http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-12802237,00.html
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-12802237,00.html

I know the link is there twice, just to emphasise the fact, that you have to click it.

This could scare you and if you've just eaten, let your food go down, hen read it..jeez

I don't do drugs, i never will, I think you must be weak [mentally] to have to do it, but that is beside the point; as he must have had guts, or balls [well that’s all he’s got now :D ] to do that or so out of it, it isn't worth talking about.

All I am gonna say is think self mutilation with a Capital M in font 1 million in bold and underlined; jeez how…

*blink*

Hey Mom, I lost something in the garden !!!

All I can say is that it's his own fault. You decide to do drugs, you bear the consequences.

all I can say to that is....OUCH!!!!!!

Notice how the Doctor, says "he will require years of support"

He will need a lot more than that.

I feel bad for him.

that is so sad. :(

That must be some powerful sh*t to alter your mind so severely.

I officially nickname him "Stumpy".

OUCH.

That stuff must really be strong. REALLY strong...

:eek3: :eek: :eek2:

Well. He can't pass on the stupidity gene.

It was his own fault, he knew the risks, well maybe not that risk but hey.

Yes you've gotta feel sorry but it is soooooo funny at the same time.

what did they do with the parts, put them in a jar and pack them with Ice; ah dear

Oh well... His short-term "amusement" has just costed him a lifetime of not getting laid. ;)

That was bad, but I dont feel sorry for these people.

His short-term "amusement" has just costed him a lifetime of not getting laid.

That's a good thing. It would be a shame if this fool's genes were passed on to future generations.

Originally posted by blue27
That's a good thing. It would be a shame if this fool's genes were passed on to future generations.


Agreed.

I don't feel sorry for him one bit.

Darwin wins again.

This happens all the time, only some people actually cook it on the stove, butter it up, put a tad of cayenne, and then eat it.

ummm ouch.. I would assume that people are familiar with what happens when you use this type of drug (never heard of it myself before now) so you pretty much deserve what you get.. I would have to say though if I was missing both of those organs I would probably be trying to look for the fastest way to 'wrap it up' as I could.

Originally posted by OKIHost
ummm ouch.. I would assume that people are familiar with what happens when you use this type of drug (never heard of it myself before now) so you pretty much deserve what you get.. I would have to say though if I was missing both of those organs I would probably be trying to look for the fastest way to 'wrap it up' as I could.


He doesn't have anything left to wrap up.

Oh wait. That's not what you meant. ;)

Cool, way togo! :gthumb:

Wow, this is what they should show in school when they are giving their anti-drug speaches.

Drugs are bad, mmmkay?

your joking right..? unless i'm mis reading you and not seeing the tongue in cheek side of it, your saying, there not; even with the above case.

I think you're misreading.

Dumb question - but how does he get on without his penis? :eek2:

Originally posted by Aussie Bob
Dumb question - but how does he get on without his penis? :eek2:

Not a dumb question, I dunno how anyone would :(

Well its better someone tells me that I’ve misread or find out that I have before i open my mouth with some off the mark comment.

When it comes to how he would cope, hmm

they did that tongue transplant a month or two ago but I don't think they've done anything in the bedroom dept or a penis. dear dear

One question,

Why didn't he drown in his own blood from the tongue wound; would it have swelled up outside his mouth, I dunno..i don't do drugs and then go tree pruning on myself.

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6745540%5E13762,00.html

This story is a little bit better, he eats his penis.

When asked why he did it, he replied "I'm stumped".





Sorry, couldn't resist :D

that really nauseating!!! I think I am about to throw up.... dang. my lunch!

ML

Originally posted by Aussie Bob
Dumb question - but how does he get on without his penis? :eek2:

Two words:
Catheter and Celebacy.

Originally posted by genlee
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6745540%5E13762,00.html

This story is a little bit better, he eats his penis.
Ahhhh. :uhh:

SEE!! It's always best to keep it in your pants when your stoned! :nuts:

What an idiot. He took drugs and cut it off...no sympathy. He truly is an idiot. Now watch him do it again, what made him take the drug? Peer pressure? Something stupid - obviously.

People are so weak minded these days that it is UNBELIEVABLE. It's sickening, I personally think I'm very anti-drugs and try to stamp it out of people and frown upon it heavily, but when I find out that 10 people I know and am friends with (related to some :() have done drugs at some point and still are (albeit in moderation, but drugs are drugs!) and think they're COOL for doing it, it's just sickening. I mean they say "You haven't lived until you've tried weed" - my friend (15) told me that today. It worries me a lot because he's rich, so he's got plenty of money to spend on that crap too.

Why...why do they do it...

Things are bad and I have spoken about the mental weakness of drug users; however we can take to heart the following:

Life will punish them eventually but some times, it isn’t soon enough.

When it comes to punishment…

They will go into a state of depression
Lose everyone close t tem except their dealer
Wreck their life
In severe cases, die as a result of the above or other consequences

If they are lucky, a friend or relative will shake them out of it which is a better outcome for friends and family, but not necessarily, his/her “just desserts”

The people who should reap what they so, more than any other; are those which drive a vehicle or serve the public [in a capacity where the drug could have an effect] whilst under the influence or 24 hours after.

Severe creative punishment, in my book; is what they deserve.
l

If they are lucky, a friend or relative will shake them out of it which is a better outcome for friends and family, but not necessarily, his/her “just desserts”

If they are lucky enough to have friends and family with the strength to help them.
I am very anti drugs but there are good people who make bad decisions and get themselves addicted. I watched a good friend die slowly from drug abuse. We tried to help but he refused to accept help so we lost a young, very talented friend. To this day I still can't shake the thought from the back of mind that there was more that could be done.
The people who should be losing their body parts are the dealers and manufacturers of these drugs.

