Everyone will be aware of David Cameron being undermined by his enemies over this drugs issue, ie he says it's his private life and in the past and is of no concern now.

I personally don't have a problem with anyone who has taken drugs (I'm about the only person I know who hasn't) but I think it is best you are honest and say "I've taken them, it's in the past and I haven't done so for years but I do understand why kids take them etc".

What I do hate though is the way the media are prancing about him like wolfs when I bet most of them have taken them and take them to this day (I hate hypocrits).

I tried posting a poll with this but messed it up (sorry).

We don't want the next future Prime Minister of Great Britain, making national decisions after they've just had a spliffy do we?

^^ Well it may have stopped Blair going to war.

I think anything an MP did before becoming an MP is their business, but anything illegal they do after becoming an MP is fair game (but I don't include adultery etc in that bracket).

I think the mud-slinging at David Cameron is pretty shitty, especially the "Shock horror... a close family member is a former Smackhead!"... so the fuck what?

I think a Tory Leader who admits to dabbling a bit with drugs at Uni would be quite popular and a modernising factor for the Tories... after all most of the young electorate have done the same.

What I do dislike is hypocrisy, e.g. Michael Portillo campaigning against an Equal Age of Consent for Gays whilst (allegedly) being a raving bender himself.

I think any MP in office should obey the law of the land, and that includes not taking drugs. If they can't keep from breaking the law, what hope is there for the rest of us? (I also think that any law-breaking should result in the instant loss of their seat).

Politicians should be whiter than white (yeah right!)

Sadly its a fact that a hell of a lot of teenagers have smoked weed at least, and I know several personally. He should just admit it, but it disgusts me that the media are asking questions like this. Fact of the matter is, they are scared of Davis and Cameron, so try and discredit them. There was nothing wrong with Davis's speech, sure there wasn't a gag every other second, who gives a shit. Hes got the ideas, the intelligence and the integrity to do a damn good job.

Sadly its a fact that a hell of a lot of teenagers have smoked weed at least, and I know several personally. He should just admit it, but it disgusts me that the media are asking questions like this. Fact of the matter is, they are scared of Davis and Cameron, so try and discredit them. There was nothing wrong with Davis's speech, sure there wasn't a gag every other second, who gives a shit. Hes got the ideas, the intelligence and the integrity to do a damn good job.

think the cameron thing is about cocaine not cannabis.

think the cameron thing is about cocaine not cannabis.

Yes and Journalists using Charly is unheard of...

The savage hounding of first Kate Moss and now Mr Cameron makes me sick. Hypocritical scum-leeches.

Run a finger across any toilet cistern lid in any Newspaper office and you'll no doubt find half a ton of the stuff.

Yes and Journalists using Charly is unheard of...

The savage hounding of first Kate Moss and now Mr Cameron makes me sick. Hypocritical scum-leeches.

Run a finger across any toilet cistern lid in any Newspaper office and you'll no doubt find half a ton of the stuff.

How good would that be as a counter story run by who I don't know, but a story of under cover reporters doing cocaine checks in the loos of the Sun, Mirror and most of all the Mail.

Yes and Journalists using Charly is unheard of...

The savage hounding of first Kate Moss and now Mr Cameron makes me sick. Hypocritical scum-leeches.

Run a finger across any toilet cistern lid in any Newspaper office and you'll no doubt find half a ton of the stuff.

yep it is shit, and they can't even use the excuse that Cameron is draconian on drugs therefore he is a bit of a hypocrite, as he actually has a sensible drugs policy.

Sadly its a fact that a hell of a lot of teenagers have smoked weed at least, and I know several personally. He should just admit it, but it disgusts me that the media are asking questions like this. Fact of the matter is, they are scared of Davis and Cameron, so try and discredit them. There was nothing wrong with Davis's speech, sure there wasn't a gag every other second, who gives a shit. Hes got the ideas, the intelligence and the integrity to do a damn good job.

I think Davis would be another IDS - mousey mousey.

I think whatever Cameron did before his political life should remain private, shame once again on the terrible tabloid press for trying to sway the public view :nono:

I hate how the press always blows this sort of thing out of all proportions, the vast majority of the population has absolutly no interest in whether the politician in question has puffed on the odd spliff while they where at uni

It annoys me because there is so much more interesting and important news going on in the world and they choose to focus on somthing as petty and boring as this

Davis adds to pressure over drugs


Conservative leadership candidate David Davis has intensified the pressure on his rival, David Cameron, over the use of drugs.

