Drugs - Time to legalise - The Economist

[Fop 1]

It's a bit inconsistent though, isn't it?

Not really, just how it is.

 

Anyway is that how you got your psychosis fop?

Fop's sane, it's the rest of you that are quite, quite obsessed.

 

 

Dozens of things can do psychological damage. You going to ban girlfriends, booze, work, yourself from this forum?

 

Wasn't the survey specifically referring to young people anyway? Responsible education and awareness are the adult approach. People will always seek some sort of hedonism/escapism. You can't control that.

 

It actually physically increases your risk of schizophrenia and psychotic symptoms, it doesn't just make you a bit depressed or listen to Emo.

 

I think it should still be legalised, but its daft to ignore things like that.

 

 

Incidentally plants and fungi that can kill you outright are not illegal. Why not?

Killing someone or yourself with them does tend to be frowned on though.

Have you ever done drugs?

That sounds like something off Grange Hill. (yes Fop's tried a lot of things )

 

 

That'll be ignored along with "what do you do?" and "are you a virgin?" and "do you still live at home?"

That you want to know so much about Fop is nice, but slightly embarrassing. :icon_lol:

[Fop 1]

Life is filled with casualties. It is far too easy to blame drugs....people get themselves in a mess for millions of reasons and often drugs help people to deal with being fucked up by other things.

 

Life is fucking messy and you can't tell me it would be easier without any drugs.

 

How about an acknowledgement of how drugs have enriched your life? Even if you never took them? Think about the bands you love, the inspiration you get from amazing music and art. You think they were all teetotal?

 

He who makes a beast of himself eases the burden of being a man.

 

Perhaps all pleasure is only relief.

 

It is depressingly unsurprising to me that Danny B, fop and J69 are all staunch anti drug types.

 

 

As the saying goes "are you on crack?"

 

 

 

 

Mind you, you've just got to read what Layne Stanley said/wrote about his addiction to understand that it can really not a be a good thing™.

[Fop 1]

I can't believe you called J69 and fop nobheads. Are you SURE you gave up drugs?

 

for defending Fop's honour.

[trophyshy 7083]

Christ you're embarrassing.

[Fop 1]

Christ you're right.

 

Fop knows.

[trophyshy 7083]

Clever, I don't know what you do, and never will, but you're wasted.

 

Or not. As may be.

[Kitman 2207]

It must surely be obvious the "war on drugs" has been well and truly lost by the authorities. When I lived in the UK, my sense was that illegal drugs could easily be obtained in the smallest towns up and down the country, never mind the big cities, inclusing crack and smack.

 

If you mention legalisation, the moral majority brigade will go into overdrive, turning their outrage on the evil of drugs and the wasted lived. However in any rational assessment you have to distinguish between the harm that illegal drugs do - which can undoubtedly be severe - and the impact of the status quo. The status quo does nothing to stop the growth and impact of drugs and is nothing more than a sticking plaster on a severed artery in my opinion.

 

We can bang on all day about the miserable life of addicts and how hard drugs ruin lives and most people won't disagree. It's what to do about it. You may as well march up and down in the Commons making laws against wasps, cow turds and the tide coming in. You may not like it but it solves nothing just because you make it illegal. Tony Blair never seemed to figure this out, typical lawyer.

 

There's got to be a better way, but it's unpalatable to a large number of voters, many of whom are of pensionable age, and would therefore be political suicide for a government. To control the distribution of drugs, and the crimewave associated with taking hard drugs, there has to be a massive programme of medical intervention, treatment, education and a base level improvement of vulnerable people's lives. Criminalising addicts, locking them up, and laughable attempts to "crack down" on dealers and the like isn't going to work, it never has and it can't be done imo. To me, it would be far better to register and treat addicts to hard drugs, and if necessary give them free drugs for life if they can't be turned away from it. The key is trying to prevent future generations falling into the same traps, this takes education and involves giving people informed choices.

 

It would take real moral courage to try to legalise and control drugs. I don't think it will happen in the UK in the next twenty years.

[trophyshy 7083]

It must surely be obvious the "war on drugs" has been well and truly lost by the authorities. When I lived in the UK, my sense was that illegal drugs could easily be obtained in the smallest towns up and down the country, never mind the big cities, inclusing crack and smack.