I think you should do some research on this particular drug before you go and make all these stereotypes. Angel trumpets is datura which is a deleriant. It is in a very small class of drugs which can cause someone to become extremely delusional if you are not careful with dosage. Because this person probably didn't measure a dose and took whatever, you cannot say that all drugs will do this to you. That is so untrue. I have done most drugs and have never once wanted to mutilate myself. I have done a lot of research into drugs and they are no worse for you then tobacco or alcohol. Actually alcohol is probably harder on your body then a lot of other drugs. I don't see how you can say someone who has taken drugs is somehow mentally weaker then you? And what exactly do you mean by weaker, IQ? I did drugs all through highschool and graduated with a 3.9 and went on to college even though I left it eary to work as a network engineer for comcast. The media paints this dark picture of drugs/users and generally the public believes everything they see and come up with all these ignorant assumptions.

Maybe I'm cruel, but I can't stop laughing at this story. Darwinism at the finest. My favorite is still the guy that won the 1997 Darwin award...

my favorite quote... "He radioed the tower and described passing a guy in a lawn chair with a gun." LOL, now that's classic stuff

here's the story


Larry Waters of Los Angeles - one of the few Darwin winners to survive his award-winning accomplishment. Larry's boyhood dream was to fly. When he graduated from high school, he joined the Air Force in hopes of becoming a pilot. Unfortunately, poor eyesight disqualified him. When he was finally discharged, he had to satisfy himself with watching jets fly over his backyard.

One day, Larry, had a bright idea. He decided to fly. He went to the local Army-Navy surplus store and purchased 45 weather balloons and several tanks of helium. The weather balloons, when fully inflated, would measure more than four feet across. Back home, Larry securely strapped the balloons to his sturdy lawn chair. He anchored the chair to the bumper of his jeep and inflated the balloons with the helium. He climbed on for a test while it was still only a few feet above the ground. Satisfied it would work, Larry packed several sandwiches and a six-pack of Miller Lite, loaded his pellet gun-figuring he could pop a few balloons when it was time to descend-and went back to the floating lawn chair. He tied himself in along with his pellet gun and provisions. Larry's plan was to lazily float up to a height of about 30 feet above his back yard after severing the anchor and in a few hours come back down. Things didn't quite work out that way. When he cut the cord anchoring the lawn chair to his jeep, he didn't float lazily up to 30 or so feet. Instead he streaked into the LA sky as if shot from a cannon. He didn't level of at 30 feet, nor did he level off at100 feet. After climbing and climbing, he leveled off at 11,000 feet. At that height he couldn't risk shooting any of the balloons, lest he unbalance the load and really find himself in trouble. So he stayed there, drifting, cold and frightened, for more than 14 hours. Then he really got in trouble. He found himself drifting into the primary approach corridor of Los Angeles International Airport. A United pilot first spotted Larry. He radioed the tower and described passing a guy in a lawn chair with a gun. Radar confirmed the existence of an object floating 11,000 feet above the airport.

LAX emergency procedures swung into full alert and a helicopter was dispatched to investigate. LAX is right on the ocean. Night was falling and the offshore breeze began to flow. It carried Larry out to sea with the helicopter in hot pursuit. Several miles out, the helicopter caught up with Larry. Once the crew determined that Larry was not dangerous, they attempted to close in for a rescue but the draft from the blades would push Larry away whenever they neared. Finally, the helicopter ascended to a position several hundred feet above Larry and lowered a rescue line. Larry snagged the line and was hauled back to shore. The difficult maneuver was flawlessly executed by the helicopter crew. As soon as Larry was hauled to earth, he was arrested by waiting members of the LAPD for violating LAX airspace. As he was led away in handcuffs, a reporter dispatched to cover the daring rescue asked why he had done it. Larry stopped, turned and replied nonchalantly, "A man can't just sit around." Let's hear it for Larry Waters, the 1997 Darwin Award Winner.

I think you should do some research on this particular drug before you go and make all these stereotypes. Angel trumpets is datura which is a deleriant. It is in a very small class of drugs which can cause someone to become extremely delusional if you are not careful with dosage. Because this person probably didn't measure a dose and took whatever, you cannot say that all drugs will do this to you. That is so untrue. I have done most drugs and have never once wanted to mutilate myself. I have done a lot of research into drugs and they are no worse for you then tobacco or alcohol. Actually alcohol is probably harder on your body then a lot of other drugs. I don't see how you can say someone who has taken drugs is somehow mentally weaker then you? And what exactly do you mean by weaker, IQ? I did drugs all through highschool and graduated with a 3.9 and went on to college even though I left it eary to work as a network engineer for comcast. The media paints this dark picture of drugs/users and generally the public believes everything they see and come up with all these ignorant assumptions.

By mentally weak, it is the countless users who use it as a form of "escapism". If they need a drug to escape reality, that in my view is weak. People who succumb to so called, "peer pressure" I have very little sympathy for.

If people have to do it to run from real life, then i say that is "mentally weak".

After all of that, the state or society has to pick up the bill, either through money to pay for your hospital stays, psychological damage, burglaries or crime to fund the habit, there are more, here’s the most important one, LIVES.

How may RTAs [Road Traffic Accidents] have bee caused by the influence of drugs upon a pedestrian or a driver.

Now you seem to have been “round the block”, can you tell me if there is a drug which has short term side effects which could not be a danger to the public if used when interacting with other members of the public whether behind the wheel of a car or not? I would maintain that in the long term, drugs are far more dangerous than smoking [we have it on the run] and alcohol, there are more moderate drinkers than non moderate ones; this is where I see drugs as worse.

Now here is something a lot of governments seem to be ignoring, passive inhalation of cannabis if laws allow it to be used in public, cancer and side effects are not the only things a user would have to worry about.