Mr Davis said in a Channel 4 interview he did not believe anyone who had used hard drugs in the recent past would be suitable to succeed Michael Howard.

Mr Cameron has refused to answer drug questions, saying only that he had a "normal university experience."

He also said that politicians were "only human".

After newspaper stories regarding a relative of his who had received treatment for heroin addiction, Mr Cameron asked the media to exercise restraint as the situation was not connected to his leadership bid.

In an interview on Channel 4's Morgan and Platell programme, to be broadcast on Saturday, Mr Davis was asked if Class A drug users could lead the Tory party or the country.

He replied: "I think if... well, it is a breach of the law, so if it was recent, the answer would be no."

Mr Davis repeated that he had never taken drugs, adding: "The whole idea of drugs makes me nervous."

Asked whether politicians should give "straight answers to straight questions", he replied: "Yes."

Mr Cameron - bookies' favourite to land the Tory job - is under pressure to say if he has ever taken drugs.

He refused to answer the question on BBC One's Question Time on Thursday.

After the newspaper article about his relative, Mr Cameron said he was "very proud" of the person's efforts to kick the drug but hoped they would be "left alone" by the media.

Mr Cameron has backed the relaxation of drug laws and in 2002 said diamorphine - the medical name for heroin - should be prescribed to addicts "to stabilise them" and help wean them off drugs.

twat. in some respects, this is a boost for Cameron, he has people's sympathies, and some of the other candidates are being shown to be not very nice people at all.

Why not just answer the fucking question though? I hate it when politicians dance around simple yes or no questions, and answer something which suits them. If you're going to run the country, you answer whatever questionsa re put to you. Is anyone really going to give a shit if he's had a bliff 30 years ago?

Everyone's on fucking drugs anyway. I saw Davis on Dimbleby yestersday,. who is 'frightened of drugs'. What?! I bet he;'s had a few pints in his time, the hypocriktical shite. Everyone's fucking taken (illegal) drugs too. This shit with Kate Moss.... show me a supermodel that's never had cocaine!?!?

Load of crap. It's just a bit of fun.

Robbie Williams said in an interview he has personally done coke with half the journalists who wrote the Kate Moss stories.

Does anyone remember the Brits one time when Mrs Merton presented an award, she said 'before I start, there is a little boy who is lost, His name is Charlie and there are a lot of people asking after him backstage'.....

35% of Britons have tried some form of drugs. upwards of 10% have tried class A drugs.

The problem isn't with the media, its with the drugs laws which insist on criminalising around 20 million people.

Indeed, if people use drugs and then don't infringe on other people's rights, there's no point in criminalising their behaviour. And those who do cross the law can always be caught for doing so. But hey, that would be too simple wouldn't it?

drugs, dependency, crime, the cycle of poverty, it all goes down hill. Not to mention mental illness. The fact you need to take drugs to have a good time obviously shows ills in society. We're all misreable buggers.

Nonsense. The majority of drug users don't need it to have a good time. I'm glad you're not police of the world, what's next? We're ill because we "need" recreational sex and don't just use it for procreation? Please.

35% of Britons have tried some form of drugs. upwards of 10% have tried class A drugs.

I believe that is a very conservative estimate, I would expect it to be far higher, especially the latter stat.

Why not just answer the fucking question though? I hate it when politicians dance around simple yes or no questions, and answer something which suits them. If you're going to run the country, you answer whatever questionsa re put to you. Is anyone really going to give a shit if he's had a bliff 30 years ago?

Everyone's on fucking drugs anyway. I saw Davis on Dimbleby yestersday,. who is 'frightened of drugs'. What?! I bet he;'s had a few pints in his time, the hypocriktical shite. Everyone's fucking taken (illegal) drugs too. This shit with Kate Moss.... show me a supermodel that's never had cocaine!?!?

Load of crap. It's just a bit of fun.

i don't think he should answer the question, the question shouldn't be asked in the first place and answering it just gives it credibility and viability.

i don't think he should answer the question, the question shouldn't be asked in the first place and answering it just gives it credibility and viability.

If he's a potential prime minister then I want to know who he is. We need to know personal information about him. If he wants a private life he shouldn't try to rule 60 million people in a democracy. We're entitled to know whether he's robbed something, burgled, murdered... he'd probably answer those questions if put to him, so why not drug use? If he's going to be in charge of legislation that would put drug users in prison, when he's used drugs himself, then he's a hypocrite and should fuck off.

