Society Demands That Examples Be Made Of Addicts: Thai Opinion

[Davedub]

No, I think Thai society would benefit from no yaba, ice and heroin, but we all know that's not going to happen.

Precisely - you can't prohibit drugs, it doesn't work, never has, never will.

So.... seriously, what do you propose instead?

[nurofiend]

It will be regulated. Drivers will be forbidden to take methamphetamines, smoke pot, use heroin, cocaine while driving. And if its forbidden, illegal, no-one will do it, because that's the law, right? So that's OK then.

just like no one does that now already? because, they are illegal, right?

[Reasonableman]

So you want to put a ready supply into more hands. In what way is that an improvement? Societies need some standards to function by. We don't legalise murder because it is difficult to prevent. Even if we cannot achieve the goal of eliminating drugs, as we know full well we cannot, I do not see how legislating approval (legalizing) advances our ability to live together harmoniously and productively. Sorry. I believe we do need to maintain some standards of desirable behavior, not lapse into anarchy, just because that is the state that some people seem to prefer.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Reasonableman

[nurofiend]

So you want to put a ready supply into more hands. In what way is that an improvement? Societies need some standards to function by. We don't legalise murder because it is difficult to prevent.

"So you want to put a ready supply into more hands"

how do you work that one out?

and to the rest of the post, i've already discussed that at length on P1.

[nurofiend]

to add, let me ask you reasonableman... do you take heroin?

if not... why not?

because it's not readily available?

[Reasonableman]

So you want to put a ready supply into more hands. In what way is that an improvement? Societies need some standards to function by. We don't legalise murder because it is difficult to prevent.

"So you want to put a ready supply into more hands"

how do you work that one out?

and to the rest of the post, i've already discussed that at length on P1.

In that case, you've said all you have to say, I guess.

[nurofiend]

So you want to put a ready supply into more hands. In what way is that an improvement? Societies need some standards to function by. We don't legalise murder because it is difficult to prevent. Even if we cannot achieve the goal of eliminating drugs, as we know full well we cannot, I do not see how legislating approval (legalizing) advances our ability to live together harmoniously and productively. Sorry. I believe we do need to maintain some standards of desirable behavior, not lapse into anarchy, just because that is the state that some people seem to prefer.

I believe we do need to maintain some standards of desirable behavior, not lapse into anarchy, just because that is the state that some people seem to prefer

well you've obviously bought the fear then.... hook, line and sinker.

do you not think it could reduce crime if drugs were medicalized and people addicted to harder stuff treated as sick patients? i suggest you have a good deep think about that one.

[nurofiend]

So you want to put a ready supply into more hands. In what way is that an improvement? Societies need some standards to function by. We don't legalise murder because it is difficult to prevent.

"So you want to put a ready supply into more hands"

how do you work that one out?

and to the rest of the post, i've already discussed that at length on P1.

In that case, you've said all you have to say, I guess.

yeah, nice cop out from answering my question.

i didn't answer you because i literally answered the exact point on the last page.

so you guess wrong.

[Reasonableman]

So you want to put a ready supply into more hands. In what way is that an improvement? Societies need some standards to function by. We don't legalise murder because it is difficult to prevent. Even if we cannot achieve the goal of eliminating drugs, as we know full well we cannot, I do not see how legislating approval (legalizing) advances our ability to live together harmoniously and productively. Sorry. I believe we do need to maintain some standards of desirable behavior, not lapse into anarchy, just because that is the state that some people seem to prefer.

I believe we do need to maintain some standards of desirable behavior, not lapse into anarchy, just because that is the state that some people seem to prefer

well you've obviously bought the fear then.... hook, line and sinker.

do you not think it could reduce crime if drugs were medicalized and people addicted to harder stuff treated as sick patients? i suggest you have a good deep think about that one.

Why should that not happen while we maintain the value/stance that society does not approve of the use of drugs? Fine, let's treat drug addicts, no problem with that at all. But I see no need to make drugs more accessible, to increase access to drugs and to create more addicts. We have enough drugs causing major problems, even legal ones like alcohol and nicotine. The costs of healthcare for these people, and the suffering they and their families endure due to their addictions, are seldom counted into the economic equation (e.g., taxation income for governments), but it should be. Perhaps we agree, but are talking at cross-purposes.

[DocN]

I seem to have poked a stick into a lot of 'progressive' cages this morning.

