rest of society. And if they didn’t take drugs, no-one would /think/ they were any ‘different’. >>>

But you are only aware of your tiny middle class circle so you can not
pontificate any more than I can. You have not seen the hell that many drug users live through.

You can no more judge the lives of others as a Guardianista living in his ivory tower telling us all about poverty and inequality can.


////But these are prescribed with care and LIMITED. You however are campaigning to remove this limitation. You want to allow drugs to be FREELY available like alcohol, tobacco and coffee.////

<<< Again, you conveniently ignore the fact that I’m not advocating decriminalizing/legalising drugs and simply leave it at that. >>>

I had understood that you had indeed advocated making some illicit drugs legal. Now it's me who is getting confused. Or perhaps you just get a thrill from breaking the law and taking illegal drugs.

////And your information is the typical perception of that gathered from drug sellers.////

Nah-ne-nah-ne-nah-nah…..’if you pinch my toy I pinch yours’....

No further comment. Your response is just too childish. Come up with a /proper/ counter-argument, and I will respond.

It is no less childish than your response 'Yours is the typical perception of someone having gained all their information about drugs from the popular media'. But I suppose you are allowed to act childishly.



////Sorry but this does not wash. I have already put OP right on this one. Where do you lot get these misguided opinions from?////

<<< I see that punky has already replied, as far as dealers are concerned. >>>

Replied yes - but convincingly NO.

<<< It is true that it is more likely that someone who uses heroin will have used ‘softer’ drugs before. By ‘softer’ drugs I mean any drug that is classed lower than heroin (ie class C, B , or legal drugs). >>>

That is exactly the point I was making.

People don't normally start off taking heroin after taking tobacco or alcohol. In other words cannabis and other softer drugs are gateway drugs.

<<< Although it is controversial to apply animal studies to humans (and lots of them around drug use have been done with rats), the only thing such studies prove is that certain people may be more inclined to take (any type of) drugs than others. It does not prove the ‘gateway’, ie a /causal/ ‘gateway effect’. >>>

As good as.

<<< The study the New Scientist article is based on acknowledges that: It may increase the risk of using heroin (but it is not a causal factor). They would be silly to say that, since it has not been proven, quite the opposite, no such causal connection has been made in any study. And if cannabis was an actual, genuine /causal/ factor, we’d have far more heroin users than we do now. 'Upgrading' to heroin depends on many other factors. >>>

Yes but the study showed that taking cannabis led to more likelihood of heroin addiction IF heroin was taken after cannabis had been used frequently.

<<< You are turning the ‘cannabis as a gateway drug’ argument around. You are saying that someone uses cannabis is likely to use heroin,>>>


No I am not. I am saying that if they DO take heroin after cannabis it is more likely that they will become addicted to it, because of the chemical reaction within the brain from cannabis use.



////Do you really think all drug dealers are so honest and scrupulous that if they got hold of heroin they would not sell it as well?////

<<< No. But because /any/ drug dealer is beyond /your/ moral standards, you can’t accept that they have a moral tolerance level within those boundaries which /for you/ are immoral anyway: There is a world of difference between the ‘average’ cannabis dealer and the unscrupulous heroin dealer. >>>


But not all cannabis dealers haunt your circle of society. Not all cannabis dealers even in your normal world are moral or average.

<<< And yes, I know and have known quite a few cannabis dealers. I have also met unscrupulous heroin dealers, not because they frequent the same circles, but because I have entered theirs. And I have met many heroin dealers who deal in heroin to finance their own habit. At street level, the two phenomena (of heroin use and selling) are often interwoven, and if we decided to seed out those who also sell in order to fund their habit, we’d be seeding out /a lot/ of addicts, which would, again, back-fire on us (society). >>>

Is seeding the same as weeding? How would it back-fire on us if we locked all dealers away?

<<< Because someone ‘does wrong’ does not mean that they are ‘undeserving’ of support (otherwise /none/ of us ever would be), even if ‘only’ to prevent them from having further need of selling to other people. >>>


I agree but we disagree on what kind of support is suitable.

[oldpunkette]

sandywinder said:

Once people get into the company of others who take drugs like cannabis, they are MORE likely to then get into the company of people associated with other drugs, including heroin.

.

I'm trying not to get involved in the endless arguments on this, but I do want to keep on about this link you keep making between cannabis and heroin.

How are people who smoke hash going to get into the company of smack-heads? I really cannot see that connection. In my experience the different drugs are used by different social groups all together.

These drugs are not dealt by the same dealers. They are not used by the same users. They have widely different sub-cultural significance.

[Daz Madrigal]

<< What did you post on another thread (can’t remember where) – something about whose opinion you should trust more – scientists who got man to the moon and back, or Daz’s. >>

Well that may make some sense if I were actively trying to get to the Moon..as it happens I have no plans to move there.

[piccione]

Sands

This is the 'rest' of the reply to your last post....

