And yet again begins the tiresome cycle of an SB topic, spiralling down to its demise, purely and simply because too few people patted him on the back and, instead, chose to challenge his opinion, the toys came out of the pram as usual, the sly digs at peoples integrity popped up and it is now in the final stage of being overly picky over previous posts.

Always remember this...... if most people disagree with you, there is a fair chance that you are wrong.

Rattling the bars of the cage, resorting to personal innuendo and, most importantly, deviating from the original topic as the ground it stands on is very shaky is usually a sure sign that the topic itself was irrelevant.

You may now quote any part of that and reply with just a smiley if you wish.

Wrong again Thaddeus. You need to be able to distinguish fact from your own wishful thinking.

For those that expressed an opinion either way.

Those agreeing with me:-

Sir Burr

Kayo

Mr Bojangles

Thaibebop

Phil Conners

Those disagreeing:-

Ade100

The Don

Lannarebirth

Thaddeus.

Others did not express a firm opinion either way.

Oh, and Thaddeus, I'm sure you're very proud of you "Phazey Needs A Hug". Sank like a stone with 18 replies.

....and you are blind!

Try reading the first line of post #50.

Maybe you should go back to the "change a letter" thread. I'm sure you would feel more at home there.

Looking back at the last months worth of posts on all those type of threads, I didn't find one occurrence of the name that you assert to accuse........ get your facts straight mate.

What are you blathering about?

the first line on post #50 reads:-

"I must have got my wires crossed, my apologies".

If that doesn't satisfy, both you and Mossfinn can smooch my fat arse.

No comment on post #63?

Wrong again Thaddeus. You need to be able to distinguish fact from your own wishful thinking.

For those that expressed an opinion either way.

Those agreeing with me:-

Sir Burr

Kayo

Mr Bojangles

Thaibebop

Phil Conners

Well, you can't really count yourself, and all the others you mention did use the words 'but' 'however' and 'except' ..... that is far from conclusive and total agreement.

If that doesn't satisfy, both you and Mossfinn can smooch my fat arse.

No way, I have enough problems to deal with already thanks ........ plus I don't like the taste of tin.

purely and simply because too few people patted him on the back and, instead, chose to challenge his opinion,

So, the above isn't exactly true, is it Thaddeus. Not if you're honest.

I think you are letting your personal feelings get in the way.

To use your own words, if you can't be constructive..........

Oh, and Thaddeus, I'm sure you're very proud of you "Phazey Needs A Hug". Sank like a stone with 18 replies.

See, told you, can't think of a reasoned argument, and comments like this start..... like I care.

Have you been drinking?

No I haven't. I'm offshore.

I gave my arguements at the beginning of the thread. It has been you that started with the insults and making it personal.

I started this thread on your advice to do something constructive.

Pretty petty of you to then come along and do what you have done. Don't like this thread? Bugger off. Freedom of choice.

You have shown that you can't debate, or, you think debating consists of insulting other posters.

Grow up Thaddeus.

<deleted> me lads, this is dull!

<deleted> me lads, this is dull!

OK OK.

There is a reason it is dull, I have to take a certain amount of responsibility.

I took it upon myself to try and get Sir Burr to actively contribute to TV in general and Bedlam in particular, because I thought he could bring an alternative voice to the party.

One post I tried on several alternative aspects was ignored.

Then this one materialized and I thought it was a good topic, I know little of illegal drugs, so I thought I could get the different view points of a variety of posters, there can be a frank exchange of views and on the whole I consider this healthy and can generate and promote discussion.

The one aspect I cannot tolerate is the casting of serious aspersions against a person, who I consider sound, to try and influence a discussion in the negative.

suegha, if you feel you always need to sit on a fence, it is not constructive to those of us who wish to take a position and I mean that in a constructive and not a destructive post against you.

Sir Burr, you did apologise but it was regarding the crossed wires not the inference of ambiguity against Thad that sent me off in a spin, but congratulations you have achieved what I suspect you set out to achieve.

But to make it clear to you as you appear to be having problems tonight, Thad is talking about the change a letter thread, I never contributed

....and you are blind!

Try reading the first line of post #50.

Maybe you should go back to the "change a letter" thread. I'm sure you would feel more at home there.

As I have said previously if you retract your aspersion of ambiguity, I will in return apologise for reading you wrong and that you got your words a little mixed, you know we all do it.