 

If you mention legalisation, the moral majority brigade will go into overdrive, turning their outrage on the evil of drugs and the wasted lived. However in any rational assessment you have to distinguish between the harm that illegal drugs do - which can undoubtedly be severe - and the impact of the status quo. The status quo does nothing to stop the growth and impact of drugs and is nothing more than a sticking plaster on a severed artery in my opinion.

 

We can bang on all day about the miserable life of addicts and how hard drugs ruin lives and most people won't disagree. It's what to do about it. You may as well march up and down in the Commons making laws against wasps, cow turds and the tide coming in. You may not like it but it solves nothing just because you make it illegal. Tony Blair never seemed to figure this out, typical lawyer.

 

There's got to be a better way, but it's unpalatable to a large number of voters, many of whom are of pensionable age, and would therefore be political suicide for a government. To control the distribution of drugs, and the crimewave associated with taking hard drugs, there has to be a massive programme of medical intervention, treatment, education and a base level improvement of vulnerable people's lives. Criminalising addicts, locking them up, and laughable attempts to "crack down" on dealers and the like isn't going to work, it never has and it can't be done imo. To me, it would be far better to register and treat addicts to hard drugs, and if necessary give them free drugs for life if they can't be turned away from it. The key is trying to prevent future generations falling into the same traps, this takes education and involves giving people informed choices.

 

It would take real moral courage to try to legalise and control drugs. I don't think it will happen in the UK in the next twenty years.

 

 

spot on really.

 

"You may as well march up and down in the Commons making laws against wasps, cow turds and the tide coming in." Yes, yes many would agree with your policies on the tide and wasps but what's this lefty nonsense about cow turds?

Edited March 9, 2009 by trophyshy

[Kid Dynamite 7030]

"drugs are for cunts"

 

burn all your music then you narrow minded fucking knob.

 

The majority of the bands I listen to are drug free Im not narrow minded, i just think drugs are for cunts. You think they arent. Thats 2 opposite ends of an argument and theres a case for saying your opinion is just as narrow minded as mine. You fucking knob

[Guest alex]

Have you ever done drugs?

That sounds like something off Grange Hill. (yes Fop's tried a lot of things )

 

I was high when I wrote that, in fairness.

[Guest alex]

It must surely be obvious the "war on drugs" has been well and truly lost by the authorities. When I lived in the UK, my sense was that illegal drugs could easily be obtained in the smallest towns up and down the country, never mind the big cities, inclusing crack and smack.

 

If you mention legalisation, the moral majority brigade will go into overdrive, turning their outrage on the evil of drugs and the wasted lived. However in any rational assessment you have to distinguish between the harm that illegal drugs do - which can undoubtedly be severe - and the impact of the status quo. The status quo does nothing to stop the growth and impact of drugs and is nothing more than a sticking plaster on a severed artery in my opinion.

 

We can bang on all day about the miserable life of addicts and how hard drugs ruin lives and most people won't disagree. It's what to do about it. You may as well march up and down in the Commons making laws against wasps, cow turds and the tide coming in. You may not like it but it solves nothing just because you make it illegal. Tony Blair never seemed to figure this out, typical lawyer.

 

There's got to be a better way, but it's unpalatable to a large number of voters, many of whom are of pensionable age, and would therefore be political suicide for a government. To control the distribution of drugs, and the crimewave associated with taking hard drugs, there has to be a massive programme of medical intervention, treatment, education and a base level improvement of vulnerable people's lives. Criminalising addicts, locking them up, and laughable attempts to "crack down" on dealers and the like isn't going to work, it never has and it can't be done imo. To me, it would be far better to register and treat addicts to hard drugs, and if necessary give them free drugs for life if they can't be turned away from it. The key is trying to prevent future generations falling into the same traps, this takes education and involves giving people informed choices.

 

It would take real moral courage to try to legalise and control drugs. I don't think it will happen in the UK in the next twenty years.

Good post.

[NJS 4386]

I think that we're heading for a stage where society only "works" because of so many drugs (counting alcohol and tobacco certainly) and I think we'd be fucked if the "war" was suddenly won. If people realsied how empty so many of their lives are without any kind of drugs whatsoever I think we'd see mass breakdowns.

[Fop 1]

I think that we're heading for a stage where society only "works" because of so many drugs (counting alcohol and tobacco certainly) and I think we'd be fucked if the "war" was suddenly won. If people realsied how empty so many of their lives are without any kind of drugs whatsoever I think we'd see mass breakdowns.