///This is not double standards. Prescribed drugs are prescribed to 'cure' a health problem. They are not prescribed so that people can have a good time.///

No, and in some cases prescribed drugs are genuine and ‘justified’. But in many cases they are, strictly speaking, not. In our social climate they are, because /everything/ tends to be cured with drugs these days. As I said, illicit drug users are no different – or rather /mainstream/ society is no different to them. And in either case it ain’t just about ‘having fun’. That’s rather your interpretation of my words.

////But GPs do not usually prescribe sleeping tablets, unless they have some good reason. I asked for some myself a few years ago and the GP would only prescribe some for a few nights only and that was when I was in real pain.

This is a completely different ball game (and a sensible one) to allowing people to buy whatever drugs they wanted whenever they wanted them./////

You go and do some research on the abuse of prescribed medications Sands (on the legal market -ie prescribed medication, and the illegal market), and then we can talk....

////But most sensible GPs will advise the patient to see other medical support (such as psychiatrists or whatever is felt appropriate) rather than pump them full of dangerous drugs.////

Psychiatrists are (medical) consultants who prescribe psychotropic drugs to clinical(ly diagnosed) mental illness/disorders, such as schizophrenia. They are not counsellors/therapists. And even clinical psychologists don’t deal with cases of temporary personal distress. Besides for /either/ consultation you have to wait a long, long time. By that time your (temporary) problem is likely to be over, or you could have been sectioned, if it is /really/ bad (ie a ‘mental illness/disorder’, as defined in the Mental Health Act – there are currently 4 categories). Most likely though, you would not ‘qualify’ for a referral to a psychiatrist/psychologist). You can take drugs to help you out, either prescribed by your doc, or bought on the illegal market (illicit drugs or prescription drugs). Or you can ‘splash out’ on a private counsellor - 30-40 quid a pop.

Some people would find it more ‘economical’, and immediately gratifying, to buy drugs on the illegal market. Prescription drugs are much cheaper than a privately paid counsellor....

////There was a time twenty years or so ago when exactly this attitude was prevalent within the medical profession but this is now changing for the better.///

Due to prohibition there now is a well established illegal market supplying all you need – prescription drugs and illicit drugs.

////But these tranquillisers are usually only prescribed if they are not thought addictive and they don't have as much effect on the patient as the older addictive ones.////

No barbs are used very rarely as /prescribed/ drugs these days, because of their very severe side-effects, but they are still available on the illegal market – fewer of them than benzos obviously. But benzos are widely available - precribed or not. And they are psychotropic drugs – just as illegal drugs are.

////Now you are implying that all drugs have equal side effects.////

No I’m not saying that at all. Different drugs have different (side-)effects, and yes, also very much depending on the individual’s response to the chemical components of the drug. What I’m saying is that this is no different for prescribed drugs.

////And quite often it is only when the user has tried them that they find this out, when it is too late.////

If they have a /physical reaction/ to the chemical properties of the drug it might be too late – again, that applies to prescription as well as to illegal drugs, and depends on the individual’s physiological make-up. But you don’t take a (prescribed or illegal) drug once and become physically addicted, and you don’t either if the drug is taken controlled. Those that develop a psychological addiction almost instantly, are those that are ‘prone’ to addiction.

///But you don't seem to be able to GED that taking illegal drugs is a CRIMINAL OFFENCE.///

Oh I most certainly get that. But unlike you I don’t draw the conclusion illegal drug = inherently ‘bad’ drug, legal drug = inherently ‘good’ drug. The social/legal status of a drug has no effect on the chemical properties of the drug. It’s the social construct that makes drugs ‘good’ or ‘bad’, or ‘neutral’.

////Of course they are both as bad as each other but why can't you listen when you are told that cannabis stays in the blood stream for far longer than alcohol.////

Before I answer this I will say again that I think no-one should drive when their driving ability is ‘impaired’ for whatever reason, whether that be due to drugs (illegal or legal, including alcohol and prescribed drugs) or tiredness. Drink driving and tiredness cause the most severe accidents. But most of us will have driven when tired – I know for fact that I have.

Unlike with alcohol use, cannabis users driving immediately after use are more ‘aware’ of their impairment and drive slower than those who have been drinking (or those who are over-tired), ie compensating their impairment by ‘adjusting’ their driving behaviour. Regular cannabis users also develop a tolerance, resulting in ’reduced impairment’.

Nonetheless, someone who uses cannabis and drives immediately afterwards is as guilty of driving while intoxicated as someone who drives after having drunk alcohol, although the effects are far less severe than those of alcohol intoxication. Mostly, though, in accidents where the driver had taken cannabis, they had also been drinking, and the /causal/ factor for the accident is /alcohol/ not cannabis intoxication, since cannabis intoxication by far does not produce the same kind of psycho-motor impairment that occurs after even moderate alcohol consumption.

As for long-term effects of cannabis on driving (ie remains of cannabis in the body after a few days) - the impact is insignificant to none-existent.

////But the point is that these prescribed drugs are 'controlled' by medical professionals (or at least should be). Illegal drugs are not////

Yes ‘at least should be’. If that control works so brilliantly, why are they so readily available on the illegal market?