The evidence is clear; if you make drugs cheap and available, more people will abuse them.

If that's the kind of society you want to live in, fine, but I don't think Thai society would benefit from legal and cheap yaba, ice and heroin, and if y'all think that's a ultra right-wing nut-job stance, that's fine with me.

Who is talking about cheap or free drugs?

CONTROLLED is the word!

I pointed it out on another topic:

treat addiction like a medical condition.

Get drug- addicts to a DOCTOR who gives them CONTROLLED amount of drugs.

Benefits?

- crime rate might drop (no one needs top rob or kill anyone to get money for a fix)

- drug related diseases WILL drop (no sharing needles)

- prostitution might drop (...which may be followed by a drop in sex- related diseases)

- fatal drug abuse rate may drop

- a doctor can even get drug addicts into rehab programs or on substitution drugs

Being addicted to drug is not equal with killing or robbing anyone!

Legalize mariuhana? Why not?

I never heard of anyone beating their wife or children after a joint?

I never heard of someone causing road accidents under the influence of Pot!?

Have you?

What you are doing, is the usual rant and "hang 'em high" that helps no one!

Get your facts straight!

Just look at any 7eleven and the amazing amount of alcoholic beverages you can LEGALLY buy there.

Starting from limo-like stuff like Breezer or Spy, over beer, whiskey ..up to the braindeader Lao Khao!

And now tell me about the statistics of road aacidents caused by alcohol!

Tell me about the many cases of domestic (or other ) violence under the influence of alcohol.

...and now tell, your next Friday night will only include water and coke!

[ParadiseLost]

I seem to have poked a stick into a lot of 'progressive' cages this morning.

The evidence is clear; if you make drugs cheap and available, more people will abuse them.

If that's the kind of society you want to live in, fine, but I don't think Thai society would benefit from legal and cheap yaba, ice and heroin, and if y'all think that's a ultra right-wing nut-job stance, that's fine with me.

Perhaps people would not resort to such uncouth types of drugs if there were more pure choices available (italics could be substituted for many words, hope you know what I mean). For example amongst alcohol drinkers most will drink a decent vodka rather than buy the 180 baht a bottle stuff.

The bottom line is that those who choose to partake in drugs will do so, regardless of the law, and the vast majority of such people are very capable of using responsibly.

It is precisely because of the sensationalist drivel such as you and Fox News and Rush Limbaugh spout that people have this misconception that drug users are all evil psychopaths while in reality people from all walks of life partake in secret - highly educated people in very responsible positions are not likely to admit they smoke the occasional joint are they...

Edited March 6, 2012 by ParadiseLost

[ParadiseLost]

So you want to put a ready supply into more hands. In what way is that an improvement? Societies need some standards to function by. We don't legalise murder because it is difficult to prevent. Even if we cannot achieve the goal of eliminating drugs, as we know full well we cannot, I do not see how legislating approval (legalizing) advances our ability to live together harmoniously and productively. Sorry. I believe we do need to maintain some standards of desirable behavior, not lapse into anarchy, just because that is the state that some people seem to prefer.

I believe we do need to maintain some standards of desirable behavior, not lapse into anarchy, just because that is the state that some people seem to prefer

well you've obviously bought the fear then.... hook, line and sinker.

do you not think it could reduce crime if drugs were medicalized and people addicted to harder stuff treated as sick patients? i suggest you have a good deep think about that one.

Why should that not happen while we maintain the value/stance that society does not approve of the use of drugs? Fine, let's treat drug addicts, no problem with that at all. But I see no need to make drugs more accessible, to increase access to drugs and to create more addicts. We have enough drugs causing major problems, even legal ones like alcohol and nicotine. The costs of healthcare for these people, and the suffering they and their families endure due to their addictions, are seldom counted into the economic equation (e.g., taxation income for governments), but it should be. Perhaps we agree, but are talking at cross-purposes.

So what you are saying is that it is fine to let the black market continue unabated and criminal organisations grow to such extremes that they eventually will take over the very governments trying to fight them. In other words give them all the proceeds with which to infiltrate big business and politics, just so long as you don't have to deal with the problem.

[Reasonableman]

Legalize mariuhana? Why not?

I never heard of anyone beating their wife or children after a joint?

I never heard of someone causing road accidents under the influence of Pot!?

Have you?

