I've never tried it, don't drink any alcohol, but have no problems with other people doing so.
What's your take on legalization?
Never tried it, but certainly trying to keep it up as a topic. This is your second thread about it (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=97.0).
I have tried a Central Asian variety that was called anasha by the dealers. It was non-different from tobacco. It didn't look like tobacco, but it felt like it. I have also tried dry tree-leaves, dry juniper needles, and dry ordinary lawn in pipe. They all are like tobacco.
I think tobacco laws should apply to those things.
Incidentally, I since discovered the origin of the gateway drug nonsense:
The primary basis for this "gateway hypothesis" is a recent report by the center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA), claiming that marijuana users are 85 times more likely than non-marijuana users to try cocaine. This figure, using data from NIDA's 1991 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, is close to being meaningless. It was calculated by dividing the proportion of marijuana users who have ever used cocaine (17%) by the proportion of cocaine users who have never used marijuana (.2%). The high risk-factor obtained is a product not of the fact that so many marijuana users use cocaine but that so many cocaine users used marijuana previously.
I think tobacco laws should apply to those things.
I suppose you mean that tobacco is more or less treated as a softdrug all over the world, but unlike marijuana it's a harddrug. Dutch drug policy remains the only one in the world that vaguely approximates any kind of rational approach. Its lack thereof is mostly caused by pressures from neighboring countries, including Belgium.
Never tried it, but certainly trying to keep it up as a topic. This is your second thread about it (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=97.0).
I forgot that one. My memory is terrible. Ten minutes after eating, I'm likely to wonder if I ate at all.
That's an exaggeration, but not much of one.
I think tobacco laws should apply to those things.
I suppose you mean that tobacco is more or less treated as a softdrug all over the world, but unlike marijuana it's a harddrug. Dutch drug policy remains the only one in the world that vaguely approximates any kind of rational approach. Its lack thereof is mostly caused by pressures from neighboring countries, including Belgium.
I don't know what softdrug and harddrug are. I mean that they are not medical drugs, they are all narcotics. The distinction I would make is culturally-historically-kind-of-acceptable-for-adults because it doesn't kill - even the harmful effects are arguable when the substance is used in moderation - and, on the other hand, outright poison, such as the thing called spice, sniffing gasoline, and derivatives like heroine.
A ban on alcohol would radically impoverish popular culture. A harsh ban on other drugs would force all the traffic underground, it would corrupt policemen, and it would drive up the abuse of alcohol among the overall population. To me it looks like there has to be one or some legal drugs besides alcohol, to prevent worse evils.
But it's highly debatable to what extent they should be legal. For example in Europe we can still select among vodkas and rhums on open shelves, but we don't get to see cigarettes in shops any more. To ask for it, you have to know your preference. This arrangement would be meaningless when choosing wines, for example. I think the best option, to treat all "legal narcotics" alike would be to have special shops for them, just like we have apothekes.* Right now we have alcohol and tobacco both in ordinary grocery stores and specialized shops. They should be restricted to specialized shops only, or at least to separated sections with a separate salesperson.
* Yeah, I know it's not a proper word in English. So sue me. "Drug store" is absolutely preposterous.
I don't know what softdrug and harddrug are. I mean that they are not medical drugs, they are all narcotics. The distinction I would make is culturally-historically-kind-of-acceptable-for-adults because it doesn't kill - even the harmful effects are arguable when the substance is used in moderation - and, on the other hand, outright poison, such as the thing called spice, sniffing gasoline, and derivatives like heroine.
In its simplest definition, softdrugs aren't physically addictive while harddrugs are. That's not entirely a binary proposition, but you should further refine the definition by including long-term (physical) damage. For example, caffeine is mildly physically addictive, but given its lack of negative consequences it would be silly to classify it as a hard drug. If someone used as much marijuana as some people drink coffee it'd severely affect their ability to function in society, so depending on usage patterns marijuana would take on aspects of a hard drug.
Perhaps it's more sensible to speak of hard and soft use. In that sense all softdrugs are fine if used irregularly and most harddrugs are too, again if used irregularly. The obvious example would be an irregular glass or two of alcohol. On the other hand, softdrugs are inherently less dangerous and damaging, even if abused.
In short, treating every drug as if it were heroin is deeply irrational and deeply counter-effective. The softdrug and harddrug terminology is one way to move toward a classification system based on actual medical science instead of a bunch of scaremongering nonsense.
A ban on alcohol would radically impoverish popular culture. A harsh ban on other drugs would force all the traffic underground, it would corrupt policemen, and it would drive up the abuse of alcohol among the overall population. To me it looks like there has to be one or some legal drugs besides alcohol, to prevent worse evils.
Ergo, softdrugs. Alcohol and tobacco then are pretty much the only readily available harddrugs.