////That is a different argument. When I said controlled I meant by the GP. Drugs like diazepam that are sold illegally are no better than any other illegal drug, i.e very dangerous.////

They are exactly the /same/ drugs, whether they are prescribed or bought on the illegal market.

/////Look Pixie can't you understand that just because people behave like idiots does not mean that we should not treat/help them.////

Yes I fully understand that. If people are ‘idiotic’ enough to stuff themselves with food until their hips or heart can’t cope with the weight anymore, I don’t think we should say: “Sorry, it’s your own bloody fault. No treatment for you.” Neither do I think that we should leave people to die after a road accident because they committed the /criminal offence/ of driving under the influence of alcohol or exceeding the speed limit.

////Before complaining about MY confusion perhaps you should address your own as that seems to need the higher priority.////

You have a habit of using ‘reversed arguments’ as an ‘argument’ to ‘make your point’, instead of providing /real/ arguments to support/explain your point.

Are you aware of Transactional Analysis- ‘child’ – adult’ state and responses? Your ‘reversed argument’ habit is a classic example of ‘child’ responses.

////When will people like you learn that because people like me have concerns about society it is not automatically a 'hang 'em and flog 'em approach'?////

I never said that. I asked for clarification because you’re giving out very mixed messages. And I got the above ‘productive’ response.

////You don't hold a monopoly on self-righteousness you know.////

Yep – definitely ‘child’ mode.

////Just as YOU have just brushed aside the fact that many cannabis users who are schizophrenic have NEVER being diagnosed so.////

If you look back at my post you will find that I did address that (in two lengthy paras). You just ignored that completely, and instead focused on that /part/ of my response in which I highlighted misdiagnosis.

I wonder why…..

////And why should they be unless they commit some utterly stupid act? Why can't you admit that as I admit that there may be a few people who are diagnosed with schizoprenia when they may not be.////

Because I don’t believe that a ‘psychotic episode’ qualifies someone to be diagnosed with schizophrenia and labeled with that severe mental disorder for the rest of their life, just as I don’t believe someone should be diagnosed with ADHD or autism ‘just’ because they display some of the symptoms. Cases of schizophrenia are exceedingly rare amongst those who have no family history/genetic predisposition. Such cases do exist, yes, but even if people (without a family history) are exposed to environmental risk factors (such as drug taking and /other/ factors that I mentioned – in the 2 paras you ignored), that does not mean they are ‘schizophrenic’ when (temporarily) displaying some of the symptoms.

////No I said we could seriously REDUCE the problem.////

Yes that’s what I am saying as well- with addressing /demand/ rather than supply, because that doesn’t work.

I ignore your sequence of ‘child’ responses that follow and go straight to this para:

////So according to you either I accept that we should have a free market for all drugs or I must believe we should lock up for life all drug addicts? Can you really not see any possible middle ground somewhere between? And you say you wanted a serious discussion. HA!///

Yes I can see a middle ground, because I /know/ that legalization ain’t gonna happen. I asked you a question in my last post: ‘Why are you so set on tackling supply rather than demand’ – but you ignored that as well.

Decriminalisation and/or a focus on tackling demand is very different from legalisation. Despite what you believe, I can understand why people might have (moral) scruples to support legalisation. It’s a very big step, yes, and there is a risk that //initially// things would get worse, and that it would be written off as a ‘failure’. But it would only be a long-term failure if legalising drugs is /all/ we did, without addressing /demand/. We would have far more resources though to put into /effective/ strategies for tackling demand. But that failure is /also/ true for prohibition if we don’t do anything else – as we see /now/. But with prohibition we have /extra/ inhibiting factors that we would not have under legalisation – ie all the negative effects of an illegal market, squandered resources etc.

But as I said, legalisation will not happen – at the most we are looking at decriminisation of /some/ drugs at some point in the future. But whatever strategy we decide for, none of them will make /any/ long-term difference, if we don’t concentrate on tackling demand, rather than supply.

////Compulsory treatment can and often is effective.////

Give me some examples of that ‘success’.

////Maybe it is./// ('evil gene')

‘Maybe’? I see....

////But most people will not commit illegal acts for the simple reason it is illegal. Most people are honest and law abiding, even though it doesn't always appears to be so from the media.////

And you think that most drug users would /still/ commit criminal offences if drugs were legal? At the moment they /all/ do – simply by accessing illegal drugs they commit a criminal offence.

Doubtlessly, some drug users would commit criminal offences even if drugs were legal. But the same is true for people who drink alcohol, or who are completely abstinent.

////I am saying that although we should not ban alcohol it should be made as socially unacceptable as tobacco is becoming due to higher taxes, government campaigns, warnings on bottles etc. That would lead to fewer cases of drunken drivers. So I am not advocating that is it is OK for drunk drivers bit wrong for drugged drivers.////

That doesn’t answer my question as to why you think that intoxicated driving is a good argument for banning drugs, but not for banning alcohol.