Moss

Moss

Hey, no offence taken Moss. I do want to add however, that I'm not sitting on the fence. I mentioned that if alcohol were introduced now it would be made illeagal. Had we had 'blow' (catch all) 200 years ago and it was widely used, it would be legal now. Or if it grew freely in our ditches and hedgerows. And frankly I consider it no better or worse than alcohol!

Regarding the derogatory posts, I abhor derogatory posts. There's absolutely no point in doing so! It only detracts from the points being made.

What has made it dull is the bashing and derogatory comments. So if anyone has anything constructive comments, post on!

Utter tripe.

How about a constructive suggestion?

How would you do it keeping in mind that the present method hasn't, doesn't work.

If you believe that now they have been " discovered " ( from the dawn of early civilization sadly ), the weak in society will always be tempted to take something that takes away their reason for even a short while, perhaps even in some sad way psychologically helping them in get through their day, then who to say the present actions are not working ?

By working, I mean keeping some form of lid on a problem which the majority have agreed is difficult and will not go away. Sir Burr mentions Canada. Indeed Canada and other so called enlightened countries such as Switzerland, have followed his ideas and provide places for addicts to get their fix, but they certainly haven't legalized hard drugs have they ? In addition, what exactly have they achieved ? The back alleys of Zurich or Toronto don't seem to be any safer from the crime connected with drug addiction, so I ask again, what have they achieved ? The addicts are more open, the socially aware set will encourage the use of the clean facilities, putting a nice rosy spin on their problems, but have they followed Burrs advise and legalized the very substances causing the need for such action...........er no, have they cut the numbers of addicted in their respective administrations ?...........er no.

The OP called for a legalization of the drug trade. This caused heated debate and has now seemed to have been lost by the OP conveniently forgetting his post and the early replies, and now broadening it into a general attack over past sleights and making his arguments about helping addicts rather than general legalization.

For me ( only my opinion Moss, each to their own ) I agree wholeheartedly that genuine addicts need help to try to kick their habit and remain healthy for as long as possible, if this can be achieved, without making the sordid business seem any more attractive. I do not believe this should be done in public, as I refer back to some of my earlier arguments that the ones who really need the help are the weak or one time rebellious youth, who should only ever be shown the stinking mess that addiction brings, not some pastel shaded Starbucks lookalike, which may draw the weak like moths to a flame.

<deleted> me lads, this is dull!

I agree........

Wrong again Thaddeus. You need to be able to distinguish fact from your own wishful thinking.

For those that expressed an opinion either way.

Those agreeing with me:-

Sir Burr

Kayo

Mr Bojangles

Thaibebop

Phil Conners

Well, you can't really count yourself, and all the others you mention did use the words 'but' 'however' and 'except' ..... that is far from conclusive and total agreement.

I concur (and have made that point before!)

One reason why it's still illegal could easily be that those in power directly or indirectly are profiting from the trade. Think about it!

I really couldn't care less if someone wants to destroy themselves using drugs, but I would prefer they don't hurt my family trying to find money for their habit.

Where did you see a 'but' 'however' or 'except' in my post (related to the legalization of drugs) ?

<deleted> me lads, this is dull!

I agree........

Oh dear, OP now seems to want this closed.

Well, so far, those that have opposed a new way to eventually bring drug use down by legalising, controlling and educating, haven't come up with any alternative.

For those that don't agree, what is your solution? Even harsher sentences? Do you think that will work?

Throw more money at the problem? Do you think that will work?

If, as some posters have commented, that drug use is going to be a permanent feature of modern life, then, should we continue to punish, or, look at drug users in a different way, admit it's a health issue and try and limit the damage to themselves and society.

Needle exchanges at the very least get discarded used needles out of the playground where children can find them.

So, all you naysayers, what are your ideas besides your knee-jerk reaction to legalisation?

I don't think we can group all drugs together as evil, although some clearly are, and I don't think there should be widespread legalization. Rather I favour a reclassification of drugs and the penal system based on a modern scientific evaluation of their effect on the users, their families and society as a whole. This arbitrary system in place in many countries today does not seem just.

TheDon was very clear by saying that all drug users and dealers should be killed. Does that extend to booze too, mate? If so, I think the future of the human race could be in trouble!