To Blue27, I realise how this might be a sensitive issue for you and am sorry for your loss, however I would pass a bit more blame upon the user.

That was an interesting/funny article MDJ2000

One final point on the rugs [all of them] the genie is out of the bottle now, all we can do is enforce irresponsible use laws with the severity that they deserve.

Originally posted by Critic
By mentally weak, it is the countless users who use it as a form of "escapism". If they need a drug to escape reality, that in my view is weak. People who succumb to so called, "peer pressure" I have very little sympathy for.

If people have to do it to run from real life, then i say that is "mentally weak".

After all of that, the state or society has to pick up the bill, either through money to pay for your hospital stays, psychological damage, burglaries or crime to fund the habit, there are more, here’s the most important one, LIVES.

How may RTAs [Road Traffic Accidents] have bee caused by the influence of drugs upon a pedestrian or a driver.

Now you seem to have been “round the block”, can you tell me if there is a drug which has short term side effects which could not be a danger to the public if used when interacting with other members of the public whether behind the wheel of a car or not? I would maintain that in the long term, drugs are far more dangerous than smoking [we have it on the run] and alcohol, there are more moderate drinkers than non moderate ones; this is where I see drugs as worse.

Now here is something a lot of governments seem to be ignoring, passive inhalation of cannabis if laws allow it to be used in public, cancer and side effects are not the only things a user would have to worry about.

To Blue27, I realise how this might be a sensitive issue for you and am sorry for your loss, however I would pass a bit more blame upon the user.

That was an interesting/funny article MDJ2000

One final point on the rugs [all of them] the genie is out of the bottle now, all we can do is enforce irresponsible use laws with the severity that they deserve.

Although I'm not into drugs or recommending anyone should take them (well, I smoke tobacco and that's probably worse in a lot of respects), I can't really agree with much of what you're saying there.

While I can understand how you might think people are weak to a degree for running away from reality, you don't show a lot of understanding of the circumstances that might lead them into that situation in the first place. What about someone lapsing into depression because they have suffered some personal disaster. When they become depressed they can become withdrawn from reality. Are they also weak? Or just a victim of circumstance (as are so many who end up becomming addicted to escapist drugs). What will the doctors prescribe such a person ...erm...drugs..Many of them closely related to the illegal drugs that they might choose to take themselves illegally. Many of these legal drugs are just as addictive.

I do agree with you about succumbing to peer pressure though.

Something that you fail to realise about drugs of this type is that people don't take them to escape reality. Depressants such as heroin (or the legally prescribed drugs such as valium etc.) possibly. Anyone trying to run away from reality isn't going to have a very good time of it taking hallucinogens (they would amplify any of the problems that they were trying to run away from).

Also to describe users of hallucinogens as mentally weak shows no understanding of the effects of those drugs, or the many many talented, creative and intellectually gifted people who have found value in the use of those drugs.

Was Aldous Huxley weak minded? What about Nobel Laureate Kary Mullis (weak minded people aren't awarded Nobel Prizes). Both have written or talked about their use of hallucinogens and the value they have derived from them.

If you think that nothing positive has ever come out of the use of hallucinogens, then you can probably throw away your record collection, a large proportion of the books in your library, and to some degree a proportion of the software you're using right now (the inventor of the shareware concept apparently thought of that when under the influence of hallucinogens).

As for the genie being out of the bottle, I'd suggest that it was never in the bottle in the first place. People have been eating plants like these (often in religious settings) since we were living in caves.

As far as the costs to society, there is no greater cost to society than the two legal drugs alchohol and tobacco (at least that's the case here in the UK).

Enough penis, here's a story about pussy: :D



Man and cat reunited after 10 years
From correspondents in San Carlos, California
September 26, 2003

A cat with an ID microchip implanted under his skin was returned to his owner 10 years after he jumped out a window and vanished.

Chris Inglis' sleek, black feline, Ted, was fitted with the chip back when the technology was still new in the early 1990s. But he was gone without a trace for a full decade before someone found him this week.

Ted - named for Keanu Reeves' character in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure - was brought to the Peninsula Humane Society's animal shelter, which tracked down Inglis despite outdated information on the chip.

The cat was found about 20km south of where Mr Inglis used to live in Burlingame.

When the pair reunited on Wednesday, the cat "rubbed his face on my hand, climbed right up and started purring," Mr Inglis said. "It's pretty monumental. It's almost surreal."


Where Ted spent all those years remains a mystery, but it appeared someone had been taking care of him.

Mr Inglis remembers that one of the things he and Ted liked to do was cruise around in his car. On their way home from the shelter, Mr Inglis said Ted "put his front paws on the dashboard," just like in the old days.

One word: ouch.

Firstly, it was not my intention to say that all drugs are used to escape reality, if I have then I apologise. I cannot see how a situation can be used as an excuse for drug use, in this context. I and other members of my family have lost friends/family as well as everyone else around the world, I’ve had a visual degradation disease for 2 years, I have not turned to drugs and would never do so. It is not just that I see it as weak, it is selfish and irresponsible.

Yes you can take these things on a case by case basis but the majority of drug users are not poor desperate soles, they ar just irresponsible and selfish and weak. In my view of course.

You seem to mention a large amount of hallucinogenic drugs, this is not the only side effect of drugs as you know.

You seemed to quite conveniently ignore whether intended or not the adverse effects that are more severe in my view than alcohol, when operating a vehicle. You comment on various people who have use it to their advantage; however this is outweighed by the dozen who have died, had careers destroyed as well as relationships eg Joe Bloggs who drove his car after having a joint or some cocaine etc, drives past his local primary school, and hits a group of children crossing the road as a result of drug induced side effects. No nobel prizes here, just wrecked lives and an RTA.

