Amsterdam Coffeeshop Directory Forums

There should be quite a few potential posters here. With at least 15 people who would deny a legal supply of drugs to addicts whilst happy to criminalise those who can use these drugs sensibly.

I did ask this question in the epic thread, "Should all recreational drugs be legalised", but it was conveniently ignored or apparently not a valid question.


So, anyone who can shed any light on the benefits achieved from this globally subscribed policy, please tell.

Discussed in great depth already, in a thread you started. Reasons for peoples beliefs that prohibition on hard drugs is a apporiate why to handle the situation of hard drugs are all outlined in that thread.

The question was not re-arranged or ingored or thought to be a question which is not valid. Arguements were put forward to counter yours, which you seemed to get the arse ache about. There are many reasons in that people on this site agree that single out hard drugs from drugs such as cannabis and therefore warrent different approachs to control of supply, again all outlined in the other post. Which after all is the concept of the Dutch model of drug inforcement.

I think i speak for everyone when i say that this is truely a case of beating a dead horse. You have your points of view, others have theres. You are convinced that you are right, others are convinced they are right. Learning to accept others beliefs and values no matter how much you disagree with them is a vital steping stone to peace, which should be the unltimate goal.

You have your point of view, i and others have ours. You are entitled to your viewpoint we are entitled to ours. By consititinly trying to win this argument which you will never win because the nature of opinions is that they are personally held and very difficult to change. You are inhibiting yourself from becoming involed in a very friendly and informative site with many oppurtunitys to meet up and smoke with the members.

Why not concentrate on the common ground we have on this site? That we have a joint belief in the potential for cannabis to add to society creating a positive vibrant subculture with its own customs and viewpoint on the world. There are many other sites which will cater for your viewpoint to legalise all drugs, why not post your views there and your views on cannabis here?

Bringing up this issue in all of your viewpoint is bringing up conflict where it is not needed, there is already a thread you started outlining the viewpoints of many keep it to that post. This site is concerned with cannabis and the amsterdam scene. If that does not fit your need why not start a new site? www.ilovejunkies.com?

Peace.

doobydave wrote:I did ask this question in the epic thread, "Should all recreational drugs be legalised"

Actually, there were a handful of serious external inputs and a whole lot of you and Sir Niall pissing back and forth at each other, which falls somewhat short of epic, bud.

courtjester wrote: whole lot of you and Sir Niall pissing back and forth at each other,

Didn't realize that justifing your views to someone who was challenging them constituted 'pissing.'

Just noting that about two-thirds of the posts in the purportedly epic thread were the two of you going back and forth at each other. Perhaps I should've put it that way and it would sound better, yes, Sir N? Ciao.

CJ feel free to express yourself in anyway you see fit. I would personally like to see you express yourself in the form of interpretive dance, to the entire dirty dancing sound track. While wearing a typically 80's leotard.

Peace.

LIGHTEN UP EVERYBODY.


Here's a Real good Reason to Out law Smoke ( yeah Right )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WftfhhESyys

'Name a positive consequence of drug prohibition.'

We all might do something a bit more useful with the time usually spent being kippered.

Not sure what kippered means, although I would guess it means getting high, but unless I'm in Holland, which is a vacation, I have never had a problem doing things while " kippered ".
I go to clubs to listen to music, read books, ( have had problems doing that lately, but that has to do with prescription medication ) go to plays and musicals, etc. etc.
Vacations outside of Amsterdam, when I can't bring weed, aren't always easy, but I'm getting better.

If the stoners of the world all stopped gettin kippered tomorrow we'd be walkin on the surface of mars by the end of next week.

Since my original intent was to lighten up this thread with a funny video I'm not going to respond.

@Sir Niall.

Cheers for spoiling this thread. You should PM me as an alternative to this.

Ilovejunkies.com - how very amusing.

The thing is, is it's not about opinions and points of view, it's about facts and the real implications of enforcement, something that you still fail to understand.

Bringing up this issue in all of your viewpoint is bringing up conflict where it is not needed, there is already a thread you started outlining the viewpoints of many keep it to that post.

Seriously, JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION or refrain from further posting, please.

Dave i have already outlined my objections to dropping the prohibition of hard drugs in the other thread you started. I am not going to repeat myself when you could simply do the leg work and find them yourself. You continually done this in the last discussion, denying the fact anyone against legalization of all drugs had not made any points to justify their decision when they clearly had.

I find it funny how you say its not all about points of view and opinions, as is that not what your theory is based. You suggest for example that legalizing drugs will improve the life of the everyday addict. However valid that point is it is not a fact. A fact is something that can be backed up by indisputable evidence. How can you produce any evidence for that? It is simply your viewpoint on what will will happen, not a fact. To make it a fact would mean that you could refer to charts or surveys of drug addicts to back up your point, to my memory you have never shown any evidence for your viewpoint at all. So it seems that you have failed to understand that your threoy to enforcement of drugs is based on a point of view and opinions. Not to mention the fact that your hypocrisy of saying one blanket solution for handling drugs is wrong ( prohibition.) But your blanket solution for handling drugs is going to be right.

Unless we look at the countries which have all drugs legalised for evidence to back up your theory. Columbia. What a fine example of a country there, guns and gangs run riot in the street and even though all drugs are legalised there is still a huge amount of drug use and addiction. Is this good enough to use as evidence for you to back up with?

Spoiling the thread was not my aim, i was simply offering advice. You push this issue when a thread already exists with your view points and others. I was questioning whether it was worth bringing the whole thing up again? But have you not seen that the only on topic response was against your viewpoint, and perhaps the response's of others may indicate a desire for this topic to dropped and to agree to disagree.

I have already answered the question Dave, i was once again offering the olive branch to agree to disagree. There are many example of that on this forum, such as mine and BigRigRobs disagreement on Liberal vs. Republican politics. By simply saying i havent answered the question does not make it true. I was simply saying that perhaps by always pushing this issue you are limiting your contribution to the forum? Such as in every post to BigRigRob i do not push the Liberal polictal ideals on him and attack his Republican ideals.

Peace.

P.S I though the ilovejunkies.com was rather amusing too.


[/u]

Things that should never be discussed.
Religion
Politics
Womens age and weight

Twitch wrote:Things that should never be discussed.
Religion
Politics
Womens age and weight

So my next topic of if Sarah Palin was slightly more chubby it would make her a better Christian and Republican should not be posted?