////An you just can't comprehend what I am saying. I thought by now you would have gained some comprehension of my views.////

Oh I understand your views completely. What I’m missing is the rational reasoning behind them that supports them.

////Are you normally such a slow learner?////

See above. I fully understand your views. But you obviously don’t like being asked for the rational reasoning behind them.

Are you usually that evasive?

[Daz Madrigal]

sandywinder said:

madrigalman said:

<< Alcohol is already legal. If it was illegal I would say we shouldn't make it legal >>

;D

I'm sorry, Sandy, but you really MUST stop talking this twaddle!

Not only that but alcohol and red wine in particular has HUGE health benefits..its a seriously healthy pursuit (in moderation). You really are talking the most complete bollox..if it wasn't legal they'd be prescribing the stuff.

It prevents heart attacks for god sake!

It also leads to the early deaths of many people through overuse.

Ask George Best's friends.

There are far better ways to stop people getting heart attacks than prescribing alcohol.

Alcohol is a poison.

A very small percentage of the drinking population. Probably less than 2% of all drinkers. There are very few teetotallers.

<< There are far better ways to stop people getting heart attacks than prescribing alcohol. >>

Yes and they all cost far more than by prescription than a few glasses of wine, Sandy.

I'd say that accounts for £1.50 compared to..well you tell me how much prescription charges are?

I;d say that was jolly good value for a substance that does an excellent job in moppin up ant-oxidants and has many other beneficial properties.

Ah but your not interested in those beneficial properties because they don't fit you flimsy arguments do they.

I should add that as I have close relatives who have had heart problems and extensive sugery and heart bypass surgery it is extremely difficult to get hold of these highly expensive medicines, Sandy.

You really don't have a clue what your talking about do you?

Have you tried getting statins on prescription, Sandy?

Do you know the cost of several prescriptions - you could buy a bloody vintage Brugundy on some of them!

Do you realise that the latest drugs are readily availably in the USA - with its mean, horrible health service - but totally unavailable on our Welfare State NHS.

What has Blair done for those with heart problems?

What use is the NHS?

Welll Sandy you are at least intelligent enough to realise the sense in my argument..which expalins why you are here and not listening to the twaddle over..there.

[Daz Madrigal]

<< ///This is not double standards. Prescribed drugs are prescribed to 'cure' a health problem. They are not prescribed so that people can have a good time./// >>

Well having a good time whilst drinkiing medicine is a rather pleasant side effect.

And far less hazardous than the numerous side effects of other heart and blood thinning drugs..some of which are potentially life threatening, Sandy!!!

[piccione]

Sands

////I am not asking for you to listen to just my opinion but to that of experts rather than people with little knowledge of the dangers involved.////

That is /exactly/ what I do Sands.....

////Try reading this site of a drug treatment centre.///

You’re having laugh Sands aren’t you.... ;D

//// Even alcohol is not as likely to cause the same extent of problems as cannabis if taken at similar levels.////

Are you aware that a table of drug reclassification was published in The Lancet earlier this year (in March)? The table is a result of a research study (incorporating the results of earlier, related studies), headed by Prof. David Nutt, University of Bristol, and Prof. Colin Blakemore, chief executive of the Medical Research Council. The team consisted of a number of renowned independent experts of drug research (medical, social, psychological) – although I doubt /any/ of them run a costly rehab clinic or work for the US drug squad – so they might not ‘qualify’ according to your perception of ‘expertise’.

The table re-classes 20 commonly used drugs according to their /harmfulness/, rather than to the stringent A-C classification of /illegal/ drugs we now have, so completely /independent/ from their il/legal status. The three criteria of ‘harmfulness’ are:

1. Physical harm to the individual user caused by the drug
2. The /tendency/ of the drug to induce dependence and addiction
3. The effect of drug use on families, communities, and society

Top of the list is heroin, followed by cocaine, then barbs (a /prescription/ drug), then street methadone – and THEN – ALCOHOL – on place /five/ of the overall ranking of harmfulness – right after street methadone.

/Cannabis/ ranks on place 11 – long after tobacco and benzos, another commonly prescribed drug....

/Five/ drugs amongst the ‘top 10’ are legal/prescription drugs!

One has to take into account that the drugs are ranked according to their /current/ form of occurrence: Heroin is an adulterated street drug (ie increased health impact), and it’s also illegal. Therefore, it scores very high in the 3rd harm category of overall social costs (e.g. due to increased crime). Since it’s often used IV, with unclean works, it dramatically increases the overall social and health impacts, to the individual, but also to the public: Spreading deadly viruses such as HIV and Hep C. Hep C is spreading at an alarming rate, but the gov will not acknowledge that, because it would undermine the prohibition approach even further. There is an estimate of almost 500.000 Hep C infections in this country (although the ‘official’ gov figure is about half of that). Like with HIV, for years carriers don't know they have the virus - until the symptoms show. The virus is more resistant than the HIV virus and can survive outside the carrier for longer. Hence why it can be transferred much more easily than the HIV virus, e.g. through salvia (and even a shared razor blade).