If he's a potential prime minister then I want to know who he is. We need to know personal information about him. If he wants a private life he shouldn't try to rule 60 million people in a democracy. We're entitled to know whether he's robbed something, burgled, murdered... he'd probably answer those questions if put to him, so why not drug use? If he's going to be in charge of legislation that would put drug users in prison, when he's used drugs himself, then he's a hypocrite and should fuck off.

but he's actually got a sensible and progressive drug policy. i don't think we need to know if he took part in a victimless "crime" when he was at university, it's irrelevent and it is something that traditionally would wreck his entire career. a trivial little piece of personal crap that no one needs to know, but which is potentially fatal to his life's ambitions. if you think he cannot expect to have a personal life if he wants to be PM, then that is a realistic view based on the fact that people and the media are irrational shits, but it is not the way things SHOULD be. this personal life bollocks is ruining politics, let's focus on policies.

this is what his stance on drugs:

"Politicians attempt to appeal to the lowest common denominator by posturing with tough policies and calling for crackdown after crackdown. Drugs policy has been failing for decades."

The Conservative leadership contender voted, when he was a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee, for the UN body on drugs policy to look at whether to legalise and regulate the drugs trade. He opposed his Tory colleague, Angela Watkinson, who tried to block the call to initiate talks in the UN and voted against her with Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs. He called on the Government to "initiate a discussion" within the UN about "alternative ways - including the possibility of legalisation and regulation - to tackle the global drugs dilemma".... The report also supported creating safe "shooting galleries" for heroin addicts.

Mr. Cameron called for "expanding drug treatment for heroin and crack cocaine addicts by 25,000 places. [Some] may question whether this is the right priority. Well, if you are going to tackle crime, rather than just talk about it, it is."

in light of his policy stance, his personal view seems noble. had he been one of these draconian fuckwits, he'd come across as a hypocrite.

If he's a potential prime minister then I want to know who he is. We need to know personal information about him. If he wants a private life he shouldn't try to rule 60 million people in a democracy. We're entitled to know whether he's robbed something, burgled, murdered... he'd probably answer those questions if put to him, so why not drug use? If he's going to be in charge of legislation that would put drug users in prison, when he's used drugs himself, then he's a hypocrite and should fuck off.

I personally favour that approach just on the fact it would kill the story quicker.

It's the same when Prince Harry was found out for smoking dope, I thought they played it the right way, they didn't say no, they published a statement saying he had, this is when it happened etc etc. It left the Media no where to go - they called him Harry Pothead and so on, but the media game is to get people to say no and then they can drag a story out for weeks, on a slow drip drip account as the papers slowly publish information bit by bit- it's a slow death.

Best to get it out of the way, be honest and say liston this is what I have done and that's why I can relate to drug users etc etc.

Fair enough johnny, you're probably right there me old mucker.

I think I'm just a nosy bad tempered cunt ;)

I didn't know he had such a progressive (for politicians, anyway) drug policy to be honest.

35% of Britons have tried some form of drugs. upwards of 10% have tried class A drugs.

I believe that is a very conservative estimate, I would expect it to be far higher, especially the latter stat.

yeah well im sure the percentages have huge differences between age groups.

If he has been a druggie in the past he might as well admit it now. He says he chooses not to disclose the information, so that's a YES then. If it was in the past, before he was a politician then he deserves another chance. I hate the spin and the hypocrisy so many politicans partake in. How can he be taken seriously on the drugs issue though from now on? I want someone respectful to lead the country, and this guy is obvioulsy not brave enough to admit his mistakes and and get on with setting a better example in the future. The only person that would possibly ever make me consider voting conservative is ken clarke. Even then i wouldn't be sure. Most Politicians don't have much appeal for me anyway, not many are in touch with reality.

P.S: I wonder what sort of industry he thought he was contributing to when he got these drugs? People don't realise it's not just the act of taking a drug which ruin people's lives through addiction. It is the misery they are causing so many people through traffiking, at the same time as making the murdering dealers, a huge profit.

P.S: I wonder what sort of industry he thought he was contributing to when he got these drugs? People don't realise it's not just the act of taking a drug which ruin people's lives through addiction. It is the misery they are causing so many people through traffiking, at the same time as making the murdering dealers, a huge profit.

You could always legalise it and use the taxes to pay for drug education and rehabilitation... but that's probably too sensible...

