Drugs and the musician

[thisnameistaken]

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1356714439' post='1912876']Me too, entirely - it's the effects, often fatal, on innocent strangers that are the truly unjust parts of it. Many laws are there for that reason.[/quote]

I agree. How many people last year were killed by sober drivers? We should ban driving, it ruins lives.

How many people were killed last year by drivers who were high on magic mushrooms? If it's none then let's go ahead and legalise them.

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1356714513' post='1912877']
It just amazes me that at a time when we should be tightening alcohol laws, some people are advocating loosening drug laws.
[/quote]

Why should we be restricting alcohol? The vast majority of people manage to enjoy alcohol without causing any problems.

[quote name='SteveK' timestamp='1356714932' post='1912887']
I'll wager I'm a more law abiding citizen than all of you put together ... paragon of virtue, me!.. prove me wrong
[/quote]

I'm a pretty decent person I think. I help my neighbours, I donate blood regularly, until recently I used to volunteer for a local childrens charity. I wouldn't describe myself as 'law-abiding' though, I'm not a total mug... I also don't believe in god, which confused the staunchly Catholic Italian man I found who'd fallen down drunk outside my door so I carried him home. How could I have any morals if I didn't believe in god? He urged me to start going to church - I just thought it was funny.

Edited December 28, 2012 by thisnameistaken

[JellyKnees]

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1356714265' post='1912872']
IF you're now asking instead, why it should be illegal to smoke dope then that's a whole different question.
[/quote]

Well of course that was what I was asking...sheesh. I realise now that I must have confused you by using the phrase 'criminalised' rather than 'illegal. Perhaps you have been drinking.

Edited December 28, 2012 by JellyKnees

[TimR]

[quote name='thisnameistaken' timestamp='1356715050' post='1912889']


...

Why should we be restricting alcohol? The vast majority of people manage to enjoy alcohol without causing any problems.

...
[/quote]

Tightening doesn't neccesarily mean restricting.

We have alcohol laws that haven't been (but are beginning to be) enforced strongly. How are we going to ensure that the drugs laws would be?

[Dr.Dave]

I'm 51. That means I had no - none whatsoever - anti drug education. Had I become a junkie there would have been no rehab and no sympathy for me. Maybe it would have been understandable if I had - after all many musicians I had heard of were known drug users. It could have seemed quite the thing to do had I viewed it that way.

These days - education re. drug abuse is there from junior school and upwards. Help is as hand for anyone who wants it. How much sympathy am I expected to have for someone who still - with all that support going for them - steals from me to fund a habit and then is let off with half a sentence BECAUSE of the drug abuse.

I went on an updated drugs awareness course not long ago where the first thing out of the instructors mouth was 'how can we make drug abuse safer for the abuser'. 3 people stood up and left - including 2 prison officers.

Am I an old fart with a daily mail attitude - maybe sometimes. Have I ever smoked a joint. Yes. Have I ever let it get out of control and affect my life - to include my playing - No. Has anyone ever suffered as a result of the few joints I've smoked - No.

To my mind - using drugs as a performance enhancer or inspiratiion for art is just bollocks. In an altered mind state how can you put your true self into your art. I have to say it's an interesting debate .

I expect , though , that that debate will have less effect on me and my views than the next time - which will be the third time - when I have to ring in the dead , soiled drug user I find in the stairwells of my workplace.

[TimR]

If you legalised drugs in the UK. We would have all the associated problems that drugs tourism brings.

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='SteveK' timestamp='1356714932' post='1912887']
Problem with [i]Holier than thou[/i] posters on a forum is that nobody [i]actually knows[/i] the poster. So when someone says that they have never 'intentionally' broken the speed limit (how does that work?), or have never been drunk and disorderly, smoked a [i]rock 'n' roll riff[/i] , parked on yellow lines, engaged in fisticuffs, how are we to know if that is actually the case? In a normal face to face discussion the [i]holier than thou [/i]participant's wife/partner/friend will often seize the opportunity to say, "Yeah, but what about that time when you..." ensuring the aforementioned [i]holier than thou[/i] participant received a good egg facing.
I'll wager I'm a more law abiding citizen than all of you put together ... paragon of virtue, me!.. prove me wrong
[/quote]