If we look into the future, the biggest burden upon the state will be drug induced incidents, crime, health, wastage of emergency services time.

Referring to the genie being out of the bottle, I meant how 20th century society has tried to curb usage and end it, this is o longer possible, not even on a small scale, such a high proportion of the pop’n in the UK use cannabis or other drugs, what needs to be done now, is effective post usage legislation that ca be enforced.

I am in London and you are in the UK, do you not see how the system is now going to work for Frank Bruno and his depression, he didn’t need illegal drugs, just friends who knew when it was time the buck stopped with them and his acceptance o the situation, yes it hs and will be difficult for him but in the long run, he will be cured or better off.
Regarding cancer and everything else, I think I have already said it.

I would say that as a tobacco user, if you do it in a public setting that affects non users, that the legislation will eventually force you to confront the issue.

mmm.. no spawn.. no more stupidity .. sounds like he did the world a favour ;)

Chris

I was mentioning hallucinogens in particular because that is what has been taken in this incident. I think it's important to distinguinsh between the various types of drugs when discussing these issues.

Although hallucinations can as you say be a side effect from other drugs, hallucinogens themselves are in a class of their own and work in quite different ways. The effects of this plant are obviously very different from other classes of drugs (as evidenced by his reaction to it).

That is not to say that the same sort of drug (or indeed the same plant), used carefully in a different setting, for different reasons can't have beneficial effects.

Look at the use of Ibogaine (another hallucinogen) that is being successfully by the medical establishment to treat people for addiction (ironicaly) where all other attempts have failed, or the ayahuaska ceremonies held by members of Santo Daime religion in Brazil where meetings are held openly and lawfully where large numbers of upstanding citizens partake of a powerful hallucinogenic sacrement as part of their religious worship.

Context is everything!

Simply labeling anything that's has any sort of bodily or mental effect as 'drugs' under the one monicker during any debate is very short sighted (not implying that you were here, but it does seem like you class them together to some degree rather than considering each substance on its own merits). In this case ofcourse they probably weren't doing anything illegal as you can walk into a garden centre and legally purchase that plant.

-----
It is not just that I see it as weak, it is selfish and irresponsible.
-----

So would that be the case if they take drugs that are prescribed to them by a doctor, psychologist or councilor. Is the medical profession by prescribing psychoactives acting in an irrisponsible way and encouraging selfish and irresponsible behaviour in their patients? (you perhaps might be onto something there - but I digress)

I do understand what you're saying here, and I agree to an extent. I just don't think it's as clear cut as that.

The frank bruno case you mention he didn't resort to illegal drugs. You do realise that many of the legal drugs that are prescribed for such conditions also have contraindications, and can be adictive and as damaging as the illegal ones don't you? Ofcourse like all drugs they have positive effects aswell, and can help some people. Like I said, context is everything.

-----
Referring to the genie being out of the bottle, I meant how 20th century society has tried to curb usage and end it, this is o longer possible, not even on a small scale, such a high proportion of the pop’n in the UK use cannabis or other drugs, what needs to be done now, is effective post usage legislation that ca be enforced.
-----

You say this is 'no longer possible' but show me a period of time when it has been possible. All drugs were legal until the start of the 20th century. All attempts to stop people using them have failed.

I think the sooner people realise that this is and always has been a part of human nature and the human experience and focus more on education and rehabilitation, and look at feasible ways to remove the criminal stigma for what should be considered a public health issue, and the stop the vast profits that go into the hands of organised crime each year due to the sale of illegal drugs the better.

I disagree that we should focus on post use (though this should be a part of it - unless you're talking about tougher measures which will never work - free market economics dictate that where there is a demand, a supply will always arise and going down that route means ignoring literally thousands of years of human history). Education is far more effective, as can be seen here by the obvious ignorance of the guy who has done this to himself.

If he had educated himself on the dosage, actions and possible effects of that drug he perhaps would have chosen not to take it, chosen to take a lower dose, or to have someone looking after him while he was taking it to make sure nothing bad happened.

--------
You seemed to quite conveniently ignore whether intended or not the adverse effects that are more severe in my view than alcohol, when operating a vehicle. You comment on various people who have use it to their advantage; however this is outweighed by the dozen who have died, had careers destroyed as well as relationships eg Joe Bloggs who drove his car after having a joint or some cocaine etc, drives past his local primary school, and hits a group of children crossing the road as a result of drug induced side effects. No nobel prizes here, just wrecked lives and an RTA.
-----

I wasn't ignoring that at all. Just because I don't happen to mention something doesn't mean I'm conveniently ignoring it. I don't think people should be driving or operating machinery, or doing anything else that might put other lives in danger while under the influence of any psychoactive substance (including alchohol), or for that matter when they are overly tired or might through other natural circumstances be less in control of what they are doing.

The fact that some people do that is bad ofcourse, but is it the substance that is to blame, or the person?

If you're an idiot you can climb into your car completely sober, go racing around the streets driving dangerously and end up killing people, but does that mean cars are bad and everyone should stop using cars. Then anyone who decides to use a car is acting selfishly? Again..context and individual circumstances.

-----
I would say that as a tobacco user, if you do it in a public setting that affects non users, that the legislation will eventually force you to confront the issue.
-----

Well, I usually ask if I'm around a non-smoker if it's OK to have a cigarette, and I don't knowingly smoke when there are children around. If anyone is bothered by it then I don't do it.

On the other hand, I choose not to drive a car either. Cars are very dirty things, emitting far more noxious chemicals than my golden virginia rollups. So to all those car users who think people who smoke are selfish because they're poluting the air for non-smokers, are you going to give up your car because you're doing the same?

What about giving up all those lovely consumer goods, because the manufacturing processes polute the environment and cause health risks.