But they are only 'ruining' others because the government insists on prohibition, forcing people to buy them from criminals. There is no reason why people couldn't buy them from a legitimate source. The law is responsible for creating the whole mess from criminal gangs to impure supplies, to the pushing of crack and smack.

But David Cameron is no more a 'druggie' than the Archibishop of Canterbury. You are being quite naive about drug use. You can use drugs on a regular basis and not be an addict, just in the same way you can go to the pub on a regular basis and not be an alcoholic. Only some people become alcoholics it doesn't mean everyone who drinks is one. It takes some work and some pre-existing misery to become an addict.

Nonsense. The majority of drug users don't need it to have a good time. I'm glad you're not police of the world, what's next? We're ill because we "need" recreational sex and don't just use it for procreation? Please.

go and ask the police what they would love to see eradicated from the earth. Drugs, and that includes alchohol.

But they are only 'ruining' others because the government insists on prohibition, forcing people to buy them from criminals. There is no reason why people couldn't buy them from a legitimate source. The law is responsible for creating the whole mess from criminal gangs to impure supplies, to the pushing of crack and smack.

But David Cameron is no more a 'druggie' than the Archibishop of Canterbury. You are being quite naive about drug use. You can use drugs on a regular basis and not be an addict, just in the same way you can go to the pub on a regular basis and not be an alcoholic. Only some people become alcoholics it doesn't mean everyone who drinks is one. It takes some work and some pre-existing misery to become an addict.

Spot on on both counts.

Personally speaking, over the last few years I've smoked cannabis almost on a daily basis, so some might have called me an 'addict'. However, last Monday I gave up cigarettes, and for a while, so as not to tempt me to smoke fags, I've given up cannabis as well. Haven't had a spliff since last Sunday... no withdrawal symptoms, no murderous tendencies, no convulsing or uncontrollable dribbling...

There's so much misinformation about drugs.

Even drugs that people think are 'hard' drugs are not the way we are taught to think of them.

I've done coke before but guess what I really enjoyed it, had a wonderful time, so did everyone I was with and in the morning after the party I got up and went about my normal business without bloodshot eyes and needing to rob cars to get my next gram. I haven't done coke since, not that I wouldn't do it again but I have absolutely no burning desire to do it.

I am annoyed that 35% of population have been forced to go to criminals who put all sorts of rubbish in drugs and the money we pay goes to criminal gangs. The government released a report under the Freedom of Information act which reported that 'there has been no discernible decrease in either the supply or use of drugs over the last 20 years of trying. Prices have fallen and use has gone up BUT drug related robberies and the like have gone down while alcohol related crime has soared.

How many pot-heads have you seen mugging old ladies to get a spliff, how many coke users steal so they can do a line at the BBC or at middle class dinner parties? What people steal for is crack and smack, not a clubber popping a pill.

Drug addiction only becomes a problem if you can't afford your drugs. There is a pilot scheme in North Wales in which smackheads are given their smack by the NHS, crime has fallen and this is the real myth about even heroin addiction is some have normal lives, they have jobs. They no longer have to spend their time working out how they will get their next hit. Just like functional alcoholics they can hold down jobs and be productive members of society.

Prohibition never works.

Even drugs that people think are 'hard' drugs are not the way we are taught to think of them.

I've done coke before but guess what I really enjoyed it, had a wonderful time, so did everyone I was with and in the morning after the party I got up and went about my normal business without bloodshot eyes and needing to rob cars to get my next gram. I haven't done coke since, not that I wouldn't do it again but I have absolutely no burning desire to do it.

I am annoyed that 35% of population have been forced to go to criminals who put all sorts of rubbish in drugs and the money we pay goes to criminal gangs. The government released a report under the Freedom of Information act which reported that 'there has been no discernible decrease in either the supply or use of drugs over the last 20 years of trying. Prices have fallen and use has gone up BUT drug related robberies and the like have gone down while alcohol related crime has soared.

How many pot-heads have you seen mugging old ladies to get a spliff, how many coke users steal so they can do a line at the BBC or at middle class dinner parties? What people steal for is crack and smack, not a clubber popping a pill.

Drug addiction only becomes a problem if you can't afford your drugs. There is a pilot scheme in North Wales in which smackheads are given their smack by the NHS, crime has fallen and this is the real myth about even heroin addiction is some have normal lives, they have jobs. They no longer have to spend their time working out how they will get their next hit. Just like functional alcoholics they can hold down jobs and be productive members of society.

