4 ms·

It's a f*ing addictive making drug. You don't have experience with that it seems and thinking it's romantic or something? The addicts suffer a lot, they can't w

It's a f*ing addictive making drug. You don't have experience with that it seems and thinking it's romantic or something? The addicts suffer a lot, they can't work high but can't be not be high. And that kills. First it kills your social life. Then it kills you. If it's not the cancer it might cause, then it's not necessary the overdoses of other drugs which you take instead. All addictive making stuff should be banned. https://monographs.iarc.who.int/news-events/volume-126-opium-consumption-2/ https://monographs.iarc.who.int/news-events/volume-126-opium... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9159125/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9159125/ Just YouTube a little bit around and take a look at your "that's not true". Look how addicts living a wonderful life. Picture you living sich a wonderful life :) Drugs are bad. Whatever makes you addicted, should be banned and highly regulated. Not the opposite. When you take weed as example - that's not a problem because it doesn't make your body addicted to (but your brain, which is really not that big problem). I'm consuming that since 25y (in average daily) and comparable lot with 5-10J per day. If I'm about to be empty, I start to get nervous because I don't want not to smoke. But if I decide to stop it, I have 2 weeks where I'm really not a good guy. But that's all. It's more the nicotine. If I can't smoke, I search for a solution so I can. If you smoke opium, try to do that:) if you take fentanyl, try to do it. So you basically have no experience and talking about "it should be allowed because it's just obstipation and a little addiction" in my eyes.. to naive look. The same I see with the young people who are against prohibition by the state but for self decisions.. LOL. they're the first one getting hooked on it.

worik 3y ago
> s a f*ing addictive making drug. You don't have experience with that it seems and thinking it's romantic or something? The addicts suffer a lot, they can't work high but can't be not be high. Steady on, no need to swear I have extensive experience of addiction Opiate addicts cab easily be useful productive members of society It is how herion addiction was treated in England until the 1970s when the Americans threatened them into stopping People who are at rock bottom are often drug addicts to, but in most cases it is not the drugs that get them there, and it is the police, law, and stigma that keep them there
- theGeatZhopa 3y ago
  Ok I'm sorry. You're right, no need to swear. I'm with you in the means drug addicts can also be a driving force.. not necessary they are completely useless. And yes, it's stigmatizing and it's done by the laws. But I think it's better not to let the addiction even start, what would inadvertently happen if the handling of such substances is not regulated (not necessary completely unregulated in the means letting it up to the people to decide whether they want to try it or not) Because it's the beginning, and the possibilities are very high that people start to like it and can't handle such freedom. The same discussion is right about in Germany. From the 1st of April, weed ist partially legalized. So we have had people who did consume before (like me) and who now start to try it and - in between this both groups - people who did not consume frequently, but start to consume at higher levels (not like me, daily, but more often then once, twice a month..). In Portugal (fully) and Spain (some kind of fully legalized) weed has been legalized since a long enough time for them to get the counts. O don't have sources by hand, but they tell statistically, around 30 percent more consumption and around 30 percent more of psychological problems emerged since legalization. I don't care the numbers, except there was a rise since deregulation. I believe it's more than 30 percent. With me personally nothing changed really. So I think this 30 percent are from people consuming irregularly (now regularly) and new starters. The old consumers won't change their behavior much, because it was already at high levels before. So I'm thinking, if stronger things are not regulated anymore, then we will have a lot of addicts .. and with a stuff, that makes you strong addicted to, it's not fun anymore. So that's why I'm arguing against it. I don't believe some education will stop people from doing it. Nowadays we have like a really strong education on this topic. Each one knows what drugs do - bit still people try it. And they switch to even harder drugs if they can't get theirs... Just look at the alcoholics. Of they don't have booze, they drink others like perfume (in the end, it's just alc).. or they try crocodile (the Russian horror drug) for example. So we don't know how the people will behave and I'm thinking mostly negative about that, as you already got it punched in the face by me. Sorry for that mate.

worik 3y ago

> s a f*ing addictive making drug. You don't have experience with that it seems and thinking it's romantic or something? The addicts suffer a lot, they can't work high but can't be not be high. Steady on, no need to swear I have extensive experience of addiction Opiate addicts cab easily be useful productive members of society It is how herion addiction was treated in England until the 1970s when the Americans threatened them into stopping People who are at rock bottom are often drug addicts to, but in most cases it is not the drugs that get them there, and it is the police, law, and stigma that keep them there

theGeatZhopa 3y ago
Ok I'm sorry. You're right, no need to swear. I'm with you in the means drug addicts can also be a driving force.. not necessary they are completely useless. And yes, it's stigmatizing and it's done by the laws. But I think it's better not to let the addiction even start, what would inadvertently happen if the handling of such substances is not regulated (not necessary completely unregulated in the means letting it up to the people to decide whether they want to try it or not) Because it's the beginning, and the possibilities are very high that people start to like it and can't handle such freedom. The same discussion is right about in Germany. From the 1st of April, weed ist partially legalized. So we have had people who did consume before (like me) and who now start to try it and - in between this both groups - people who did not consume frequently, but start to consume at higher levels (not like me, daily, but more often then once, twice a month..). In Portugal (fully) and Spain (some kind of fully legalized) weed has been legalized since a long enough time for them to get the counts. O don't have sources by hand, but they tell statistically, around 30 percent more consumption and around 30 percent more of psychological problems emerged since legalization. I don't care the numbers, except there was a rise since deregulation. I believe it's more than 30 percent. With me personally nothing changed really. So I think this 30 percent are from people consuming irregularly (now regularly) and new starters. The old consumers won't change their behavior much, because it was already at high levels before. So I'm thinking, if stronger things are not regulated anymore, then we will have a lot of addicts .. and with a stuff, that makes you strong addicted to, it's not fun anymore. So that's why I'm arguing against it. I don't believe some education will stop people from doing it. Nowadays we have like a really strong education on this topic. Each one knows what drugs do - bit still people try it. And they switch to even harder drugs if they can't get theirs... Just look at the alcoholics. Of they don't have booze, they drink others like perfume (in the end, it's just alc).. or they try crocodile (the Russian horror drug) for example. So we don't know how the people will behave and I'm thinking mostly negative about that, as you already got it punched in the face by me. Sorry for that mate.