I'm really not trying to offend or argue with you here :) , because I can see where you're coming from and I agree with some of your points to some extent. I just think it's not quite so black and white as you think it is.

I had some pretzels tonight with poppy seeds. I woke up after having weird dreams: WHT was sold by Rackshack and Chicken was not a mod anymore.....oh wait... :eek:

mmm.. no spawn.. no more stupidity .. sounds like he did the world a favour

Yea!

That's one gene pool that could use a filter :D

Paaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnfulllllllllllllllll

Larry Waters of Los Angeles - one of the few Darwin winners to survive his award-winning accomplishment. Larry's boyhood dream was to fly. When he graduated from high school, he joined the Air Force in hopes of becoming a pilot. Unfortunately, poor eyesight disqualified him. When he was finally discharged, he had to satisfy himself with watching jets fly over his backyard.

One day, Larry, had a bright idea. He decided to fly. He went to the local Army-Navy surplus store and purchased 45 weather balloons and several tanks of helium. The weather balloons, when fully inflated, would measure more than four feet across. Back home, Larry securely strapped the balloons to his sturdy lawn chair. He anchored the chair to the bumper of his jeep and inflated the balloons with the helium. He climbed on for a test while it was still only a few feet above the ground. Satisfied it would work, Larry packed several sandwiches and a six-pack of Miller Lite, loaded his pellet gun-figuring he could pop a few balloons when it was time to descend-and went back to the floating lawn chair. He tied himself in along with his pellet gun and provisions. Larry's plan was to lazily float up to a height of about 30 feet above his back yard after severing the anchor and in a few hours come back down. Things didn't quite work out that way. When he cut the cord anchoring the lawn chair to his jeep, he didn't float lazily up to 30 or so feet. Instead he streaked into the LA sky as if shot from a cannon. He didn't level of at 30 feet, nor did he level off at100 feet. After climbing and climbing, he leveled off at 11,000 feet. At that height he couldn't risk shooting any of the balloons, lest he unbalance the load and really find himself in trouble. So he stayed there, drifting, cold and frightened, for more than 14 hours. Then he really got in trouble. He found himself drifting into the primary approach corridor of Los Angeles International Airport. A United pilot first spotted Larry. He radioed the tower and described passing a guy in a lawn chair with a gun. Radar confirmed the existence of an object floating 11,000 feet above the airport.

LAX emergency procedures swung into full alert and a helicopter was dispatched to investigate. LAX is right on the ocean. Night was falling and the offshore breeze began to flow. It carried Larry out to sea with the helicopter in hot pursuit. Several miles out, the helicopter caught up with Larry. Once the crew determined that Larry was not dangerous, they attempted to close in for a rescue but the draft from the blades would push Larry away whenever they neared. Finally, the helicopter ascended to a position several hundred feet above Larry and lowered a rescue line. Larry snagged the line and was hauled back to shore. The difficult maneuver was flawlessly executed by the helicopter crew. As soon as Larry was hauled to earth, he was arrested by waiting members of the LAPD for violating LAX airspace. As he was led away in handcuffs, a reporter dispatched to cover the daring rescue asked why he had done it. Larry stopped, turned and replied nonchalantly, "A man can't just sit around." Let's hear it for Larry Waters, the 1997 Darwin Award Winner.


LMAO!

Alright, lets see here

I still maintain my mental weakness comment on thw whole, yes I do see this issue as black and white a fair bit, there is too much grey in thw world as it is, it slows us down but there we go.

I’ll sum up all of my comments..

For this debate I use the term “drugs” in the context of illegal ones or, those legal ones, when used irresponsibly could create an adverse situation.

Yes you are right, concerning some legal drugs and you do seem to have a slight advantage [that being, more knowledge on legal use globally] but that can’t be held against you; it is my ignorance in that area.

I would also like to point out the links mad be scientists in recent months between certain drugs with mental illness, neurological diseases [Parkinsons etc] and depression. Why should the state have to foot the bill, it shouldn’t.

By side effects, hallucinogenic effects are not the only ones and probably not the worst, in terms of proportion to illegal drug usage per person in the UK. Correct me if I am wrong, but cannabis is the most commonly used. One of my friends Fathers friends bought a joint round to his house, through passive inhalation of a short while; he began to suffer severe distracting headaches as well as drowsiness and fatigue.

Now taking that into account, where interacting with the public when that or other effects could create an adverse situation, that is my main beef. Personal use within a private residence is fine, as long as they do not operate a vehicle or enter a situation where its prior usage could create “an adverse situation” for at least 12-18 hours.

Now people do, do that, we lack the current technology and political drive to enforce it. That is what I call irresponsible behaviour and is selfish as they put others in danger and do not foresee how they are putting the public at risk directly or indirectly [as emergency services have to deal with drug induced issues].

That is what I mean by post usage legislation, legalise it by all means, but have the necessary laws in place to catch them when they use them irresponsibly, where it could harm the public. Whether we are talking stop and test with road drivers, people could be tested before they enter a motorway possibly. No smoking or usage in a public arena, as even second hand inhalation can have adverse effects not just including cancers.

These laws directed at the user; as seen this week, with the largest sting of its kind being made on a Columbian drug cartel in the UK, Columbia and Ecuador shows, in my view, we do seem to be going the right way, with the dealers in mind.

With reference to the “Frank Bruno” case, yes you are right, anybody can have adverse affects or become an addict from, current legal
Drugs; but only when not taking the appropriate dosage, in a controlled environment like where Frank is, I can’t see that being an issue but if someone did abuse the use of a legal drug; when stll free; should be sectioned or face prosecution.

Yes you are right, humans have used the form of drugs we are talking about here and others for many millennia; all I would say to that…is that they didn’t have our forms of transport that we have now, there are many more ways where these days, usage can cause death, crime or simple time wasting for emergency services. These things objects or infrastructure were not around or in the same quantity back in history.