Prohibition never works.

In addition I would add that we now have some very cheap lagers at over 7 per cent are selling for 57p a tin, this is a product very much aimed at alcaholics and one that I find very distressing.

As one tramp once said you wouldn't go to a dinner party and see someone serving up white lightning. Apart from alcaholics the other big market for these high alcahol drinks are kids as they are so cheap.

I think the media should go after the companies that sell and make this shit.

Frosty Jacks - A tramp's best friend. And my mate too :okay:

Special Brew is 9.5%

Special Brew's pretty pricey though.

A three litre bottle of 7.5% cider for £2.99's your best bet :)

Thank you Blunther and Pricemazda.

Two good examples.

Now I know I am a non drinker so could easily be accused of being stuck up, but I don't have a problem with anyone drinking, rather alcahol abuse causes massive problems in this country and selling these types of drinks at those sorts of prices is doing as much damage to the nations health as any drug, yet does not get mentioned.

But they are only 'ruining' others because the government insists on prohibition, forcing people to buy them from criminals. There is no reason why people couldn't buy them from a legitimate source. The law is responsible for creating the whole mess from criminal gangs to impure supplies, to the pushing of crack and smack.

But David Cameron is no more a 'druggie' than the Archibishop of Canterbury. You are being quite naive about drug use. You can use drugs on a regular basis and not be an addict, just in the same way you can go to the pub on a regular basis and not be an alcoholic. Only some people become alcoholics it doesn't mean everyone who drinks is one. It takes some work and some pre-existing misery to become an addict.

This, of course, is dependant on what a person perceives as an addiction. Also, alcohol in small quantities is known to have some, if slightly vague, health benefits. Illegal drugs are proven to have an adverse pyschological and pyhsical effect on a person. You may be right concerning some 'milder' drugs like cannabis but over a sustained period addiction is likely to occur. When discussing certain class A drugs, many lead to quite severe addiction and as the impact of the drug on the individual is severe, the consequences of addiction have a more devastating impact on their overall well-being. This then leads to conflicts in the family and wider society in general. Alcohol is quite a different sunbstance to illegal drugs in it's production. Yes, it's still a drug but not comparable, in my opinion, to many hard illegal drugs. Having said that, the culture created by some binge-drinkers can lead to a lot of problems also. A test for those of you who regularly use illegal drugs to see if you are addicted. Plan your last usage and say from now on i can live without this. If you can last for 6 months without it then you know yourself there is little dependance.
Also, please think: were you freer and happier before you started? It doesn't lead to lasting gratification. On a somewhat different issue, i know a few people who smoke generally and they can get very irritable. You can do it, say NO to drugs. :speech:

You can do it, say NO to drugs. :speech:

Nah. I like 'em.

This, of course, is dependant on what a person perceives as an addiction. Also, alcohol in small quantities is known to have some, if slightly vague, health benefits. Illegal drugs are proven to have an adverse pyschological and pyhsical effect on a person. You may be right concerning some 'milder' drugs like cannabis but over a sustained period addiction is likely to occur. When discussing certain class A drugs, many lead to quite severe addiction and as the impact of the drug on the individual is severe, the consequences of addiction have a more devastating impact on their overall well-being. This then leads to conflicts in the family and wider society in general. Alcohol is quite a different sunbstance to illegal drugs in it's production. Yes, it's still a drug but not comparable, in my opinion, to many hard illegal drugs. Having said that, the culture created by some binge-drinkers can lead to a lot of problems also. A test for those of you who regularly use illegal drugs to see if you are addicted. Plan your last usage and say from now on i can live without this. If you can last for 6 months without it then you know yourself there is little dependance.
Also, please think: were you freer and happier before you started? It doesn't lead to lasting gratification. On a somewhat different issue, i know a few people who smoke generally and they can get very irritable. You can do it, say NO to drugs. :speech:

Trust me my father was/is a functional alcoholic, its not a 'lesser' drug at all. Its just that some people can handle it and others cannot.

Addiction has a strict medical definition not one 'it depends on how you define addiction'. Easysurfer you are very very very naive about drugs, and usually from my experience it is the ones who are clueless about drugs that actually are the ones who have the problems in the future with them. They are usually so repressed and know nothing about their own self.

I learnt more about myself taking a pill than I did in 22 years of life. Drugs aren't the big evil that we are led to believe. Whats wrong with me being able to buy legal drugs, what business is it of anyone else what i or others choose to do?