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051201/marijuana-raises-risk-of-fatal-car-crash

WebMD Health News

Dec. 1, 2005 - People who drive after using marijuana are nearly twice as likely to be involved in a fatal car crash.

French researchers studied all drivers involved in fatal car crashes over a two-year period and found 7% tested positive for marijuana, including nearly 3% who tested positive for a combination of marijuana and alcohol.

Although marijuana's share of fatal crashes is much lower than those attributed to alcohol, researchers say the results show that marijuana use, even in low doses, significantly increases the risk of fatal car accidents.

More Pot, More Deaths

In the study, published in the medical journal BMJ, researchers reviewed information on 10,748 drivers who were involved in fatal car crashes and took required tests for

drugs and alcohol.

Twice as many drivers involved in fatal car accidents tested positive for marijuana compared with a group of other drivers.

Researchers say about 2.5% of the fatal crashes were attributable to marijuana compared with nearly 29% attributable to alcohol.

The study also showed that drivers who tested positive for marijuana were more than three times as likely to be responsible for the fatal car crash. Researchers say the likelihood of being at fault increased as the blood concentration of marijuana increased.

[redroo]

if democracy realy exsisted ,

the problem would have been reduced

to a medical issue.

and the funding of the " war on people " abolished.

law enforcement would have plenty of work and time for

rounding up wall street madoffs...

safety off

one to the head and one to the cheast

[Davedub]

So you want to put a ready supply into more hands.

Sigh - someone else suffering from the delusion that prohibition is actually working - the supply is already in everyone's hands should they care to look for it. If this were not the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion!

(evidence, requote: http://blog.norml.or...uana-than-beer/)

So no, the anti-prohibitionist's goal is NOT to put a ready supply in more hands - the supply is well and truly already there.

The anti-prohibitionist's goal is to reduce the harm caused to society by using balanced, informed, non-political, non-religious, non-judgemental, sensible methods and policies.

As far as I can see, both sides of this argument want the same thing - harm reduction. However, as is patently obvious if you care to research, the criminalisation of the issue does not work. Treating the underlying issues (mental health, poverty, lack of education) may well be met with more success.

To quote Einstien:

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. 30 years of the war on drugs. The same thing, over and over again - why does anyone expect different results this time?

[nurofiend]

So you want to put a ready supply into more hands. In what way is that an improvement? Societies need some standards to function by. We don't legalise murder because it is difficult to prevent. Even if we cannot achieve the goal of eliminating drugs, as we know full well we cannot, I do not see how legislating approval (legalizing) advances our ability to live together harmoniously and productively. Sorry. I believe we do need to maintain some standards of desirable behavior, not lapse into anarchy, just because that is the state that some people seem to prefer.

I believe we do need to maintain some standards of desirable behavior, not lapse into anarchy, just because that is the state that some people seem to prefer

well you've obviously bought the fear then.... hook, line and sinker.

do you not think it could reduce crime if drugs were medicalized and people addicted to harder stuff treated as sick patients? i suggest you have a good deep think about that one.

Why should that not happen while we maintain the value/stance that society does not approve of the use of drugs? Fine, let's treat drug addicts, no problem with that at all. But I see no need to make drugs more accessible, to increase access to drugs and to create more addicts. We have enough drugs causing major problems, even legal ones like alcohol and nicotine. The costs of healthcare for these people, and the suffering they and their families endure due to their addictions, are seldom counted into the economic equation (e.g., taxation income for governments), but it should be. Perhaps we agree, but are talking at cross-purposes.

it's not a case of the government 'approving' drugs, it's a case of tolerance and not in a sense of admitting defeat but in a sense of - actually this might benefit society as a whole.

and i don't think it would create more addicts, as i've said people choose not to take drugs like meth or heroin not based on their legal status and i don't think if making them legal would find you many people thinking "oh, heroin is fine now"

but i do think it could be a substantial improvement regarding younger kids use, with laws on supply to minors.

as there's no control over this now.

[nurofiend]

Legalize mariuhana? Why not?

I never heard of anyone beating their wife or children after a joint?

I never heard of someone causing road accidents under the influence of Pot!?

Have you?

http://www.webmd.com...fatal-car-crash

WebMD Health News

Dec. 1, 2005 - People who drive after using marijuana are nearly twice as likely to be involved in a fatal car crash.

French researchers studied all drivers involved in fatal car crashes over a two-year period and found 7% tested positive for marijuana, including nearly 3% who tested positive for a combination of marijuana and alcohol.