Now going back to our genie friend, yes he has been out for a while, but 20th century society has given a good stab at reducing use and the media and they [governments] have pitched it as a possibility, whether right or not.

When it comes to smoking, I will say I have seen that argument concerning motorists before and do think that passing the buck is very [Arsene Wengerish, apologies if you aren’t British] and do not give it much credence. However this is neither the time nor the thread to get into that debate, as much as I would like to.

Fair enough. But as far as grey areas in the world slowing us down, I disagree.

Some issues are black and white but this isn't one of them. Presenting as such has done more to slow progress than looking at it objectively and without predjudice.

Ignoring the complexities of an issue and viewing it in simple black and white terms when it is quite obviously complex and grey (to use that metaphor) is lazy thinking, and exactly the sort of weak mindedness that you accuse drug users of.

----
Yes you are right, concerning some legal drugs and you do seem to have a slight advantage [that being, more knowledge on legal use globally] but that can’t be held against you; it is my ignorance in that area.
----

I would hope that knowing something wouldn't be held against me. I've just taken the time to read and understand this issue so I can form my own opinion rather than regurgitating propaganda (itself a type of peer pressure). I'm not trying to gain any advantage. I'm looking at this as a discussion rather than a contest.

I'm not saying I'm right. All I can do is state my position and hope that if I'm wrong you can offer me a watertight argument that will force me to reconsider. Of that I would be glad. There's nothing I like more than being completely proven wrong about something with a coherently stated and watertight argument. The argument that changed my mind will be the argument I use to back up my newly found stance in the future. That's what learning for oneself is all about.

--
I would also like to point out the links mad be scientists in recent months between certain drugs with mental illness, neurological diseases [Parkinsons etc] and depression. Why should the state have to foot the bill, it shouldn’t.
---

In an ideal world it shouldn't but ofcourse we don't live in an ideal world. so we must learn to put up with certain things or the world would stop (or at the least become far less interesting).

Regards the state footing the bill, that could be applied to many other things. Lets say someone is involved in a rock climbing accident, ends up paralysed for life. Perhaps they can't work, are going to have to be paid benefits for the rest of their lives.

Using your reasoning, why should the state have to foot the bill?. You didn't ask them to go climbing. It was something they chose to do, they understood it was dangerous and something bad happened..tough..they did something that was dangerous for fun. They knew the risks..bad luck!

Sounds a bit harsh does it not?

We have a duty to care for our fellow man, wherever we can. If they've done something stupid or something unfortunate has happened and they need help we should help if we can. Thankfully the government and law agrees.

If you think this is a fatuous argument, go and look up the statistics for accidents and deaths caused through dangerous sports and compare them to for example ecstacy deaths over the same period. The results will put the 'why should the government foot the bill' argument into perspective.

---
By side effects, hallucinogenic effects are not the only ones and probably not the worst, in terms of proportion to illegal drug usage per person in the UK. Correct me if I am wrong, but cannabis is the most commonly used. One of my friends Fathers friends bought a joint round to his house, through passive inhalation of a short while; he began to suffer severe distracting headaches as well as drowsiness and fatigue.
----

Well, we weren't really talking about cannabis here, but about datura. As far as I know passive inhalation of cannabis wouldn't cause those effects, but I can't be sure. I'd imagine the headache would be unlikely from passive inhalation, as cannabis has been used for thousands of years (and still is in some countries) as an analgesic.

---------
Now taking that into account, where interacting with the public when that or other effects could create an adverse situation, that is my main beef. Personal use within a private residence is fine, as long as they do not operate a vehicle or enter a situation where its prior usage could create “an adverse situation” for at least 12-18 hours.
---------

I agree with you. The same goes for alcohol. More so as alchol is one of the worse of the commonly abused drugs in so far as affecting motor function, and lowering inhibitions (evidenced by the violence associated with alchol misuse and the number of road accidents).

-------
Now people do, do that, we lack the current technology and political drive to enforce it.

That is what I call irresponsible behaviour and is selfish as they put others in danger and do not foresee how they are putting the public at risk directly or indirectly [as emergency services have to deal with drug induced issues].
-------

The main strain on the emergency services is due to accidents, violence and other issues related to alcohol misuse. If you don't believe me ask someone at your local emergency department what drug (including alcohol) causes them the most problems or takes up most of their time.

I do agree completely on that point, so long as you're including alcohol in that 'drug induced issues' as that is by far the most problematic.

----------
These laws directed at the user; as seen this week, with the largest sting of its kind being made on a Columbian drug cartel in the UK, Columbia and Ecuador shows, in my view, we do seem to be going the right way, with the dealers in mind.
---------

The reason there are dealers in the first place is because the 'war on drugs' and all of the other propaganda that has been used to achieve political gain over the years has created a furtile environment for organised crime to flourish around the drugs trade, in exactly the same way it did around alcohol prohibition in the U.S.

I'm not necessarily saying that legalisation is the route that should be taken (particularly not for highly physically addictive drugs like heroin and crack), though the decriminalisation of addicts and treating addiction as a health issue would be a step in the right direction. It's quite obvious the approach we have been taking has got nowhere.

Thankfully our government is rethinking its approach and actually trying to change things after years of failure (in part influenced by the police, many of whom are sick of wasting time fighting a loosing battle when they can see better things to spend their time on that would have far greater social benefit).

------
With reference to the “Frank Bruno” case, yes you are right, anybody can have adverse affects or become an addict from, current legal
Drugs; but only when not taking the appropriate dosage, in a controlled environment like where Frank is, I can’t see that being an issue but if someone did abuse the use of a legal drug; when stll free; should be sectioned or face prosecution.
-------

1) Go tell that to the thousands of housewives who became hooked on valium and other such drugs over past years who were following doctors prescriptions, or the increasing number of people who are now addicted to anti-depressants.

