On 18/09/2013 4:55 PM, Lauchlin Wilkinson wrote:
On 18 September 2013 14:20, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au <mailto:andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au>> wrote:
My view on drugs is that there should be a prohibition, but only to lessen the mantra that already exists about /recreational/ drugs and their acceptance. IMHO, no drugs like that should be acceptable, at all. Although ending prohibition /may/ improve safety for those that *must* use ... hoping that it won't lead to more users as a consequence though.
Cheers A. Did you mean "...there should *not* be a prohibition...", as the rest of the paragraph reads like that is what you meant to write? I'm interested to hear why you think no recreational drugs should be acceptable at all.
As soon as you say it is okay, I think you increase the problem; it's legal, so it can't be that bad.... Recreational drugs .... well, perhaps that is too broad, some /may/ or may not be better than others; the narcotic kind, well I don't agree there is a need for them at all ... under the guise of /recreational/ particularly. Of those whom have been through drug issues of their own, many will admit that drugs did more damage to their lives than too many current users will ever admit. The first part to handling a drug problem [for users themselves] is admitting that a problem even exists; some drug users will agree [to having a problem], but most users will justify the use instead (my life sucks for instance) and others will believe that it isn't a problem at all, period [deniable or not]. Cheers A.