 

That's the thing, (some) drugs can be fun, but if you need them to have fun then you really need to examine yourself and your life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also whilst there's a case for legalising some things, I can't see how you could legalise something like opiates without totally removing the benefit system as well.

 

As it would completely create a whole new "class" in society, which I suspect most people wouldn't really want to pay taxes to support (I dunno maybe Trophyshy would, at least when he's doped up on his dental meds ).

[Guest alex]

I saw a documentary on telly once where as a trial, a doctor was able to prescribe heroin to patients of her's who were registered addicts. This was a while ago so I'm a little sketchy on the details but it was somewhere on the South coast (Bournemouth maybe). Anyway, it featured this one lass who was eventually able to wean herself off heroin and, because she wasn't trying to score all day she was able to work and have a 'normal' life etc. The scheme worked pretty well in general and appeared to a lot better than the general tactic of replacing (or trying to replace) heroin dependence with methadone dependence. Sadly the scheme wasn't carried out on a more widespread basis because the issue is a political hot potato. Of course it'll only work for people who want to give up but that's the same with anything. Sad how pragmatism never seems to win through on issues such as this.

[NJS 4386]

It will be interesting to see the effect of the proposed measures in Scotland - if large tracts of the population can't afford alcohol anymore I can see either more problems or more people turning to heroin - especially if dealers see the gap and drop prices.

 

I honestly think that some excesses (including alcohol again) are a price worth paying for a free society and I'd much prefer the kind of country we have, warts and all, rather than Saudi or similar types of place. When I suggest a further relaxation I don't think we'd see that much of a long term increase in drug use after an initial teething period and it would certianly end the moral hypocrisy currently prevalent. Of course I don't think it will happen but we should at least be able to talk about it sensibly without outrage from the moral cowards in the press - perhaps somebody could implant all copies of the Mail with something to teach the fuckers some realities.

[trophyshy 7083]

"drugs are for cunts"

 

burn all your music then you narrow minded fucking knob.

 

The majority of the bands I listen to are drug free Im not narrow minded, i just think drugs are for cunts. You think they arent. Thats 2 opposite ends of an argument and theres a case for saying your opinion is just as narrow minded as mine. You fucking knob

 

No I am not condemning millions and millions of people for their lifestyle choices, you are and I am condemning you for that. It's very harsh. An opposite view to yours would be drugs are for very smart educated and enlightened people which I am not saying at all. I am saying that liberal adult tolerance and education are the way forward, not wholesale blanket damnation and intolerance like you.

 

I'd be interested to know your methodology for ensuring your bands of choice are drug free however.

Edited March 9, 2009 by trophyshy

[Guest alex]

The comment about him not being narrow-minded is an absolute classic btw

[Fop 1]

I saw a documentary on telly once where as a trial, a doctor was able to prescribe heroin to patients of her's who were registered addicts. This was a while ago so I'm a little sketchy on the details but it was somewhere on the South coast (Bournemouth maybe). Anyway, it featured this one lass who was eventually able to wean herself off heroin and, because she wasn't trying to score all day she was able to work and have a 'normal' life etc. The scheme worked pretty well in general and appeared to a lot better than the general tactic of replacing (or trying to replace) heroin dependence with methadone dependence. Sadly the scheme wasn't carried out on a more widespread basis because the issue is a political hot potato. Of course it'll only work for people who want to give up but that's the same with anything. Sad how pragmatism never seems to win through on issues such as this.

 

That occurs in a few places, but I don't think it's any more successful in general at getting people off it than methadone is (and methadone is basically useless as breaking the addiction, just ok at swapping it).

 

I mean there are odd cases of functional heroin addicts, but that doesn't mean most are, or that those that might try it if it were legal would be.

 

And even if there were it would still go back to the "drug class" issue.

 

 

 

 

 

Bring unable to keep drugs out a prison says a lot mind, although it's mostly about how badly any "war" is being fought.