The above table takes those heath impacts into account – and they are /vast/, due to the illegal status of the drug (and any IV used drug). Alcohol does not have the ‘excuse’ of severe additional risks brought on by the the illegal market. It’s also a ‘pure’ drug, because it’s legal.

And it’s an absolute myth that alcohol induced health problem (especially cirrhosis) are a problem of alcoholics. It’s exceedingly common amongst social drinkers. It’s social drinkers who are turning it into an ‘epidemic’ – not alcoholics. David Nutt said in an interview that we needed a /realistic/ approach to /all/ drugs and their harmfulness, based on /facts/ rather than social/legal constructs. He further said that we completely undermine our credibility towards young people by classing, for example ecstasy (which is on place /18/ in the table) as a drug ‘more dangerous’ than alcohol, because it very clearly is not. There is a vast gap between the potential and rare harmful effects of ecstasy, compared to the /actual/ harmfulness of alcohol.

////Because drugs are much more likely to be prescribed 'sensibly' by GPs than by people just pic-n-mixing in wildly varying quantities and strengths from drug sellers.

I would have thought you could have grasped that.////

And I would have thought that you could grasp that as long as they are readily available on the illegal market, it makes f*ck all difference how ‘sensibly’ doctors prescribe them. And btw Sands: How do you think they /get/ onto the illegal market in the first place. People who had them prescribed flog them. So they must have had quite a few of them....

////But it is no reason to allow drugs like valium to be freely available.////

They /are/ freely available Sands.

////Come off it. Caffeine is nothing like as bad as cannabis or illegal drugs. Millions of people in the UK have caffeine every day. It is not just found in coffee but tea, pop and chocolate and other substances…..

[…..]

////It is used to alleviate asthma, dilates bronchial passages and can help alleviate headaches. You forgot to mention the health 'advantages' of caffeine.////

I /know/ that it does, when used controlled and sensibly. Just as alcohol can have – when used controlled and sensibly. I’m not arguing for declaring caffeine an inherently ‘dangerous drug’. My argument was about ‘perception’ of different drugs, depending on whether they are socially acceptable or condemned. It’s a bit of a double standard to highlight the positive effects of ‘acceptable’ drugs, and brush the negatives under the carpet, while highlighting the /negative/ effects of ‘condemned’ drugs, brushing the /positive/ effects aside.

Just as you ‘forgot’ to mention the positive effects of cannabis (again, when used controlled and 'sensibly'). It’s been used for medical purposes throughout history, and it still is. I’m sure you are aware of its exceedingly positive effects for MS patients. It’s also used as an appetite stimulant, to relief pain and stress. The problem is that the most effective administration of THC is via smoking – and that in itself is harmful (not because of cannabis, but because of tobacco). Marinol is a drug that contains the active ingredient of cannabis (THC), but it has shown to be less effective than administering THC via (cannabis) smoking.

Fact is Sands that /all/ drugs (at least all ‘natural’ drugs, ‘even’ diamorphine) have positive effects as well as they negative effects when misused. That is no different for /any/ drug, whether legal, illegal, socially accepted or condemned, caffeine or cannabis. And their individual components are /all/ used in medicine for their /positive/ effects.

And just to make one thing clear: Cannabis use by young people is far more dangerous than use by adults, there is no doubt about that. I’m certainly not advocating for young people to take up cannabis smoking (as I’m not advocating legalising drugs/alcohol to children/young peeps /at all/). But we need to keep things in perspective: Almost half of young people today will have smoked cannabis at some point (some only once, or a few time, others more often). Those who are at risk are heavy, regular users. Someone who uses drugs regularly and heavily is ‘addicted’. They are the ones at risk of ‘upgrading’ to heroin, and not because of cannabis use. It does not make cannabis the /causal/ factor. Someone who is ‘addiction-prone’ is exceedingly likely to be or have been exposed to other risk factors that make them 'prone' to ‘mental illness’ and ‘drug addiction’.

And although I do not advocate legalising drugs to young peeps, there is no way of avoiding that they /will/ access them. And when they do, we need to keep a clear head and react rationally and ‘proportionately’, and not go into panic mode driven by the horror stories we’ve read in the papers.

Between 1983 and 2000 there were 1700 deaths of young people from solvent abuse in the UK. We cannot ban solvents, and we have no way of avoiding young people accessing them. Hence why it is better to invest our time and energy into preventing them from being tempted to access solvents, cannabis and any other drug in the first place. Some, or even many, /always/ will, /especially/ those who have a ‘good reason’ to get high on drugs – ie those who are ‘prone’ to addiction’. And we need to accept as well that even ‘just’ wanting to /try/ drugs is perfectly normal, and , yes, also /mostly harmless/. But with our classification system we are giving out very wrong messages as to which drugs are relatively safe.

///Yet you want other drugs to become as easily available.///

Again – they already /are/ ‘easily available’.

////But if the parents can have easy access to drugs as you
suggest then their children (and even infants) will ALSO get easier access. Not only that but they will also be more tempted to indulge in the same drugs when they become teenagers.////

I just keep repeating myself. We are going round in circles with this...