I know - can't stand the type - get on my nerves - only thing worse is a stoner boring you shitless after a gig when you can't escape from them. In those cases, like all others you just have to take their word for it, problem is that on a public forum where few folk can actually personally know each other you don't really get the chance to find out for gospel. edit: nor really does anyone have the right to ask, you have to wait until it's volunteered - if it ever is.
In your first, for eg, it [i]may[/i] be that they guy was driving along at the limit with a bloody big line of cars behind him. Even if he wanted to go faster he couldn't because of a fat bloke wobbling about on a push-bike in front of him, so when the driver does get the chance to stab the gas just to get round the bike he looks up just in time to see a speed camera in the back of a van, bugger! Still I heard you can do a speed awareness course for about £70 for that kind of scenario where they'll happiliy tell you that what you should have done is stay where you were no matter how many miles the cyclist went on for.
Could also be that the same guy does have a record for one occasion of ABH, which was previously discussed on this forum years ago - for all we know.

Edited December 28, 2012 by Big_Stu

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='thisnameistaken' timestamp='1356715050' post='1912889']
I agree. How many people last year were killed by sober drivers? We should ban driving, it ruins lives.

How many people were killed last year by drivers who were high on magic mushrooms? If it's none then let's go ahead and legalise them.[/quote]

Yeah, but they're crafty that way. If you did that the economy would collapse (yeah yeah I had noticed), so what they do instead is make it illegal to drive while under the influence of alcohol or drugs - not even illegal drugs. Gets you all ways, but I'm told it's not as bad as being the parent or child of a victim who'se just had their life torn apart from someone being selfish or inconsiderate in their actions

[quote name='JellyKnees' timestamp='1356715069' post='1912890']
Well of course that was what I was asking...sheesh. I realise now that I must have confused you by using the phrase 'criminalised' rather than 'illegal. Perhaps you have been drinking.[/quote]

No, no yet today. Wrong time of year and all that. But I do have my own policy of "not a drop" if I am driving, always have since the day I passed my test.

Edited December 28, 2012 by Big_Stu

[thisnameistaken]

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1356715527' post='1912897']
Tightening doesn't neccesarily mean restricting.[/quote]

You would struggle to find a thesaurus that doesn't list them as synonyms, but whatever...

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1356715527' post='1912897']We have alcohol laws that haven't been (but are beginning to be) enforced strongly. How are we going to ensure that the drugs laws would be?[/quote]

Policing is an entirely unrelated argument. I think when laws are made it's expected that they will be enforced. Except perhaps the fox hunting ban.

[quote name='Dr.Dave' timestamp='1356715634' post='1912898']I expect , though , that that debate will have less effect on me and my views than the next time - which will be the third time - when I have to ring in the dead , soiled drug user I find in the stairwells of my workplace.[/quote]

You're finding dead drug users all over the place and you don't think it's worth reconsidering our attitudes to drug addicts? Are you saying that you think they deserve to die because they took drugs despite government campaigns to educate them about the risks?

Off on a tangent a bit: I do wish the government would stop publishing lies about what prohibited drugs do to people. I think a lot of people experiment with drugs because they know what the government is telling them is a lot of bollocks. If they simply presented people with the truth I think people would be a lot safer.

[thisnameistaken]

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1356716072' post='1912907']No, no yet today. Wrong time of year and all that. But I do have my own policy of "not a drop" if I am driving, always have since the day I passed my test.[/quote]

I don't drive if I've had a single pint either. Nor have I ever driven under the influence of the vast amounts of prohibited drugs I used to take. Just because someone likes to get shitfaced it doesn't mean they are inconsiderate towards others.

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='thisnameistaken' timestamp='1356716427' post='1912910']I don't drive if I've had a single pint either.[/quote]
No? Well, who ever just has a single pint? What do you wait for, after the fourth? fifth?

[quote name='thisnameistaken' timestamp='1356716427' post='1912910']Nor have I ever driven under the influence of the vast amounts of prohibited drugs I used to take. Just because someone likes to get shitfaced it doesn't mean they are inconsiderate towards others.[/quote]

Very commendable; problem is - as already stated is that national laws have to be blanket coverage. The laws can't account for those who aren't stupid about it, they're aimed at those who are.
Maybe you could propose a local by-law for those parts of your city where you & your mates live, that smoking cannabis is OK because you won't drive after doing so.

[TimR]

[quote name='thisnameistaken' timestamp='1356716223' post='1912908']


...

Policing is an entirely unrelated argument. I think when laws are made it's expected that they will be enforced. Except perhaps the fox hunting ban.