[Guest alex]

I saw a documentary on telly once where as a trial, a doctor was able to prescribe heroin to patients of her's who were registered addicts. This was a while ago so I'm a little sketchy on the details but it was somewhere on the South coast (Bournemouth maybe). Anyway, it featured this one lass who was eventually able to wean herself off heroin and, because she wasn't trying to score all day she was able to work and have a 'normal' life etc. The scheme worked pretty well in general and appeared to a lot better than the general tactic of replacing (or trying to replace) heroin dependence with methadone dependence. Sadly the scheme wasn't carried out on a more widespread basis because the issue is a political hot potato. Of course it'll only work for people who want to give up but that's the same with anything. Sad how pragmatism never seems to win through on issues such as this.

 

That occurs in a few places, but I don't think it's any more successful in general at getting people off it than methadone is (and methadone is basically useless as breaking the addiction, just ok at swapping it).

 

I mean there are odd cases of functional heroin addicts, but that doesn't mean most are, or that those that might try it if it were legal would be.

 

And even if there were it would still go back to the "drug class" issue.

 

 

 

 

 

Bring unable to keep drugs out a prison says a lot mind, although it's mostly about how badly any "war" is being fought.

The scheme involved gradual weaning off by ever decreasing amounts being prescribed. The programme suggested the statistics were a lot better than those for methadone schemes. Difficult to say when it's just done in one area with quite a small sample etc. The point though is more about how government policy panders to moral outrage and outdated attitudes rather than what actually works or works better than what we have at present.

[Fop 1]

I saw a documentary on telly once where as a trial, a doctor was able to prescribe heroin to patients of her's who were registered addicts. This was a while ago so I'm a little sketchy on the details but it was somewhere on the South coast (Bournemouth maybe). Anyway, it featured this one lass who was eventually able to wean herself off heroin and, because she wasn't trying to score all day she was able to work and have a 'normal' life etc. The scheme worked pretty well in general and appeared to a lot better than the general tactic of replacing (or trying to replace) heroin dependence with methadone dependence. Sadly the scheme wasn't carried out on a more widespread basis because the issue is a political hot potato. Of course it'll only work for people who want to give up but that's the same with anything. Sad how pragmatism never seems to win through on issues such as this.

 

That occurs in a few places, but I don't think it's any more successful in general at getting people off it than methadone is (and methadone is basically useless as breaking the addiction, just ok at swapping it).

 

I mean there are odd cases of functional heroin addicts, but that doesn't mean most are, or that those that might try it if it were legal would be.

 

And even if there were it would still go back to the "drug class" issue.

 

 

 

 

 

Bring unable to keep drugs out a prison says a lot mind, although it's mostly about how badly any "war" is being fought.

The scheme involved gradual weaning off by ever decreasing amounts being prescribed. The programme suggested the statistics were a lot better than those for methadone schemes. Difficult to say when it's just done in one area with quite a small sample etc. The point though is more about how government policy panders to moral outrage and outdated attitudes rather than what actually works or works better than what we have at present.

 

Some people say it's less "addictive", but I've never seen any stats upholding that (and clinical research generally shows no difference), it is safer from a dosage sense and because it doesn't give a "rush" though.

 

The thing with any drug or addiction though is not so much stopping it, it's not starting it again.

 

 

 

Which may be the issue in that case, a very high level of care and support along with the "weaning" process (along with the "right" addict), maybe being more important than whatever drug is used.

[Park Life 71]

People kill themselves drugs don't.

[Kid Dynamite 7030]

I saw a documentary on telly once where as a trial, a doctor was able to prescribe heroin to patients of her's who were registered addicts. This was a while ago so I'm a little sketchy on the details but it was somewhere on the South coast (Bournemouth maybe). Anyway, it featured this one lass who was eventually able to wean herself off heroin and, because she wasn't trying to score all day she was able to work and have a 'normal' life etc. The scheme worked pretty well in general and appeared to a lot better than the general tactic of replacing (or trying to replace) heroin dependence with methadone dependence. Sadly the scheme wasn't carried out on a more widespread basis because the issue is a political hot potato. Of course it'll only work for people who want to give up but that's the same with anything. Sad how pragmatism never seems to win through on issues such as this.

 

That occurs in a few places, but I don't think it's any more successful in general at getting people off it than methadone is (and methadone is basically useless as breaking the addiction, just ok at swapping it).

 

I mean there are odd cases of functional heroin addicts, but that doesn't mean most are, or that those that might try it if it were legal would be.

 

And even if there were it would still go back to the "drug class" issue.

 

 

 

 

 

Bring unable to keep drugs out a prison says a lot mind, although it's mostly about how badly any "war" is being fought.