I think its fair to say that alcohol is a drug. Its clearly ok in moderation but its definitely addictive to some and it is undoubtedly lethal in excess, more so in fact than many other illicit drugs.

I enjoy a sociable drink as well as the next man but after seeing the affect that alcoholism can have on some families, I'm positive that there are people who would love to see greater controls on its use, or at the very east better support for the families who have to live with abusive alcoholics.

To truly control drug consumption in society is a noble goal well worth shooting for but to do it comprehensively we would have to give up an awful lot of freedom.

The best we can ever hope to do is to control the most dangerous ones, so lets not waste resources on controlling drugs that are no more harmful than whats currently legally available today.

Rather lengthy and trollish post deleted...........Sorry.

Sir Burr, just don't think your last question is worth answering. I think you are just trying to get a rise out of some people on here who may actually care.

I agree that there should be a reclassification of drugs and I also agree that there should be a separation between users and suppliers of the drugs. An addicted user is a victim and shouldn't be treated as a criminal.

Law enforcement agencies have limited man-power and resources, a large part of which is being squandered on drug users. These resources could be better directed at real criminals. Top policemen in the UK have said as much.

I still think drugs should be legalized. What would you prefer? The supply of drugs in criminal hands where there is no control of what actually goes in them, or, in government hands where quantity, quality and price can be controlled?

In the hands of criminals, the criminals get rich. In the hands of government, money goes into the public purse.

Quick Q Sir Burr....

If drugs were legalized and controlled, as you suggest, under what criteria would heroin be made available to the general public? Criteria meaning over a certain age limit, under prescription, freely available etc...?

Quick Q Sir Burr....

If drugs were legalized and controlled, as you suggest, under what criteria would heroin be made available to the general public? Criteria meaning over a certain age limit, under prescription, freely available etc...?

Good question. never thought about that.

If it was someone who had never had it before, then, over eighteen, some counciling and then maybe a waiting period.

If someone still wanted to try after this time, then you know they were serious about it.

Frankly, I think the number of new users would be very low, as everything would be out in the open and records would be kept. You would have to register as a drug user. This could be coupled with mandatory drug testing in the work-place as a further deterent to start.

The main reason to make drugs legal is to take away the source of money from the drug cartels and care for existing drug addicts.

For me ( only my opinion Moss, each to their own )

I might have done you a dis-service Suiging, if I have then I apologise, pain a little worse over the W/E makes me a little cranky.

Well, so far, those that have opposed a new way to eventually bring drug use down by legalising, controlling and educating, haven't come up with any alternative.

For those that don't agree, what is your solution? Even harsher sentences? Do you think that will work?

Throw more money at the problem? Do you think that will work?

If, as some posters have commented, that drug use is going to be a permanent feature of modern life, then, should we continue to punish, or, look at drug users in a different way, admit it's a health issue and try and limit the damage to themselves and society.

Needle exchanges at the very least get discarded used needles out of the playground where children can find them.

So, all you naysayers, what are your ideas besides your knee-jerk reaction to legalisation?

I am still not sure how you would stop the drugs being in criminal hands and not undercutting the Gov't resources, if the Gov't could supply cheaper than the Gangs, there is a serious moral question to be looked at, but I am not convinced they could anyway.

The supply of drugs in criminal hands where there is no control of what actually goes in them, or, in government hands where quantity, quality and price can be controlled?

In the hands of criminals, the criminals get rich. In the hands of government, money goes into the public purse.

OK, we can't disagree that the money would go to public purse rather than the criminal rich list, but to what extent? I have my doubts this is workable.

I would prefer a sustained action against the growth of Opium fields, first instance paying the warlords in Afghanistan and the Shan State or anywhere else and then helping them sustain a lifestyle though other means, agriculture or manufacturing, maybe a long term goal, but as you say this has been going on millennia, anyway.

Moss

The war on drugs has never been won because it hasn't even started.

1. Execute all drug dealers.

2. Execute all drug smugglers.

3. Drug users - one strike & out i.e. one chance to beat their addiction & if they're caught again - execute them too.

If you haven't already guessed; I hate the drugs scene as a whole.

For me ( only my opinion Moss, each to their own )

I might have done you a dis-service Suiging, if I have then I apologise, pain a little worse over the W/E makes me a little cranky.

Well, so far, those that have opposed a new way to eventually bring drug use down by legalising, controlling and educating, haven't come up with any alternative.