Although marijuana's share of fatal crashes is much lower than those attributed to alcohol, researchers say the results show that marijuana use, even in low doses, significantly increases the risk of fatal car accidents.

More Pot, More Deaths

In the study, published in the medical journal BMJ, researchers reviewed information on 10,748 drivers who were involved in fatal car crashes and took required tests for

drugs and alcohol.

Twice as many drivers involved in fatal car accidents tested positive for marijuana compared with a group of other drivers.

Researchers say about 2.5% of the fatal crashes were attributable to marijuana compared with nearly 29% attributable to alcohol.

The study also showed that drivers who tested positive for marijuana were more than three times as likely to be responsible for the fatal car crash. Researchers say the likelihood of being at fault increased as the blood concentration of marijuana increased.

aw c'mon... i thought for a moment i could actually have a reasonable (no pun intended) debate there.

sigh...

[Davedub]

WebMD Health News

Dec. 1, 2005 - People who drive after using marijuana are nearly twice as likely to be involved in a fatal car crash.

French researchers studied all drivers involved in fatal car crashes over a two-year period and found 7% tested positive for marijuana, including nearly 3% who tested positive for a combination of marijuana and alcohol.

Although marijuana's share of fatal crashes is much lower than those attributed to alcohol, researchers say the results show that marijuana use, even in low doses, significantly increases the risk of fatal car accidents.

More Pot, More Deaths

In the study, published in the medical journal BMJ, researchers reviewed information on 10,748 drivers who were involved in fatal car crashes and took required tests for

drugs and alcohol.

Twice as many drivers involved in fatal car accidents tested positive for marijuana compared with a group of other drivers.

Researchers say about 2.5% of the fatal crashes were attributable to marijuana compared with nearly 29% attributable to alcohol.

The study also showed that drivers who tested positive for marijuana were more than three times as likely to be responsible for the fatal car crash. Researchers say the likelihood of being at fault increased as the blood concentration of marijuana increased.

Ah, ok. So you present evidence that prohibition isn't working - I mean, these accidents couldn't have happened if the war on drugs was effective, because there would be no drugs.

So, by your logic, maintaining the criminalisation of drugs will stop this sort of thing how?

[meom]

...and now tell, your next Friday night will only include water and coke!

Together with a knife, a fork, a bottle and a cork.

[DocN]

Legalize mariuhana? Why not?

I never heard of anyone beating their wife or children after a joint?

I never heard of someone causing road accidents under the influence of Pot!?

Have you?

http://www.webmd.com...fatal-car-crash

WebMD Health News

Dec. 1, 2005 - People who drive after using marijuana are nearly twice as likely to be involved in a fatal car crash.

French researchers studied all drivers involved in fatal car crashes over a two-year period and found 7% tested positive for marijuana, including nearly 3% who tested positive for a combination of marijuana and alcohol.

Although marijuana's share of fatal crashes is much lower than those attributed to alcohol, researchers say the results show that marijuana use, even in low doses, significantly increases the risk of fatal car accidents.

More Pot, More Deaths

In the study, published in the medical journal BMJ, researchers reviewed information on 10,748 drivers who were involved in fatal car crashes and took required tests for

drugs and alcohol.

Twice as many drivers involved in fatal car accidents tested positive for marijuana compared with a group of other drivers.

Researchers say about 2.5% of the fatal crashes were attributable to marijuana compared with nearly 29% attributable to alcohol.

The study also showed that drivers who tested positive for marijuana were more than three times as likely to be responsible for the fatal car crash. Researchers say the likelihood of being at fault increased as the blood concentration of marijuana increased.

I stand corrected on the "none"...

But this might be a good point!

"Researchers say about 2.5% of the fatal crashes were attributable to marijuana compared with nearly 29% attributable to alcohol."

[Reasonableman]

I never heard of someone causing road accidents under the influence of Pot!?

So now you have.

[Reasonableman]

Legalize mariuhana? Why not?

I never heard of anyone beating their wife or children after a joint?

I never heard of someone causing road accidents under the influence of Pot!?

Have you?

http://www.webmd.com...fatal-car-crash

WebMD Health News

Dec. 1, 2005 - People who drive after using marijuana are nearly twice as likely to be involved in a fatal car crash.