I think the best option, to treat all "legal narcotics" alike would be to have special shops for them, just like we have apothekes.*
* Yeah, I know it's not a proper word in English. So sue me. "Drug store" is absolutely preposterous.
Apothecary is a perfectly valid English word, although it would now be called a pharmacist. I don't know what's preposterous about a drugstore. The word "drug" in that context simply means as much as "chemical". You go by the drug store to buy cleaning supplies such as rubbing alcohol. What's preposterous is the
lack of drug stores in Belgium. Instead you have
pharmacies incompletely fulfilling the same role for exorbitant prices, leaving you baffled as to where to get certain supplies at all.
The difference between a Dutch
drogisterij (drugstore) and an American drugstore is that American drugstores typically have a pharmaceutical counter inside. In the Netherlands an
apotheker (pharmacy) is usually a separate establishment.
For example, caffeine is mildly physically addictive, but given its lack of negative consequences it would be silly to classify it as a hard drug.
I saw this one this morning...
COLUMBUS, Ohio — A few weeks before their prom king’s death, students at an Ohio high school had attended an assembly on narcotics that warned about the dangers of heroin and prescription painkillers.
But it was one of the world’s most widely accepted drugs that killed Logan Stiner — a powdered form of caffeine so potent that as little as a single teaspoon can be fatal.
http://nypost.com/2014/07/19/powdered-caffeine-scrutinized-after-prom-king-dies/ (http://nypost.com/2014/07/19/powdered-caffeine-scrutinized-after-prom-king-dies/)
Ah, interesting point. Going from coffee to concentrated caffeine is a bit like going from coca leaves to cocaine, I suppose. I didn't even know you could just buy that.
Forbidden things are better when... forbidden.
I'm against legal things.
So far as I know, this site is legal. Bye-bye!
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
When I mentioned the caffeine to my wife, she said we should watch this episode of Saved by the Bell.
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbPbMhlqVcA[/video]
I don't know what's preposterous about a drugstore. The word "drug" in that context simply means as much as "chemical".
What's preposterous is that both narcotics and medication are called drugs and nobody thinks there's a problem.
The use of a term like narcotic is no less problematic. You seem to be using it as a synonym for recreational drugs, which is something I can't get behind. Neither is the American definition of a narcotic as a more illegal recreational drug. It doesn't say anything about the drug an sich, only about its legal status or about the way it's most frequently used. Or if you are using the term "properly", you're overlooking stimulants like XTC. Either way, words like softdrugs and harddrugs cover significantly more theoretical ground.
Besides, among the languages I speak such hypothetical ambiguities exist only in English and French. If there is a correlation to the French-American practice of prescribing way too much medicine, I'd say it's a symptom, not a cause.
Not so odd at all.
drug
drəɡ/
noun
1.
a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body.
"a new drug aimed at sufferers from Parkinson's disease"
Never tried it, but certainly trying to keep it up as a topic. This is your second thread about it (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=97.0).
My memory is terrible.
Due, no doubt, to the drug abuse that you have forgotten.
@Frenzie
Softdrug and harddrug probably convey the distinction I want to make close enough. However, there are still three things distinguished, not two.
1. Softdrugs (culturally ingrained and not directly lethal, even though addictive)
2. Harddrugs (sometimes lethal on the first try, and poisonous in any case, should be illegal under any circumstances)
3. Medication
In English they are all called drugs, and this gives a hint that behind the messy policy we see in America there probably lurks a conceptual problem - they are literally not understanding the distinctions they need to make in order to comprehend the problem and tackle it.
Not so odd at all.
drug
drəɡ/
noun
1.
a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body.
"a new drug aimed at sufferers from Parkinson's disease"
Exactly what I am talking about. Incidentally, each and every substance ingested has a physiological effect. It's beyond me how anyone can think this passes as a definition.
Softdrug and harddrug probably convey the distinction I want to make close enough. However, there are still three things distinguished, not two.
1. Softdrugs (culturally ingrained and not directly lethal, even though addictive)
2. Harddrugs (sometimes lethal on the first try, and poisonous in any case, should be illegal under any circumstances)
3. Medication
The terms refer exclusively to recreational drug use, although it certainly includes some relevant concerns when making a choice between e.g. marijuana and opioids for medicinal purposes. I apologize for not making that clearer.
Exactly what I am talking about. Incidentally, each and every substance ingested has a physiological effect. It's beyond me how anyone can think this passes as a definition.
I think the principle of charity requires that you interpret the definition as a physiological effect beyond what can be expected from simply digesting food. Although I suppose that includes spoiled food. ;)
So far as I know, this site is legal. Bye-bye!
That's the problem... :)
Were the site illegal and everybody would be happier except Frenzie always running from the police...