...
[/quote]

No. Laws are only passed IF they are enforceable. Hence only drinking in public is affected. You can drink at any age at home.

In fact you could probably grow and consume your own cannabis with impunity at home so long as the police had no reason to enter your premises.

People creating a public nuisance and taking up police and ambulance resources is the main concern.

[thisnameistaken]

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1356718196' post='1912926']
People creating a public nuisance and taking up police and ambulance resources is the main concern.
[/quote]

Irresponsible drunk people are already a public nuisance and take up police and ambulance resources. Telling them they can smoke weed instead isn't going to make them a bigger nuisance.

[SteveK]

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1356715672' post='1912900']
I know - can't stand the type - get on my nerves - only thing worse is a stoner boring you shitless after a gig when you can't escape from them. In those cases, like all others you just have to take their word for it, problem is that on a public forum where few folk can actually personally know each other you don't really get the chance to find out for gospel. edit: nor really does anyone have the right to ask, you have to wait until it's volunteered - if it ever is.
In your first, for eg, it [i]may[/i] be that they guy was driving along at the limit with a bloody big line of cars behind him. Even if he wanted to go faster he couldn't because of a fat bloke wobbling about on a push-bike in front of him, [b]so when the driver does get the chance tostab the gas[/b] just to get round the bike he looks up just in time to see a speed camera in the back of a van, bugger! Still I heard you can do a speed awareness course for about £70 for that kind of scenario where they'll happiliy tell you that what you should have done is stay where you were no matter how many miles the cyclist went on for.
Could also be that the same guy does have a record for one occasion of ABH, which was previously discussed on this forum years ago - for all we know.
[/quote]Aaaahh, that intentional 'stab of the gas' that was [b]un[/b]intentional... (or should that be the other way round ?)
In any case, any experienced driver will know the correct procedure in this scenario; The first course of action would be to repeatedly rev the car, while accelerating to within 6 inches of the cyclists rear mud guards. If this fails, then wind down the window and shout profanities while repeatedly blasting the horn. This will undoubtedly have the desired effect ie. cyclist wobbles about a bit then falls off, enabling the motorist to safely manoeuvre around unmounted cyclist, and all the time keeping well within local speed limits.

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='SteveK' timestamp='1356725913' post='1913028']....... wind down the window and shout profanities while repeatedly blasting the horn. This will undoubtedly have the desired effect ie. cyclist wobbles about a bit then falls off, enabling the motorist to safely manoeuvre around unmounted cyclist, and all the time keeping well within local speed limits. [/quote]

why is it two hours since this was written and yet still no reply from a BC cyclist saying, "if any driver tried that with me.........." (cont. P94)??

[TimR]

It wasn't an entirely serious post. Was it?

I'd given up as everytime I'd given a good reason it was entirely ignored and I was asked for another one. Maybe it's true that drugs mess with your brain.

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1356734637' post='1913151']
It wasn't an entirely serious post. Was it?

I'd given up as everytime I'd given a good reason it was entirely ignored and I was asked for another one. Maybe it's true that drugs mess with your brain.
[/quote]

Page 5 is usually a good place for any thread to finish; after that is just repetition usually - or completely off at a tangent from the OP but that bit's already been done.

[thisnameistaken]

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1356734637' post='1913151']
I'd given up as everytime I'd given a good reason it was entirely ignored and I was asked for another one. Maybe it's true that drugs mess with your brain.
[/quote]

If you're happy that you've stated your case then that's fine - I'm happy to concede that you're happy with your beliefs and there's no real point in arguing.

My position is that the law as a concept should be a formalisation of how a group of people agree that they ought to behave, and current anti-drug legislation is out of step with how the majority feel about drug use. Additionally the enforcement of these laws has only had a negative effect on drug users - not a positive effect on non-users. And that changing access to these substances would benefit everybody in society and put a huge gaping hole in the finances of organised crime.

I am not saying 'Let me smoke weed in the street'. I don't smoke weed. Nor am I saying 'Let me drive my car all wasted' - there are enough drunks who do that already. To be honest I rarely even get drunk these days.

[TimR]

Ok. But Stu is right, the argument just goes round in circles.

Yet again the word majority has been used incorrectly with no hard evidence.

Changing access would definitely have an impact on drug use. Whether that would be positive is a huge gamble.

In my view easier acces to drugs would just mean it was easier for people to get addicted.