They can readily access them now. But now, since they are illegal, they are exposed to all sorts of /extra/ risks because of the illegal status of drugs. They use drugs behind their parents backs, being in danger of getting drawn into criminal subcultures, because they are (legally) ‘forbidden’.

Your response will surely be: ‘That’s why I think we should clamp down hard on supply, so that drugs won’t be available to them.’

Upon which /my/ response will be: ‘Targeting supply doesn’t work’ – as ‘history’ has shown.

And this is were we get stuck.

Either we agree to differ and leave it at that, or you address my question as to why you are so set on targeting supply rather than demand.

I have addressed the supply issue /in length/ in our discussion on the other thread (...and it's always Daz who starts them - so lets blame him).

////They mainly rebel out of boredom. The answer is not to encourage them to experiment with drugs but to give them a purpose in life from an early age. Instead of which they are often left to make their own entertainment, which often turns out to be a negative or destructive one.////

And in what way does that contradict what I said?

////Sports, arts, music and so on should be encouraged but that requires government funding to make the facilities available. And the government has far higher priorities in which to squander taxpayers money instead.////

Ah yes of course – let ‘the government’ sort it out. Nothing to do with you, or me, or with anybody else living in this country. No, it’s the government who should sort it for us. Quickly, conveniently – and cheaply, if you please. We don’t want to be bothered with all this do we? /We/ have got ‘higher priorities’ – just like government....

Maybe it ain’t just young peeps who are lacking in responsibility. And maybe, just maybe, young peeps /could/ turn the argument around and say: ‘You adults are lacking in responsibility towards us.’

Considering how many ‘responsible’ adults there are these days complain about ‘their’ tax money being ‘wasted’ on the education of ‘other people’s brats’, they might just have a point....

But /luckily/ young peeps don’t have a ‘political voice’ ie vote (albeit of course criminal responsibility at the age of 10), so we might just get away with it....

////Yes I think we are on common ground there.////

What?? That can’t be right! Please check again....

////They are not taught responsibility nowadays….////

Responsibility for what, or towards what/whom? ‘Grown-up’ interests? Blind obedience to ‘higher authority’ that has only their own interests in mind?

In that case I’m irresponsible as well, and proud of it.

///…but whenever they misbehave they certainly know their rights. They have never had as many rights throughout British history.////

Ah yes, compensating their abolished right to full integration into this young peeps hostile society by giving them the ‘right’ to complain about it. Sounds about right. The first would take up a lot of /our/ time, the second just creates bearoractic paperwork for someone else. But never mind all the paperwork that leads to nothing. Hey – at least we’ve created another middle class job opportunity: ‘Young People’s Rights and Equal Opportunities Advisor’. It /sounds/ great anyway and I'm sure the pay ain't too bad either....

////1. So what exactly are these strategies again that have never been tried before?////

Ah yes....funny you should ask. Links in nicely with the ‘irresponsible adult’ syndrome – and with your comment regarding the government having ‘higher priorities in which to squander taxpayers money instead'.

See – such strategies are very ‘costly’ – not to people’s wallets, but to people’s ‘comfort zones’.

Do you /really/ want to know…? I don’t think so somehow. You are set on your ‘clamp down hard on supply’ approach.

////Do you seriously believe that the free unadulterated prescription of methadone has transformed the lives of heroin addicts? Well?///

Oh c’mon Sands we’ve been through all that – a thousand times (it feels like it anyway). I don’t think that methadone is an ideal solution, no. But it’s the 'best' we’ve got at the moment, unfortunately. Prescribed (pure) heroin would be much better for those who /need/ it. By far not all addicts do, or would, rather. There are other drugs. Subutex is a commonly used drug. It blocks dopamine receptors – and therefore any impact of heroin taken during ‘detox’. And there are even ‘weaker’ (and cheaper) drugs that have been very successful. There is another drug tried in France at the moment - well as good as through trial phase. Not every addict is the same, or at the same stage of ‘readiness’ for abstinence. Some prefer methadone, some are happier with subutex, and some don’t need either of these, and prefer ‘milder’ drugs, or even none at all. It all depends on ‘readiness’ for abstinence, and if you remember, that was my criticism of the Swiss scheme – that ‘preparation’ programmes are missing.

[<<< Would you say that Byron, Shelley, Blake, Keats, Coleridge, Wilberforce etc etc (the list goes on, and not just among writers and philosophers) were ‘soul-destroyed’? They were all addicted to opiates.

Most of them for /all their life/. As were many ‘respected’ physicians and members of the upper/middle classes. In fact many were addicted to higher doses than some of the heaviest junkies take /today/. Society didn’t break down, in fact, most people didn’t even know or realise. At the time there were no illegal market effects that destroyed these people’s lives, and the opiates were /clean/. >>>]

///See above.///

Well well – now /there/ is /one/ big, fat convenient cop-out if ever I saw one!