Even so, one can always die from DnD overdose... this stuff is dangerous..
So far as I know, this site is legal. Bye-bye!
That's the problem... :)
Were the site illegal and everybody would be happier except Frenzie always running from the police...
Even so, one can always die from DnD overdose... this stuff is dangerous..
I'm starting to feel sick.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sherv.net%2Fcm%2Femoticons%2Fsick%2Fill.gif&hash=9a73331b0d0725c235b15141bdf2fed3" rel="cached" data-hash="9a73331b0d0725c235b15141bdf2fed3" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/sick/ill.gif)
No I do not agree with it's use nor be legalised as there will still be people making a disgusting profit out of the weakness of others.
On the topic of concentrated compounds that are basically fine until you start concentrating them in powdered form: sugar (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/23/opinion/sugar-season-its-everywhere-and-addictive.html).
Due to health issues I have sweetners for my tea and coffee! :D
No I do not agree with it's use nor be legalised as there will still be people making a disgusting profit out of the weakness of others.
Legalization will open wide-scale production, lowering costs and all of the absurdities associated with illegal production and sale.
I say yes it should be.
Considering how worthless my state gov't is (cannot even adequately fund it's damn public schooling system), the tax revenue to be garnered from it would be tremendously helpful.
Due to health issues I have sweetners for my tea and coffee! :D
I don't drink tea, but coffee is meant to be drunk strong and black.
My wife drinks tea with thyme in it. :o
==========================================================
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/30/opinion/are-we-really-eating-too-much-sugar.html?mabReward=RI%3A6&action=click&contentCollection=Middle%20East®ion=Footer&module=Recommendation&src=recg&pgtype=article (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/30/opinion/are-we-really-eating-too-much-sugar.html?mabReward=RI%3A6&action=click&contentCollection=Middle%20East®ion=Footer&module=Recommendation&src=recg&pgtype=article)
A doctor once told me that too much coffee is not good for you so explains a lot about the ex-colonies but don't you succumb to the head shrinkers. As for strong and black - yeuch. I go country walking to show how manly I am.....
A doctor once told me that too much coffee is not good for you so explains a lot about the ex-colonies but don't you succumb to the head shrinkers. As for strong and black - yeuch. I go country walking to show how manly I am.....
The imagination strains mightily but fails.
Considering how worthless my state gov't is (cannot even adequately fund it's damn public schooling system), the tax revenue to be garnered from it would be tremendously helpful.
Good luck with that. In your part of country, it's hard enough to get come counties to legalize selling beer :p
Thanks for your usual bout of negative ignorance posing as balanced tt92 but in your favour it is consistent.
Thanks for your usual bout of negative ignorance posing as balanced tt92 but in your favour it is consistent.
The old English teacher in me cringes!
Don't know why it is direct and to the point. Perfectly understandable and a nice wee dance.
Perhaps from a Glaswegian perspective, but for the rest of the English speaking world... :no:
I'm against "legalizations".
"Legalizations" are for sissies.
Use whatever you want to use, I'm for Liberty, not for "legalizations".
The much time passes, the much people become controlled puppets.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fs3-media2.fl.yelpcdn.com%2Fbphoto%2F4ZuxMIaypVRFx2TGupx9rg%2Fl.jpg&hash=4876c4ee478fb41260291fd604a70302" rel="cached" data-hash="4876c4ee478fb41260291fd604a70302" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://s3-media2.fl.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/4ZuxMIaypVRFx2TGupx9rg/l.jpg)
You're an old man, so you should recognize this puppet.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fs3-media2.fl.yelpcdn.com%2Fbphoto%2F4ZuxMIaypVRFx2TGupx9rg%2Fl.jpg&hash=4876c4ee478fb41260291fd604a70302" rel="cached" data-hash="4876c4ee478fb41260291fd604a70302" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://s3-media2.fl.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/4ZuxMIaypVRFx2TGupx9rg/l.jpg)
You're an old man, so you should recognize this puppet.
Nobody here is an old man, except rjhowie, but I recognize that puppet as something of American culture.
American these days - I only pay attention to Playboy starlets.
Shall we jump from suburban pot to Lucy in Sky with Diamonds? beat generation, all that? :)
Maybe even better, opium.
Baudelaire: "Unable to suppress love, the Church wanted at least to disinfect it, and it created marriage."
Not bad, he? opium gives you body and mind wings to fly... :)
…I would only add: Legalization makes perfect sense. We desperately need more people being stupid!
But the economic (taxes, anti-crime — anti-criminalization…) argument is persuasive: Government coffers must -after all- be filled. And governments seem, unerringly, to choose the worst of the options available to them. (How is it, that We The People don't see and respond to this?)