The scheme involved gradual weaning off by ever decreasing amounts being prescribed. The programme suggested the statistics were a lot better than those for methadone schemes. Difficult to say when it's just done in one area with quite a small sample etc. The point though is more about how government policy panders to moral outrage and outdated attitudes rather than what actually works or works better than what we have at present.

 

Youre basing this theory on the fact that heroin addicts want to get off the heroin. Most of the ones I know are quite happy taking heroin and have no fancy to get off it.

 

Say what you like, the fact drugs are illegal makes them harder to come by and therefore less people get hooked. If you legalise it and open it up to the masses your opening up pandoras box. For every normal bloke who can snort a few lines and live his life normally theres another 10 numbskulls who will take it as an opportunity to shove as much shit as they can into their system and OD or become addicted. I think you are vastly overestimating the average British man/woman today with some of the comments above. I refer you again to alcohol. Freely available and look at how many idiots abuse that and cant moderate their intake. At least alcohol tends to be longer term side effects. Ecstacy, Cocaine, Amphetamines, Heroin etc. can have catastrophic effects after just one dose

[Tooj 17]

I saw a documentary on telly once where as a trial, a doctor was able to prescribe heroin to patients of her's who were registered addicts. This was a while ago so I'm a little sketchy on the details but it was somewhere on the South coast (Bournemouth maybe). Anyway, it featured this one lass who was eventually able to wean herself off heroin and, because she wasn't trying to score all day she was able to work and have a 'normal' life etc. The scheme worked pretty well in general and appeared to a lot better than the general tactic of replacing (or trying to replace) heroin dependence with methadone dependence. Sadly the scheme wasn't carried out on a more widespread basis because the issue is a political hot potato. Of course it'll only work for people who want to give up but that's the same with anything. Sad how pragmatism never seems to win through on issues such as this.

 

That occurs in a few places, but I don't think it's any more successful in general at getting people off it than methadone is (and methadone is basically useless as breaking the addiction, just ok at swapping it).

 

I mean there are odd cases of functional heroin addicts, but that doesn't mean most are, or that those that might try it if it were legal would be.

 

And even if there were it would still go back to the "drug class" issue.

 

 

 

 

 

Bring unable to keep drugs out a prison says a lot mind, although it's mostly about how badly any "war" is being fought.

The scheme involved gradual weaning off by ever decreasing amounts being prescribed. The programme suggested the statistics were a lot better than those for methadone schemes. Difficult to say when it's just done in one area with quite a small sample etc. The point though is more about how government policy panders to moral outrage and outdated attitudes rather than what actually works or works better than what we have at present.

 

Youre basing this theory on the fact that heroin addicts want to get off the heroin. Most of the ones I know are quite happy taking heroin and have no fancy to get off it.

 

Say what you like, the fact drugs are illegal makes them harder to come by and therefore less people get hooked. If you legalise it and open it up to the masses your opening up pandoras box. For every normal bloke who can snort a few lines and live his life normally theres another 10 numbskulls who will take it as an opportunity to shove as much shit as they can into their system and OD or become addicted. I think you are vastly overestimating the average British man/woman today with some of the comments above. I refer you again to alcohol. Freely available and look at how many idiots abuse that and cant moderate their intake. At least alcohol tends to be longer term side effects. Ecstacy, Cocaine, Amphetamines, Heroin etc. can have catastrophic effects after just one dose

Depends on how much is in the dose tbh.

[Guest alex]

I saw a documentary on telly once where as a trial, a doctor was able to prescribe heroin to patients of her's who were registered addicts. This was a while ago so I'm a little sketchy on the details but it was somewhere on the South coast (Bournemouth maybe). Anyway, it featured this one lass who was eventually able to wean herself off heroin and, because she wasn't trying to score all day she was able to work and have a 'normal' life etc. The scheme worked pretty well in general and appeared to a lot better than the general tactic of replacing (or trying to replace) heroin dependence with methadone dependence. Sadly the scheme wasn't carried out on a more widespread basis because the issue is a political hot potato. Of course it'll only work for people who want to give up but that's the same with anything. Sad how pragmatism never seems to win through on issues such as this.

 

That occurs in a few places, but I don't think it's any more successful in general at getting people off it than methadone is (and methadone is basically useless as breaking the addiction, just ok at swapping it).

