Amsterdam Coffeeshop Directory Forums

doobydave wrote:

The nature of addiction is that you want more and more.

Really? Do tobacco addicts want more and more? Coffee addicts?

Well yes hence why most people dont start smoking 20 a day but move up to that. Tobacco addicts do want more this is what makes the tobacco industry worth millions. The addiction of a smoker means they buy more tobacco, the more they smoke the more they become addict/need the tobacco so they then go out and buy more.

Well yes hence why most people dont start smoking 20 a day but move up to that. Tobacco addicts do want more this is what makes the tobacco industry worth millions. The addiction of a smoker means they buy more tobacco, the more they smoke the more they become addict/need the tobacco so they then go out and buy more.

Tobacco is a very addictive drug.
If what you say is true, however, why stop at 20/day?


There is for most drugs a self-imposed limit to how much one desires. Possibly for H this limit will increase as you become addicted, but there is still a maximum anyone can take.

I have already stuck my oar in the water here but just had to say great topic and great posts well done guys for taking on board other ppls opinions without flaming each other big up to the adults

doobydave wrote:
Tobacco is a very addictive drug.
If what you say is true, however, why stop at 20/day?

.

Well there are people that smoke 20 + a day. My grandad, bless his irish tar blackened lungs, moved off cigs onto rollies because of the money issued involed with smoking more lthat 20 + a day of normal cigs.

Also man im sorry to be childish but......

But I'll donate my right testicle if you (or anyone) is the victim of a crime perpetrated by a drug addict who can afford their drugs.

Ozzy Osbourne attacked his wife sharon after consuming way too much vodka mixed ( alledegy sp?) with other substances. During a time when Black Sabbath were doing extremely well and he was in poscession in alot of cash and could ( and did ) easily fund his drug habit.

Dana ( i forget the second name.) The famous actress who appeared on different strokes as the female friend with the long blonde hair in 1972 was convicted of robbing a video store for money to fund her drug habit ( valium.)

These are two crimes just off the top of my head commited by drug addicts who had the money to fund their habit, but was forced to commiting crimes against other people, in Ozzy's case through a intake of too much drugs and in Dana's case through the need to have more valium which she wasted her vaste amount of money gained from the popular sit com different strokes and therefore could not fund her habit.

So doobydave i guess this leaves the question of, who has to pay for the postage of your right testicle? I dont mind fiting the bill, i will hang it on my wall next to my picture of Gary Colmon ( what you talking bout willis?) and my gary colmon fan club membership.

This discussion has grown tedious.

courtjester wrote:This discussion has grown tedious.

Dunno man the same issue has flared up in a totally unrelated thread.

https://www.coffeeshopdirect.com/forum/viewt ... c&start=30

Guess others must think of it as being an interesting thing to discuss also.

I personally think NO recreational drug shold be legalised. If the powers that be stopped fukin everything up, we wouldn't want and/or need them. They serve as a distraction from the rules and regulations that addicts of bigger drugs like Religion, Politics and Money have place upon the rest of us. When the Power junkies eventually get removed, whatever is left of the human race will look at the future with crystal clear clarity.... not through a smoke filled haze. For this time and age, maybe they should be legalised but that's only because this time and age is fukt up.

Sorry, been away a bit.

And sorry, for descending into a slightly condescending tone in some of my posts.

I would however like to draw attention to my request in the first post, that of highlighting any positive consequences of prohibition. For anyone struggling to understand, they should take the form of " [+ve consequence] is a direct result of prohibition and is beneficial because [reason]".

Hear is an example of a negative consequence of prohibition :-

A family die in their own home from a fire caused by an illegal drugs factory next-door.


Off you go.

Sir Niall of Essex-sire wrote: Its not so much having to point out a positive aspect of prohibition, as you asked, because that is a loaded question. But rather i can just point to the victims of hard drugs and use them as my best reason why H crack and coke should stay illegal.

I would also like to draw attention to who is paying the postage and packaging for your right testicle DoobyDave?

Sir Niall of Essex-sire wrote:

Sir Niall of Essex-sire wrote: Its not so much having to point out a positive aspect of prohibition, as you asked, because that is a loaded question. But rather i can just point to the victims of hard drugs and use them as my best reason why H crack and coke should stay illegal.

I would also like to draw attention to who is paying the postage and packaging for your right testicle DoobyDave?

But if people are allowed to drink themselves to death and potentially kill others, why are people not allowed to snort coke or do H and potentially kill themseves or others, why is this different. If you are going to tell me its because of the crime commited, well we all know there would be much less crime (not none) if these drugs were labeled as to their potency, and its distribution regulated as we do other potentially harmful substances. We see very few instances (not none) of people robbing liquor stores or bodegas for smokes and drinks, IMO peace

I believe that the laws are in place to protect the public from crime. They are not there to tell us how to live our lives as long as we do not harm or trouble others. The law is there to protect us (law abiding citizens) from them (criminals).

How about we legalise weed, k, e, and other recreational drugs, and have them taxed and regulated by the government in the same way as tobacco, alcohol and in the NL weed are? The harm factor is irrelevant, as alcohol and tobacco are more harmful than MDMA, Ketamine or weed.