I'm a "child" of the 60s, but I never liked the smell of that noxious weed's smoke. (And I didn't like its effects, when I'd inhaled it…) Were it made available and as legal as tobacco or booze tomorrow, I'd not likely try it again.
But -as a long-time abuser of alcohol, myself- I have to say that I'm not opposed to legalization: Stupid people will always find ways of being more stupid. It''s what they do.
Does anyone imagine that China has, no longer, an opium "problem"…?
Life is -sometimes- hard. Ease is -sometimes- easily had.
Everyone who's offered something more has failed to deliver…
We know that the stupid will always be with us like the poor and what have you but I don't have any intention of encouraging such. Not being a smoker and happy kissing women in moderation I will remain pious.....
We know that the stupid will always be with us like the poor and what have you but I don't have any intention of encouraging such. Not being a smoker and happy kissing women in moderation I will remain pious.....
Moderation would be once in a decade? Being a gentleman :lol:, I'll not ask you when the last time was. :jester:
Huh. Not being a dumbell depending on illegal drugs to give strength and masculinity as well as kissing in moderation that IS being a gentleman. I remain in a class of my own and noted by organisations I am in creating awe and such, Dear, oh dear my weaknses is not coping with envy from the hi-polloi. Raise thyself jimbro. :blush: 8)
Anyone who kisses women in moderation knows nothing about kissing and little about women.
Thanks for being shy of admitting your failure in a roundabout fashion but don't worry once you are a big boy things should hopefully change. I am selective though as I only kiss women.
You only kiss them? Nothing else? I thought as much.
I contend with a whole list of women who are in awe and fascinated so don't you show your jealousy by being youthfully wishing. Once you are a wee bitty older you wi llearn with awe what else there is. Be patient.
A wee tug on their hair might get the ball rolling for ya, pops. :flirt:
Easy on the older contingent, sir!
Rj is a younger poster.
Aw shucks jimbro. And here is me a quiet and unamasuming chap.
Anyway ensbb3 I don't need to pull their hair i just need to be in their presence and they get excited. I can even admit that a mother informed me her two daughters used to argue over me. Oh dear and I always try to keep women calm but there we are. :blush:
Somebody's been smoking something, that's for sure! Somehow, I don't think it was pot. Look for something more hallucinogenic.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F5hxrhhO.jpg&hash=d3d1a7b8918ccd19c5de8b1b8c798fc5" rel="cached" data-hash="d3d1a7b8918ccd19c5de8b1b8c798fc5" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/5hxrhhO.jpg)
I can even admit that a mother informed me her two daughters used to argue over me.
Must of been tough to pick a valentine. :pokerface:
I can take a lot from other but do find it difficult to accept their envy including here. 8)
I can even admit that a mother informed me her two daughters used to argue over me.
"You take him!"
"No! You take him!"
:lol: Nailed it.
As i said ages ago one weakness I do have is trying to put up with jealousy. Thanks for repeating that corner. 8) :P
I didn't know that cannabis was illegal in Belgium and needed legalising.
L'argument du bourgmestre Close est de dire que si la consommation de cannabis était rendue pleinement légale, ses policiers auraient davantage les coudées franches pour s'attaquer aux mafias qui importent les drogues dures depuis l'étranger et se livrent à une guerre sans merci dans la capitale. Il désigne au passage le port d'Anvers, devenu la principale porte d'entrée de la cocaïne en Europe, comme étant à l'origine du trafic qui inonde la capitale. La violence dont font preuve les dealers entre eux serait à la hauteur des sommes en jeu.
Comme Liège, Bruxelles-Ville dit avoir choisi de traiter le problème de front en ouvrant récemment une salle de shoot où l'addiction aux drogues est soignée dans la transparence.
Does "salle de shoot" mean here a (legal) bunker for addicts? Do they already exist anywhere in Belgium already? Are they more like clinics, sobering cells or more like underground clubs?
Finland is contemplating clinics rather for hard drugs, where they would pacify the addicts by having a nurse shoot them up with heroin.
Cannabis legalisation in Thailand (https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-12488872) is going confusingly. Growing weeds became legal, there's no law about trade yet, while public smoking is still illegal.
I didn't know that cannabis was illegal in Belgium and needed legalising.
It is indeed, but of course not quite in the absurd American sense.
Does "salle de shoot" mean here a (legal) bunker for addicts? Do they already exist anywhere in Belgium already? Are they more like clinics, sobering cells or more like underground clubs?
I believe that in English it's called a supervised injection site.
I think we just call it addict care, and (addict) treatment centers.
Growing weeds became legal, there's no law about trade yet, while public smoking is still illegal.
Weird, but it may well make more sense than effectively the reverse situation we have in the Netherlands and to a lesser extent Belgium.