French researchers studied all drivers involved in fatal car crashes over a two-year period and found 7% tested positive for marijuana, including nearly 3% who tested positive for a combination of marijuana and alcohol.

Although marijuana's share of fatal crashes is much lower than those attributed to alcohol, researchers say the results show that marijuana use, even in low doses, significantly increases the risk of fatal car accidents.

More Pot, More Deaths

In the study, published in the medical journal BMJ, researchers reviewed information on 10,748 drivers who were involved in fatal car crashes and took required tests for

drugs and alcohol.

Twice as many drivers involved in fatal car accidents tested positive for marijuana compared with a group of other drivers.

Researchers say about 2.5% of the fatal crashes were attributable to marijuana compared with nearly 29% attributable to alcohol.

The study also showed that drivers who tested positive for marijuana were more than three times as likely to be responsible for the fatal car crash. Researchers say the likelihood of being at fault increased as the blood concentration of marijuana increased.

I stand corrected on the "none"...

But this might be a good point!

"Researchers say about 2.5% of the fatal crashes were attributable to marijuana compared with nearly 29% attributable to alcohol."

The point is... that taking drugs while driving increases the risk of accidents?

[Davedub]

I never heard of someone causing road accidents under the influence of Pot!?

So now you have.

Reasonableman, may I reiterate my question to you :

So you present evidence that prohibition isn't working - clearly, these accidents couldn't have happened if the war on drugs was effective, because there would be no drugs.

So, by your logic, maintaining the criminalisation of drugs will stop this sort of thing how?

I can only guess that you (mistakenly) believe the war on drugs can be won. Perhaps you have inside knowledge of some new drug supply suppression method that is bound to succeed? Really, it can be done, after 30 years of failed attempts?

Requote: Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Thirty years of the war on drugs. The same thing, over and over again - why expect different results this time around?

[RickBradford]

@DaveDub

However, the 'war on drugs' have been going on for 30 years now. Not only has this way of dealing with the problem failed miserably..

How do you know? Do you have access to secret knowledge of how the world would look if we had not had a 'war on drugs'? No, nor do I, but Google 'influx cheap heroin' or something like that and you will get a flavour of it.

As has been said before: it is agreed by most that drug abuse is a social evil; that being the case, you do not legalise it; that would be a complete abdication of all social responsibility.

We're not going to win the war on incest, either; should we legalize it?

[nurofiend]

I never heard of someone causing road accidents under the influence of Pot!?

So now you have.

can you tell me in points what you think would happen to society if drugs were legalized?

or does it just boil down to you thinking 'the same as now, but more of it.'

please try, because i'd like to hear these points, seriously.

do you not see any benefits whatsoever?.. maybe regarding drug related crime, availabilty to younger kids, more time and resources to focus more on the social issues behind serious drug abuse rather than enforcing it's prohibition, things like that?

[Wavefloater]

Legalize mariuhana? Why not?

I never heard of anyone beating their wife or children after a joint?

I never heard of someone causing road accidents under the influence of Pot!?

Have you?

http://www.webmd.com...fatal-car-crash

WebMD Health News

Dec. 1, 2005 - People who drive after using marijuana are nearly twice as likely to be involved in a fatal car crash.

French researchers studied all drivers involved in fatal car crashes over a two-year period and found 7% tested positive for marijuana, including nearly 3% who tested positive for a combination of marijuana and alcohol.

Although marijuana's share of fatal crashes is much lower than those attributed to alcohol, researchers say the results show that marijuana use, even in low doses, significantly increases the risk of fatal car accidents.

More Pot, More Deaths

In the study, published in the medical journal BMJ, researchers reviewed information on 10,748 drivers who were involved in fatal car crashes and took required tests for

drugs and alcohol.

Twice as many drivers involved in fatal car accidents tested positive for marijuana compared with a group of other drivers.

Researchers say about 2.5% of the fatal crashes were attributable to marijuana compared with nearly 29% attributable to alcohol.

The study also showed that drivers who tested positive for marijuana were more than three times as likely to be responsible for the fatal car crash. Researchers say the likelihood of being at fault increased as the blood concentration of marijuana increased.

I wonder if they also tested the fatality victims for the presence of mood-altering pharmaceutical drugs. I guarantee you that some of the victims (and possibly more than the cannabis users) were under the influence of the garbage the big pharma pushes, like the plethora of anti-depressants that these legal drug lords sell. But there's no way that type of info will be known to the public or compared side-by-side with cannabis. Too many politicians (and funded studies) benefit from the 100's of millions of dollars big pharma gives to them.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Wavefloater

[Davedub]

@DaveDub

However, the 'war on drugs' have been going on for 30 years now. Not only has this way of dealing with the problem failed miserably..