 

I mean there are odd cases of functional heroin addicts, but that doesn't mean most are, or that those that might try it if it were legal would be.

 

And even if there were it would still go back to the "drug class" issue.

 

 

 

 

 

Bring unable to keep drugs out a prison says a lot mind, although it's mostly about how badly any "war" is being fought.

The scheme involved gradual weaning off by ever decreasing amounts being prescribed. The programme suggested the statistics were a lot better than those for methadone schemes. Difficult to say when it's just done in one area with quite a small sample etc. The point though is more about how government policy panders to moral outrage and outdated attitudes rather than what actually works or works better than what we have at present.

 

Youre basing this theory on the fact that heroin addicts want to get off the heroin. Most of the ones I know are quite happy taking heroin and have no fancy to get off it.

 

Say what you like, the fact drugs are illegal makes them harder to come by and therefore less people get hooked. If you legalise it and open it up to the masses your opening up pandoras box. For every normal bloke who can snort a few lines and live his life normally theres another 10 numbskulls who will take it as an opportunity to shove as much shit as they can into their system and OD or become addicted. I think you are vastly overestimating the average British man/woman today with some of the comments above. I refer you again to alcohol. Freely available and look at how many idiots abuse that and cant moderate their intake. At least alcohol tends to be longer term side effects. Ecstacy, Cocaine, Amphetamines, Heroin etc. can have catastrophic effects after just one dose

It's not my theory for one thing. Secondly I already said any scheme needs the person involved to want to come off the drugs. Thirdly, point to where I've advocated widespread legalisation of drugs like heroin.

In other words, try reading what I actually wrote.

[Tooj 17]

I saw a documentary on telly once where as a trial, a doctor was able to prescribe heroin to patients of her's who were registered addicts. This was a while ago so I'm a little sketchy on the details but it was somewhere on the South coast (Bournemouth maybe). Anyway, it featured this one lass who was eventually able to wean herself off heroin and, because she wasn't trying to score all day she was able to work and have a 'normal' life etc. The scheme worked pretty well in general and appeared to a lot better than the general tactic of replacing (or trying to replace) heroin dependence with methadone dependence. Sadly the scheme wasn't carried out on a more widespread basis because the issue is a political hot potato. Of course it'll only work for people who want to give up but that's the same with anything. Sad how pragmatism never seems to win through on issues such as this.

 

That occurs in a few places, but I don't think it's any more successful in general at getting people off it than methadone is (and methadone is basically useless as breaking the addiction, just ok at swapping it).

 

I mean there are odd cases of functional heroin addicts, but that doesn't mean most are, or that those that might try it if it were legal would be.

 

And even if there were it would still go back to the "drug class" issue.

 

 

 

 

 

Bring unable to keep drugs out a prison says a lot mind, although it's mostly about how badly any "war" is being fought.

The scheme involved gradual weaning off by ever decreasing amounts being prescribed. The programme suggested the statistics were a lot better than those for methadone schemes. Difficult to say when it's just done in one area with quite a small sample etc. The point though is more about how government policy panders to moral outrage and outdated attitudes rather than what actually works or works better than what we have at present.

 

Youre basing this theory on the fact that heroin addicts want to get off the heroin. Most of the ones I know are quite happy taking heroin and have no fancy to get off it.

 

Say what you like, the fact drugs are illegal makes them harder to come by and therefore less people get hooked. If you legalise it and open it up to the masses your opening up pandoras box. For every normal bloke who can snort a few lines and live his life normally theres another 10 numbskulls who will take it as an opportunity to shove as much shit as they can into their system and OD or become addicted. I think you are vastly overestimating the average British man/woman today with some of the comments above. I refer you again to alcohol. Freely available and look at how many idiots abuse that and cant moderate their intake. At least alcohol tends to be longer term side effects. Ecstacy, Cocaine, Amphetamines, Heroin etc. can have catastrophic effects after just one dose

It's not my theory for one thing. Secondly I already said any scheme needs the person involved to want to come off the drugs. Thirdly, point to where I've advocated widespread legalisation of drugs like heroin.

In other words, try reading what I actually wrote.

Well it could be worse man, imagine being sad enough to announce to everyone you're leaving a message board as you can't take the grief anymore, then signing up under a pseudo as not to be recognise. I'm so glad that my dabbling in narcotics has never meant I've done something as stupid as that.