Addictive substances would have to be looked at more carefully I think, but as an ecstasy pill costs under a pound to manufacture and could be sold by chemists for say £5, that would give the government £4 per pill to spend on anti addiction strategies.

So, conservatively say 100,00 E's are taken each weekend accross the UK, that would be £400,000 each weekend in government coffers, with 52 weekends per year that would bring in £20,800,000. To me £21million is a lot of money, and that would be cash taken straight from the criminals and put into the tax system for the benefit of all.

Weed is a plant, and conservative estimates put average UK consumption at 50kg per day. If the government start growing it themselves, we might be able to abolish the 40% tax rate. Hows that for a (stoned) idea?

@ Sir Niall
I'll be keeping my testicle as I realise I omitted a rather important caveat when I said

But I'll donate my right testicle if you (or anyone) is the victim of a crime perpetrated by a drug addict who can afford their drugs.

In retrospect, it seems I should have clarified the type of crime to which I was referring, the type of crime that the majority of drug addicts find themselves committing ie obtaining goods/money to feed their habit.

This aspect renders your testicle-posting examples irrelevant - Ozzy being pissed probably and the other person being not very famous and therefore not wealthy enough to afford the addiction.

Its not so much having to point out a positive aspect of prohibition, as you asked, because that is a loaded question. But rather i can just point to the victims of hard drugs
and use them as my best reason why H crack and coke should stay illegal.

I cannot believe that you would be defending a policy that you cannot explain what good it does. It's laughable. You may also wish to look up the definition of a loaded question.

i voted no, dont mean to seem boring or whatever but i just want marijuana legalized so we can get good bud everywhere(the dam would still be special though! ) and smoke it in peace. i dont really give a shit about other drugs, thats why i joined this site! [/u][/i]

legalize them if there's proof that there are no deaths caused directly from the drug....whats that? cannabis is the one good drug...result....heroine and crack are just evil in my eyes...maybe i'm wrong,maybe a hypocrit who can't spell but i've watched a relative die from that kinda shit so i think there would have to be a line drawn so to speak...so i vote no

So DoobyDave you put forward a challenge of naming a incident where a drug addict who could afford his habit caused a crime, to which you would reward your right testicle but then when a crime is named you find a problem in a crime named. First of i think the nature of the crime is not up dor question here, a injury to someone is in my book a rather serious crime. Unless you think it is acceptable for indivituals to physically attack people as long as no money is stolen. Also is violent crime not also a crime usually commited by hard drug addicts? Such as those on ice or crack which increases violent behaviour and mood swings?

Dana, the actress from Different Strokes. Who robbed a video store in 1972 to fund a drug habbit she had a spent her fortune on. Who claim she wasnt famous? Was Different Strokes not one of the popular sit-coms of that era raking in millions? Just because you dismiss it as being a sit-com not which was not popular does not mean that it was not. So to me thats not really getting round the issue.


Ozzy was pissed? So thats not a drug, and someone addicted to booze is not a drug addict. Which is what your question outlined.

You say i havent defended my view point, so what have i been discussing the whole length of this post? If you would read my earlier statement you would see those points, at the risk of repeating myself i couldnt be arsed to go into it but here it goes again.

Yes booze is legal and that is a substance that can kill people and is legal. Rightly or wrongly this is a socially acceptable drug, one which i do think should never of been made legal. But this is not the question, it is should all recreational drugs be legalised. But i cant see how just because one drug which is lethal and legal means there would be any benifit to legalising any other drugs which are also lethal?

As echc1 said, cannabis should be legal as there are no ( although i heard reports there are 2) deaths related to cannabis. The other drugs which you are arguing to legalise have had large numbers of deaths from. Yes yes i know so has booze but see the above point.

I have also seen the consequences of hard drugs and would no way wish that upon anyone at all.

Also i dont understand why you want them legalised. I mean after all like its already been said those drugs are available realitively easily if you know the right people, so what is the difference between you getting it of those people and getting them legally? I understand the issue of quality control but im firmly in the camp of prevention rather than protection when it comes to hard drugs. So is it because you would like some kind of social understanding or justification for people who decided to stick a needle in their arm or suck the bottom out of a crack pipe to get their high? I know thats a contraversial view point but i cannot ever accept peoples use of hard drugs as being a socially acceptable habit and would not want to belong to a society which does.

You say you find it laugable that i defend a policy which i cannot explain is good? Theres some of my reasons again if you would of checked the first page of the post then you would of seen them. I also think its laughable the way you have twisted your question. Perhaps it should of been

' Ill donate my right testicle if you ( or anyone ) is the victim of a crime a drug addict who can afford their drugs. But this crime has to meet my approval and be a ' drug addict typical crime. Such as stealing money to feed their habbit.'

Much like Dana from different strokes did. But surely a crime commited by a drug addict is a crime motivated by drug addiction. So even if they fo assualt someone under the influence instead of stealing, is this not a serious crime, a crie motivated by drugs. And Mr DoobyDave is this not a crime which would require your right testicle, as the challenge issued by you states.

Your changing of the question does still not mean that a drug addicts crime, in Ozzys case of attempted murder, is less serious than stealing to feed their habit. Or that it is suddenly not a crime commited by drug addicts because it disproves your point, Ozzy's crime was commited by a drug addict. It dis-proved your point.

Peace.