How do you know? Do you have access to secret knowledge of how the world would look if we had not had a 'war on drugs'? No, nor do I, but Google 'influx cheap heroin' or something like that and you will get a flavour of it.

As has been said before: it is agreed by most that drug abuse is a social evil; that being the case, you do not legalise it; that would be a complete abdication of all social responsibility.

We're not going to win the war on incest, either; should we legalize it?

The war on drugs has failed miserably - I know this because the evidence is everywhere - the fact we're having this discussion proves it. Try googling 'the war on drugs is a failure' - I can't quote all 22 million pages here, but there are some very, very compelling, informed and statistically backup up arguments. Conversely, the arguments FOR prohibition tend to rely on quasi morality, rhetoric and fear mongering as opposed to presenting facts.

And whilst we are talking rhetoric, you have once again tried to invoke the 'won't someone think of the children' rhetoric to inject unnecessary, unrelated emotion into the argument. Please do not bring such disgusting and obviously not comparable issues such as incest into this discussion. Incest always involves harm caused to the victim. Drug use does not. Simply not comparable. Please, try to keep this in perspective.

Oh, and your comment:

'that would be a complete abdication of all social responsibility.'

No - I propose a different social responsibility that champions education and heathcare as the responsible way to tackle the drug problem. This approach, in fact, entails MORE social responsibility, not the abdication from it. I'm slightly disappointed I've had to point this out three times in my various posts this morning.

[Reasonableman]

I never heard of someone causing road accidents under the influence of Pot!?

So now you have.

can you tell me in points what you think would happen to society if drugs were legalized?

or does it just boil down to you thinking 'the same as now, but more of it.'

please try, because i'd like to hear these points, seriously.

do you not see any benefits whatsoever?.. maybe regarding drug related crime, availabilty to younger kids, more time and resources to focus more on the social issues behind serious drug abuse rather than enforcing it's prohibition, things like that?

Frankly Nurofiend, I don't particularly care what you like or do not like. And please don't play to your like-minded audience, that is childish beer-bar behavior.

On balance, taking the arguments of both sides into account, I do not favor Governments appearing to condone drug use. I believe that governments should project and reinforce positive social values, and drug-taking IMHO is not one of them. I do not see drug-taking as an advancement of society, quite the opposite. That is my personal opinion. Feel free to disagree with it as you wish. Take whatever drugs you wish, but if it impacts negatively on other people, be prepared to wear the consequences.

[nurofiend]

I never heard of someone causing road accidents under the influence of Pot!?

So now you have.

can you tell me in points what you think would happen to society if drugs were legalized?

or does it just boil down to you thinking 'the same as now, but more of it.'

please try, because i'd like to hear these points, seriously.

do you not see any benefits whatsoever?.. maybe regarding drug related crime, availabilty to younger kids, more time and resources to focus more on the social issues behind serious drug abuse rather than enforcing it's prohibition, things like that?

Frankly Nurofiend, I don't particularly care what you like or do not like. And please don't play to your like-minded audience, that is childish beer-bar behavior.

On balance, taking the arguments of both sides into account, I do not favor Governments appearing to condone drug use. I believe that governments should project and reinforce positive social values, and drug-taking IMHO is not one of them. I do not see drug-taking as an advancement of society, quite the opposite. That is my personal opinion. Feel free to disagree with it as you wish. Take whatever drugs you wish, but if it impacts negatively on other people, be prepared to wear the consequences.

Frankly Nurofiend, I don't particularly care what you like or do not like. And please don't play to your like-minded audience, that is childish beer-bar behavior.

LOL, what post were you reading?

deflect! deflect!

if you can't answer something, please don't make me out to be doing something i wasn't... thanks.

[Colin Yai]

pick up all dealers and users and put them in a big football stadium... then release by helicopter a mass of coke and heroin and let them feast on it till none is moving anymore... apply a few times per year till none are left ???

drug dealers are the worst scum of the earth, selling death to youth and others and cousing a lot of disturbance, violence, etc...

china has a good permanent solution for this problem

Where there is a buyer there is always a seller ,simple economics !.