2) There are lots they helped aswell.

If I were to view the above in black and white terms I would choose point 1 or 2 and have only half the story. I'm sure you see what I'm getting at.

------
Now going back to our genie friend, yes he has been out for a while, but 20th century society has given a good stab at reducing use and the media and they [governments] have pitched it as a possibility, whether right or not.
---------

Yes, they've had a good stab at it like you say, and failed. That's why they are changing tactics and starting to talk about the problem, investigating new solutions (one of the positive things to come out of this government).

-------
When it comes to smoking, I will say I have seen that argument concerning motorists before and do think that passing the buck is very [Arsene Wengerish, apologies if you aren’t British] and do not give it much credence. However this is neither the time nor the thread to get into that debate, as much as I would like to.
-------

No offence, but I wasn't trying to pass the buck at all. That is exactly what you are doing above by ignoring the logic in that proposition and refusing to address it head on.

I have no problem with people driving. They can do that if they want.

I was merely using that example to illustrate the hypocracy of that position by anti-smokers who drive a car. That they ask me to stop smoking because I'm poluting their environment, while they without a thought or consideration continue to polute mine to an even greater extent, then when confronted with that quite logical and simple argument refuse to address it. Is that not true?

Hey, I really don't want to argue with you or try to change your mind. I'm just telling you my take on this in the hope that you might find at least a part of it interesting or consider it in the formation of your own oppinions, widening your perspective so you can see the grey areas. So don't take any of this the wrong way :)

And the record for the longest most boring post goes to.... (it didn't look that big in the little box!) LOL!

Apologies to Huey Lewis, but this was posted on my forum, in response to reading about this:


I want a new drug.... one that wont make me sick!!
wont make me run into the garden and cut off my ****

yep what a retard, my m8's and i had a great laugh at work about this:).

i bet he doesnt do anymore drugs do you.........

and i have absolutely no sympathy for him at all although i do feel sorry for his mum :(

The "Grey" comment was just said generally, just a comment on the state of play in the world, not necessarily referring to this particular subject.

I think you took the whole advantage thing just a tad too literally, it was meant more of a complement per that subject if anything.

Your comparison with a rock climber who has an accident is floored in my view, unless they are trespassing on private land without the appropriate safety procedures and so on. The reason I say that is, the drugs that I was referring to are illegal, the strain on society caused by, further breaches of the law in the main. I would say that is a better comparison. However we have an NHS so my, breach the aw in certain way get reduced amenities and services philosophy is only a hypothetical scenario.

Yes alcohol is a big strain on the emergency services but when we look toward the future, i can see presently, illegal drugs or legal ones that can be abused as a larger burden. Especially with the new Pub and Drinking licensing laws coming in soon in the UK.

On the cannabis thing, I can only go on what my friend told me which I take as more or less fact, and with other drugs I see as larger threat through time than alcohol through time.

I’ am regretting bringing poor old Fran k into this, if he was here, he’d just be gong, he he he n his deep voice.

You say there would be no users without a dealer, true, I could say there would be no dealer without a user. In my opinion as I have said, I think the NCS is already dealing with the dealers, It is a chcen and the egg scenario.

I’ve already said what ihave to say on post usage legislation and before how life eventually catches up with them.

I’m not going to repeat everything else I have already said, I don’t think you are going to change our mind in a hurry and neither will i on certain things.

I’m not going down the smoking argument road but I will take a look down it. I don’t drive, I don’t smoke.

Smokers have more choice in when to have a cigarette etc than when a motorist an drive ca

A car if operated appropriately can aid someone and ease their situation

A cigarette no matter how usd has numerous health pitfalls from cancers, respiratory conditions blindness, impotence and so on

Smoking bans will be upon us before a ban on cars.

And that’s all I’m gonna say on that, anything more, maybe a new thread

You seem like a bit o a leftie or at least on crime, either way, it provided a good debate from my averageist centrist viewpoint.

That’s a bit shorter but sill no that exciting but hey.

My keyboard seems to be busted s there might be a few irrevocable typos

----
The "Grey" comment was just said generally, just a comment on the state of play in the world, not necessarily referring to this particular subject.
----

Then why mention it if it has nothing to do with what we're talking about?

BTW. I've heard the price of fish is going up on monday!

-----
I think you took the whole advantage thing just a tad too literally, it was meant more of a complement per that subject if anything.
----

Oh. Sorry about that. Just didn't want you to feel like I was attacking you, or trying to get one over on you, as there isn't really any advantage for me personally to discuss this with you.

-----
Your comparison with a rock climber who has an accident is floored in my view, unless they are trespassing on private land without the appropriate safety procedures and so on.
-----

Why is it floored? What difference does it make where they are doing it. If they have an accident and the government has to pay for it, then my example stands.

----
The reason I say that is, the drugs that I was referring to are illegal, the strain on society caused by, further breaches of the law in the main. I would say that is a better comparison.
-----

Not sure how that relates to rock climbing or why the rock climbing example was floored? We were talking about the government footing the bill and putting it into a wider context.

----
However we have an NHS so my, breach the aw in certain way get reduced amenities and services philosophy is only a hypothetical scenario.
----

That's OK. It may have only been meant as a hypothetical scenareo, but it is actually a reality. I completely agree with you about the time and money that's wasted but it needs to be put into perspective.

-------
Yes alcohol is a big strain on the emergency services but when we look toward the future, i can see presently, illegal drugs or legal ones that can be abused as a larger burden.
-------

Well, you might be right, but then you aren't a fortune teller so you might be wrong. We don't know for sure do we, so you can't say what's going to happen. They've got a hell of a lot of catching up to do to be anywhere near the burden of alchohol abuse.