I leave my original 2 paras, to remind you just /how/ big, fat and convenient it was....

It’s a bit tricky ain’t it – unless you bring yourself to say that Blake, Keats, Shelley et al were all sad losers, or ‘stupid’, or ‘criminal’, or ‘innately evil’....

Don’t worry – I don’t expect a response to that. You’ve managed to prove my point to /perfection/.

///That is two stops short of Barking.///

That’s sounds pretty good to me.

////But how do you you judge that your sources are no less dodgy than mine?///

Because I have been looking into this subject intensively for years Sands – for /various/ reasons. After a while you learn who the /real/ experts are, which sources are independent and reliable, and which are biased – and you learn to address your own bias, if you are honest enough to yourself. Of course, if you don’t know anything about Straight Inc and their background, Mel and Betty Sembler’s ‘insights’ sounds err ‘impressive’.

But saying that, it is common sense to /not/ rely on sources that have or could have an obvious ‘particular’ interest in the subject ie bias (or any subject, especially when it’s ‘political’), such as governmental bodies, or rehab centers who want to flog their expensive programmes on the web. I’m not saying these programmes are cr@p – there are quite a few good ones around. But ultimately, their primary interest is making money. So they are hardly likely to say: 'Health consequences of cannabis use are vastly overstated, and experts in the fields are very divided about the whole thing, but come and spent thousands on our programme anyway’.

///But you are only aware of your tiny middle class circle so you can not pontificate any more than I can. You have not seen the hell that many drug users live through. You can no more judge the lives of others as a Guardianista living in his ivory tower telling us all about poverty and inequality can.///

You don’t know /anything/ about my life, my experiences, my friends, my family, the circles I move in and have moved in. So don’t make such assertions in order to ‘support’ your argument. I have left my life experiences (at least the ones that affected me /personally/) out of this because I think it is unfair and unhelpful to argue from a /personal/ point of view. My personal experiences have no meaning to anyone else, or to the issue in general, whether people are/have been affected by addiction or not.

///I had understood that you had indeed advocated making some illicit drugs legal. Now it's me who is getting confused. Or perhaps you just get a thrill from breaking the law and taking illegal drugs.///

Oh perhaps I do – who knows eh. Unfortunately, not everyone is as ‘holy’ and perfect as you seem to make yourself out to be. I’ve made loads of ‘mistakes’ in my life Sands, and f*cking /big/ ones. But I don’t beat myself up about it. In fact, looking back, I wouldn’t change a thing, even if I could.

////It is no less childish than your response 'Yours is the typical perception of someone having gained all their information about drugs from the popular media'.////

That was an observation of the view you hold. Wherever it comes from, it is /very much/ like that held by the majority of people who obtain theirs from exactly that source of information.

////That is exactly the point I was making.

People don't normally start off taking heroin after taking tobacco or alcohol. In other words cannabis and other softer drugs are gateway drugs.////

Unfortunately (or /deliberately/ more likely) you missed the point that /I/ was making: There are people who are more prone to /any/ type of drug use. And amongst those there are also people who are ‘prone’ to ‘addiction’. It is highly unlikely that someone who is totally abstinent, out of conviction or for any other reason, will ‘suddenly’ decide to use heroin. But /by very far/ not everyone who uses other drugs (e.g. alcohol, cannabis, or other class c and B drugs) is /likely/ to ‘upgrade’ to heroin. Cannabis is the most common and accessible illegal drug. It is therefore ‘natural’ that people who use heroin will at some point have used cannabis. If ecstasy was the most common and accessible illegal drug, then /ecstasy/ would be 'accused' of being a ‘gateway drug’. No actual, /factual/ causal connection has ever been made. Those who use cannabis /heavily/ are more likely to use heroin at some point, because they are ‘prone’ to addiction, not because they've taken cannabis.

As for alcohol and tobacco: Yes, there have indeed been studies around alcohol and tobacco’s potential as ‘gateway drugs’ to heroin use. And the result was quite similar: If people are heavy users and have a ‘proneness’ to addiction, and if they are ‘based’ in a certain population where heroin use is prevalent, the same ‘transition’ took place – without the involvement of cannabis.

/// Not all cannabis dealers even in your normal world are moral or average.///

No and neither are all non-drug using, non-drug dealing people ‘in my circle’ ‘moral or average’. It might be different in /your/ circle. Maybe everyone is ‘perfect’ and ‘average’ there. Dunno. It certainly sounds like it. Saying that, /I/ am quite happy in the company of ‘non-average’, non-‘perfect’ people. Probably a sad reflection on my character, but there you go...

I was supposed to have been working all day, and I didn’t. How sad is that? I have to do another late night shift now, instead of going to the pub. That’s even sadder…

////How would it back-fire on us if we locked all dealers away?////

See what I mean about ‘mixed messages’. On the one hand you are saying you want addicts to be treated and ‘helped’, on the other hand you are saying you want them locked up. If you want to lock up every heroin dealer, you will be locking up /a lot/ of heroin /addicts/ who deal (small amounts) in order to fund their habit.