They are only illegal drugs because there is a law against it. People get addicted to all sorts of legal drugs like valium, pain killers, anti-depressants. But this is more to do with the person and not the drugs themselves. Most people don't have a problem with valium or sleeping pills, just like most people don't have a problem with booze but some do, other illegal drugs are the same.

Cigarettes cause cancer, alcohol causes liver disease (and most Britons do over drink), car exhausts cause asthma, beef used to cause BSE, airplanes are causing the greenhouse effect, E-Numbers cause hyperactivity, electricity pylons can cause brain problems...... do you see my point, that there are many things we do in life that are dangerous to our health, but we all make a cost/benefit analysis everyday to decide if this risk is acceptable. When you get in a car think how much of a risk you are taking, maybe we should arrest drivers for the potential damage they are doing to society?

Some liken Nicotine addiction to having similarities with heroin addiction just to put it in perspective. I gave up smoking in May, its all about choice. It turned out my withdrawal was not as bad as others. Thats the thing easysurfer we are all different and we all have different reactions to things, which is why some cancer drugs only work on some people.

It is only recently that we have decided to prohibit the use and sale of drugs, cocaine used to be avaliable in Boots, Queen Victoria was alleged to use opium, the famous example of Coca-Cola. We fought wars to have a slice of the opium market. We just became prudey.

The problem with our drugs laws is they are a blanket ban. What we need to to treat people like grown ups as we do with alcohol and help them in the unlikely event if they develop a problem. We need to regulate the content of drugs and where and how it can be bought. We need to take the trade away from the dealers and the international crime gangs and stop locking up people for drugs offenses. Drugs will never go away, drug use has gone up despite the strict laws and 'just say no' messages of 20 odd years, maybe its time to face up to the fact the drugs laws aren't working.

PS It is physically impossible to get addicted to cannabis, you are more likely to be addicted to the tobacco you smoke it with.

Margaret Thatcher injected testerone on a daily basis but no one noticed.

Trust me my father was/is a functional alcoholic, its not a 'lesser' drug at all. Its just that some people can handle it and others cannot.

Addiction has a strict medical definition not one 'it depends on how you define addiction'. Easysurfer you are very very very naive about drugs, and usually from my experience it is the ones who are clueless about drugs that actually are the ones who have the problems in the future with them. They are usually so repressed and know nothing about their own self.

I learnt more about myself taking a pill than I did in 22 years of life. Drugs aren't the big evil that we are led to believe. Whats wrong with me being able to buy legal drugs, what business is it of anyone else what i or others choose to do?

They are only illegal drugs because there is a law against it. People get addicted to all sorts of legal drugs like valium, pain killers, anti-depressants. But this is more to do with the person and not the drugs themselves. Most people don't have a problem with valium or sleeping pills, just like most people don't have a problem with booze but some do, other illegal drugs are the same.

Cigarettes cause cancer, alcohol causes liver disease (and most Britons do over drink), car exhausts cause asthma, beef used to cause BSE, airplanes are causing the greenhouse effect, E-Numbers cause hyperactivity, electricity pylons can cause brain problems...... do you see my point, that there are many things we do in life that are dangerous to our health, but we all make a cost/benefit analysis everyday to decide if this risk is acceptable. When you get in a car think how much of a risk you are taking, maybe we should arrest drivers for the potential damage they are doing to society?

Some liken Nicotine addiction to having similarities with heroin addiction just to put it in perspective. I gave up smoking in May, its all about choice. It turned out my withdrawal was not as bad as others. Thats the thing easysurfer we are all different and we all have different reactions to things, which is why some cancer drugs only work on some people.

The problem with our drugs laws is they are a blanket ban. What we need to to treat people like grown ups as we do with alcohol and help them in the unlikely event if they develop a problem. We need to regulate the content of drugs and where and how it can be bought. We need to take the trade away from the dealers and the international crime gangs and stop locking up people for drugs offenses. Drugs will never go away, drug use has gone up despite the strict laws and 'just say no' messages of 20 odd years, maybe its time to face up to the fact the drugs laws aren't working.

PS It is physically impossible to get addicted to cannabis, you are more likely to be addicted to the tobacco you smoke it with.