----
Especially with the new Pub and Drinking licensing laws coming in soon in the UK.
----

IMHO that's a good thing. It will help to remove the culture of going out and drinking vast amounts of alchohol in a few hours, then all of the pubs throwing out at the same time (that's when the violence and accidents start).

If you look at countries who have a more tolerant attitude towards opening hours, they don't have so many problems.

-----
On the cannabis thing, I can only go on what my friend told me which I take as more or less fact, and with other drugs I see as larger threat through time than alcohol through time.
-----

Well, you can't see into the future unless you have a crystal ball, so if you can only base any reasonable argument upon empirical evidence or at the very least statistical prediction of future trends based upon past data. To do otherwise is completely unscientific and again, lazy thinking imho.

----
I’ am regretting bringing poor old Fran k into this, if he was here, he’d just be gong, he he he n his deep voice.
----

I have to admit I don't know anything about that case in particular. Was just trying to illustrate that this issue isn't so clear cut.

-----
You say there would be no users without a dealer, true,
----

No. I said there would be less dealers without such a furtile environmen nurtured by propaganda and criminalisation. That's a different thing altogether.

If we legalised drugs tomorrow (not saying we should), there would be fewer dealers (the market would become less attractive to organised criminals) but people would still take drugs.

--------
I could say there would be no dealer without a user.
-------

True. But you're living in fantasy land. There will always be people who take drugs. You've got literally thousands of years of evidence of that from every country in the world. As long as there are people who want them, there will be people who supply them. That's a simple rule of economics - again thousands of years history of that aswell. No argument about that - just look at the cold hard evidence.

The only difference is that depending upon the environment in which that market operates, it might be more likely that criminals that supply them.

Highly organised criminals who profit in billions each year from the sale of drugs don't want progressive schemes in place for education, treatment and rehabilitation. That completely ruins their market.

By taking a stance against such approaches and thinking you're being tough on the drugs problem, you are paradoxically playing right into their hands and perpetuating the situation that has gone on for years (just look at the figures since the 'war on drugs' was proclaimed - they have got progressively worse not better).

----
In my opinion as I have said, I think the NCS is already dealing with the dealers, It is a chcen and the egg scenario.
----

Not sure what you mean by the NCS?

-------
I’ve already said what ihave to say on post usage legislation and before how life eventually catches up with them.

I’m not going to repeat everything else I have already said, I don’t think you are going to change our mind in a hurry and neither will i on certain things.
--------

OK. That's fine, though I feel you are being a little evasive rather than addressing any of those points directly. Perhaps if you can't come up with an answer to a point it is time to start reconsidering your options.

-------
I’m not going down the smoking argument road but I will take a look down it. I don’t drive, I don’t smoke.
-------

No!!! come on man, you accused me of passing the buck. Just answer that simple question. You seem like a bright guy - I'm sure you can understand what I was trying to say.

The reason I'm not changing my mind is because you've said nothing to me that I can look at and change it based upon what I already know. Belive me I started off many years ago with exactly the attitude that you have now and it has only been through learning about this that I've arrived at the conclusions I have now.

-------
Smokers have more choice in when to have a cigarette etc than when a motorist an drive ca
-------

LOL! talk about passing the buck. So you mean people can't possibly live without cars? I don't have a car and I get about fine. You mention you don't have a car? I can live without a car easier than I can without my ciggies!

Emergency services and public transport possibly, but people CAN live without cars. Many people do.

Like I said, I have nothing against people driving. I just don't see why I should be victimised by hypocrites who think I'm poluting their atmosphere when they don't see any harm in belching out noxious fumes themselves. At least I have the decency to keep my polution away from people who don't want to face it and away from children, something you can't really do with cars by their very nature.

Perhaps you can explain why that argument can't be given credence other than that there is no argument you can come up with against it. Simple logic really!

----
A car if operated appropriately can aid someone and ease their situation
----

Not quite sure what you mean there about being operated appropriately to ease their situation?

-------
A cigarette no matter how usd has numerous health pitfalls from cancers, respiratory conditions blindness, impotence and so on

Smoking bans will be upon us before a ban on cars.
-------

I agree, cigarettes are bad. I should stop but I like them, and I'm addicted. They "ease my situation when operated in the appropriate manner"! Perhaps I should be punished in some creative way for that as you suggest. Shoot me (or whatever other sadistic idea you had in mind when you mentioned creative punishment).

You're probably right about the smoking being banned before cars though, but then again they've started congestion charging so perhaps its only a matter of time!

---------
And that’s all I’m gonna say on that, anything more, maybe a new thread
----------

LOL! I get the picture.. Talk to the hand cause the head ain't listening.

----
You seem like a bit o a leftie or at least on crime, either way, it provided a good debate from my averageist centrist viewpoint.
-----------

Oh.. here we go with the left/right thing. LOL! Really if you had spent any time studying political history and theory or even investigating how the world works you would know how intellectually bankrupt that whole distinction is.

I subscribe to no particular political dogma and neither do I belive that the complex functioning of the world can be reduced to a one dimensional spacial metaphor.

----------
That’s a bit shorter but sill no that exciting but hey.

My keyboard seems to be busted s there might be a few irrevocable typos
----------

LOL! no worries mate.. I'm sure mine is full of typos aswell. Lets just call it a day and I can go and get some sleep. I'm sorry if some of that above sounded like I was taking the p@@s a bit. It's just some of those old lines I've heard a million times before and they make me laugh now. The lefties as you put it think I'm a fascist, the right wing think I'm a communist, and the ones in the middle think I must be an anarchist. LOL! It's been nice talking to you still though so no hard feelings or ill intent meant! Just giving up on this conversation (as you are trying to aswell!). :)