Btw have you got some ‘magical’ Alcatraz hidden away somewhere, one that holds infinite amounts of prisoners?

////I agree but we disagree on what kind of support is suitable.///

Yes I know. You want to send them to ‘magical prison island’, where they will be ‘magically’ cured of their addiction and all the issues that led them to become addicted in the first place. Great scheme. I hope you’ve got your patent secured.

[sandywinder]

oldpunkette said:

sandywinder said:

Once people get into the company of others who take drugs like cannabis, they are MORE likely to then get into the company of people associated with other drugs, including heroin.

.

I'm trying not to get involved in the endless arguments on this, but I do want to keep on about this link you keep making between cannabis and heroin.

How are people who smoke hash going to get into the company of smack-heads? I really cannot see that connection. In my experience the different drugs are used by different social groups all together.

These drugs are not dealt by the same dealers. They are not used by the same users. They have widely different sub-cultural significance.

And I don't want to get into any more endless arguments either. I have far too much on my plate at the moment in my new career as a pizza fortune teller. But I can tell you there's lots of bread to be made in it. And who doesn't knead any more dough?

But I have just given two examples of drug dealers who have been caught with both heroin and cannabis in their possession. Do you think that it was planted on them?

Hang on I have to go. I have to visit thee cheeseboard to cadge some more topping for my latest pizza creation.

[sandywinder]

madrigalman said:

<< What did you post on another thread (can’t remember where) – something about whose opinion you should trust more – scientists who got man to the moon and back, or Daz’s. >>

Well that may make some sense if I were actively trying to get to the Moon..as it happens I have no plans to move there.

It's not what it's cracked up to be. No atmosphere.

But plenty of CHEESE.

[Daz Madrigal]

It possesses many similar characteristics, Sandy, although I haven't previously let the cat out of the bag in an attempt not to strike fear into those silly enough to exist in close proximity to it.

A mere few:-


Tends to make thee inhabitants (inmates) go slowly but irreversibly insane.

Seemingly encourages large sprouts of almost simian facial hair (even amongst Women).

Has the curious side effect of causing several of the more rabid members to foam at thee mouth, whilst howling at something called the Cameroon. (usually synchronized with the Full Moon).

Attracts fellow loons like mice to a mousetrap leading some to sagely flee in terror or become entrapped to large period of intense pain with little hope of release.

Causes inmates to speak in strange tongues (Le Gouge, Mimi) or in an repetitive, loquacious gibberish (thee rest).

I find its perfectly harmless viewed from a safe distance and even entertaining - but only once in a Blue Moon.

THEE EVIDENCE





is clearly shown on this 'Google Moon Map'.

moon.google.com/

At first it appears to be merely a rock with craters but the secret is to 'zoom in really close'.

[Daz Madrigal]

<< [<<< Would you say that Byron, Shelley, Blake, Keats, Coleridge, Wilberforce etc etc (the list goes on, and not just among writers and philosophers) were ‘soul-destroyed’? They were all addicted to opiates.

Most of them for /all their life/. As were many ‘respected’ physicians and members of the upper/middle classes. In fact many were addicted to higher doses than some of the heaviest junkies take /today/. Society didn’t break down, in fact, most people didn’t even know or realise. At the time there were no illegal market effects that destroyed these people’s lives, and the opiates were /clean/. >>>]

I'm almost certain that William Blake was not a habitual drug user unless I've been misreading Ackroyds huge biography. He just reads as if he's on hallugens...luckily he was one of those rare people who had no need to add fuel to his already fertile imagination and strange temperament.

- a bit like me then!

The drug addiction of Coleridgewas something of a pain in the ass for all concerned..especially Wordsworth whose house was regularly disurbed by Collies banging on the door asking for favor. Wordworth was a bit of a dry old stick but down to earth and sensible ( a bit like Sandy)...unlike Sandy I'm sure he wasn't as dour, dull and puritanical of temperament as to set aside the wine decanter. All Work and no play makes Jack a Dull Boy.

prior to partaking of thee vine

after passing of wine decanter


Shelley drowned after severe bouts of depression age very young by drowning..in his 20's (as did an ex-mate and band member who had a similar predilection for drug use and for following thee Road to Excess). Whilst Keats took medication for various illnesses and also died very young).

I'm not entirely dismissing the point because its obvious that several were suffering from manic-depression and in some respects taking mind expanding drugs is preferable to being dosed by Lithium that tends to make the World seem as mundane and dreary as..well as it is for your average Joe.

hmm..its very interesting discussion but I'm slightly leaning to wards Sandy in some respects because of the simple fact that most heroin addicts aren't prolific Poets (or even Artists).

I may lean the other way in a few hours as Piccione seems to be under the delusion that I am permanently drunk!

[Daz Madrigal]

<< ///That is two stops short of Barking.///

That’s sounds pretty good to me. >>

Was that your line, Sandy, I guessed it was too witty to be one of Arenas. 'One fare short of Richmond possibly accounts for most of us, sadly.