For those that don't agree, what is your solution? Even harsher sentences? Do you think that will work?

Throw more money at the problem? Do you think that will work?

If, as some posters have commented, that drug use is going to be a permanent feature of modern life, then, should we continue to punish, or, look at drug users in a different way, admit it's a health issue and try and limit the damage to themselves and society.

Needle exchanges at the very least get discarded used needles out of the playground where children can find them.

So, all you naysayers, what are your ideas besides your knee-jerk reaction to legalisation?

I am still not sure how you would stop the drugs being in criminal hands and not undercutting the Gov't resources, if the Gov't could supply cheaper than the Gangs, there is a serious moral question to be looked at, but I am not convinced they could anyway.

The supply of drugs in criminal hands where there is no control of what actually goes in them, or, in government hands where quantity, quality and price can be controlled?

In the hands of criminals, the criminals get rich. In the hands of government, money goes into the public purse.

OK, we can't disagree that the money would go to public purse rather than the criminal rich list, but to what extent? I have my doubts this is workable.

I would prefer a sustained action against the growth of Opium fields, first instance paying the warlords in Afghanistan and the Shan State or anywhere else and then helping them sustain a lifestyle though other means, agriculture or manufacturing, maybe a long term goal, but as you say this has been going on millennia, anyway.

Moss

Excellent point.

The whole world works on supply and demand.

Legalize everything, demand still there and crime would still be extremely difficult to take out of the supply chain. Spend money on turning Poppy/cocoa fields into something edible and you begin to squeeze at least one harmful form of supplied death. If the farmers still grow the shit, out bid the drug lords and pay more than they do. Remember at the dirt end, the farmers get paid zip. pay them zip and a half and you are in business. The old " they will be scarred" number does not really work. Afghans, Laos/Viets, when offered a substantial increase in their monthly income can be a tough bunch.

At the other end of the scale , legalization does nothing to quell demand. Tough sentences coupled with compulsory education and state run detoxing may just. I firmly believe in strict laws ruthlessly applied for drugs. What you need is law enforcement to sweep on the smallest quantity of it and have the power through fear of the consequences to squeeze everyone in the chain. If prison does not equate to such fear total and complete seizure of assets may. The stock brocker/banker set ramming white powder up their nose in the docklands, may think twice, if after a two strikes and your out policy, their wonderful Thames-side penthouse is siezed and sold so the proceeds can buy off another Afghan subsistance farmer.

The war on drugs has never been won because it hasn't even started.

1. Execute all drug dealers.

2. Execute all drug smugglers.

3. Drug users - one strike & out i.e. one chance to beat their addiction & if they're caught again - execute them too.

If you haven't already guessed; I hate the drugs scene as a whole.

So you hate anyone who imbibes alcohol too then?

The war on drugs has never been won because it hasn't even started.

1. Execute all drug dealers.

2. Execute all drug smugglers.

3. Drug users - one strike & out i.e. one chance to beat their addiction & if they're caught again - execute them too.

If you haven't already guessed; I hate the drugs scene as a whole.

So you hate anyone who imbibes alcohol too then?

Alcohol is not an illegal narcotic, so that's another topic.

The war on drugs has never been won because it hasn't even started.

1. Execute all drug dealers.

2. Execute all drug smugglers.

3. Drug users - one strike & out i.e. one chance to beat their addiction & if they're caught again - execute them too.

If you haven't already guessed; I hate the drugs scene as a whole.

Taksin sort of tried..... probably more to protect his "partners & finaciers" monopoly on the trade rather than from any sort of sense of civic duty.

BTW - If you executed all & sundry who have had anything to do with drugs in their lives - most people you know would not be around today.

The war on drugs has never been won because it hasn't even started.

1. Execute all drug dealers.

2. Execute all drug smugglers.

3. Drug users - one strike & out i.e. one chance to beat their addiction & if they're caught again - execute them too.

If you haven't already guessed; I hate the drugs scene as a whole.

Taksin sort of tried..... probably more to protect his "partners & finaciers" monopoly on the trade rather than from any sort of sense of civic duty.

BTW - If you executed all & sundry who have had anything to do with drugs in their lives - most people you know would not be around today. Perhaps, but with such draconian measures in force, I suspect most of them wouldn't have become involved in the first place. Being sound of mind, I wouldn't even consider participating in a recreation that could lead to my execution.