I drink very little (alright i am in my first few weeks at uni and have had a few more than normal lol), i have never smoked, i have never taken an illegal drug, i believe in God, i love my family & friends and i'm happy. The one issue in my life which i probably still struggle with a bit is being homosexual. I came out to my family last year which was a relief and made me realise how important my family are. I still find it hard to reveal it to some friends i suppose, as i don't want to make it a big issue. Apart from that i don't consider myself repressed. A part of demonstrating freedom is choosing not to be pressured or tempted by acts or substances we don't really want to do or may later regret. I still have a laugh, go clubbing sometimes and enjoy myself. Isn't repect for yourself and others important? Dignity? Just because i don't participate in an activity that is trendy and risky doesn't mean i am repressed, quite the opposite. I am guided, to a large extent, by God and through him have realised that even if we are living in a hedonistic society (to some degree) it doesn't mean i, or anybody else has to conform. It doesn't develop a person's qualities, nor does it lead to long-term happiness. I am free to accept this way of life just as you are not to.

Do you really think Moses and Jesus had those visions all by themselves, and what about that couple taking dietary advice from a snake, sounds very trippy to me.....

Do you really think Moses and Jesus had those visions all by themselves, and what about that couple taking dietary advice from a snake, sounds very trippy to me.....

??? The couple taking dietry advice from a snake? I think you are referring to adam and eve, who were supposedly tempted to eat a forbidden fruit by a snake, going against what God had told them. This was in the old testament. As a Catholic, i mainly study and follow the new testament. However, i believe this was a representation of the dangers of temptation. It showed the weaknesses present in humans. I don't want to get into a arguement about religion but you seem quite derogatory about my faith. It is a part of me and quite a few of atheists, or non-believers revert to criticising religion because they have never really experienced it, or fail to understand the enormous good it does for the world. Don't feel threatened, i never push my beliefs on others. I only explain if they are interested and show how much of a positive impact it has on me and how the church community is an important part of society.
We obviously disagree starkly on this issue so i guess there is no use in explaining our points further. :)

If we live in world where we have to be so careful about 'offending' others that we stop ridiculing the ridiculous or questioning the questionable, then we cease to be human.

If we live in world where we have to be so careful about 'offending' others that we stop ridiculing the ridiculous or questioning the questionable, then we cease to be human.
I never said that. I don't take offence easily, but there are certain issues that people ridicule that are not funny and are just hurtful. Understanding the situation determines the appropriate manner to behave. We all have a laugh with our mates etc but we need to take other people's feeling into account. I mean it is quite obvious if somebody has gone too far isn't it? :pet:

and I don't think putting a different interpretation on stories that claim divinity but have been written, rewritten, translated, translated again, and re-written.

But this is about drugs and if you didn't believe in the story of how moses got the 10 commandments then a plausible explanation is he consumed psycho-tropic drugs.

Thats neither offensive, heretical or blasphemous

I never said that. I don't take offence easily, but there are certain issues that people ridicule that are not funny and are just hurtful. Understanding the situation determines the appropriate manner to behave. We all have a laugh with our mates etc but we need to take other people's feeling into account. I mean it is quite obvious if somebody has gone too far isn't it? :pet:

easysurfer, you big liar, I've read loads of your posts where you get offended and tell people not to speak to you again.

easysurfer, you big liar, I've read loads of your posts where you get offended and tell people not to speak to you again.
Lol, there may have been 1 or 2 incidences at most where that has happened. I'm a very placid person generally zim, and have quite a high tolerance of 'idiots'. You should know, we disagree but i've never been abusive to you, have I?

Lol, there may have been 1 or 2 incidences at most where that has happened. I'm a very placid person generally zim, and have quite a high tolerance of 'idiots'. You should know, we disagree but i've never been abusive to you, have I?

once or twice, but nothing major.

I think it's good to have a good fall out from time to time as long as no one takes it personally. :)

Let's talk drugs dammit. I've never even seen most drugs, apart from weed when I was 'young'. Or let's talk booze. IDS is a self-confessed binge drinker, or is memory failing me now? Must be the wine :D
I don't think Blair would be any fun but I think I could share a pint or two with Prescott or Boris Johnson.

Let's talk drugs dammit. I've never even seen most drugs, apart from weed when I was 'young'. Or let's talk booze. IDS is a self-confessed binge drinker, or is memory failing me now? Must be the wine :D
I don't think Blair would be any fun but I think I could share a pint or two with Prescott or Boris Johnson.

that was william hague, who boasted of drinking 14 pints in one sitting, and then would formulate tory policy after.