Battalion of Soldiers fail drug tests

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by UORMan, Aug 11, 2017.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. So it's the abuse that's the problem so we do agree. Now how we cut that given that the current system is not working is what has to be addressed, the chain where dealers tempt others into "try this, you'll love it" has to be broken, and that means lessons from other countries should be learned as prohibition does not work, and that has been proven as the "War on Drugs" was lost on the day it was declared.
     
  2. Drug laws are supposed to be in place to protect us, in reality they don't and even create a black economy with all that that implies. The drug debate is a well worn path, but having drugs illegal actually causes more suffering. We need to get away with the moralising about drugs even on a practical sense no prohibition has ever worked.
     



  3. FFS! Yada, yada, yada... heard it all before, blah, blah, blah

    Mate, don't be offended but i'm not interested in the social use of it or those that defend it ... I find it and the explanations as dull as feck and only spouted by self interested parties, ..no one uses their defence of it social use for the benefit of society, just for their own jack reasons...to me, it's on par with whacko Racial theories ala Storm Front and Holocaust Deniers.

    End of. Never ever will be convinced that it's social use or making it lawful/not illegal, will help the vast majority of society.

    Think i'll go back to the cnut off with VG & zimmerclit....
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Well, that was a worthy contribution to the debate. Thank you so much for your input.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Like Like x 1

  5. You're Welcome..........and my imput re their use is no worse than your defence of drugs for social reasons to be fair, but i'm happy to agree to disagree.

    I'm not going to get into any more of a debate about it as we will never be on the same side, because like me, you have your entrenched opinions based on your knowledge, opinions and experiences involving the use of recreational drugs, which you will support with your 'research and facts' Reports, books, etc , which i accept but don't agree with, and i have my experiences of seeing their use within my environment and of knowing several people who have had psychotic episodes through their use and overuse, etc....


    You laid your cards on the table earlier saying that lazy stoners would just be 'lazy' anyway without the use of drugs.... not so, say I. We discussed the use of opiates and other narcotics, etc, etc and agree that there is very good reason for their use in medicine..... to help heal people with some health issues i.e Painkilling, anxiety, PSTD/Depression/etc . .. but i see no justification for the social use of it and to me, it's only used socially because it may be a lot cheaper and easy to access in some parts of the world then alcohol.


    So that's why there's no point in me and you discussing it/debating it or any other reason to carry on arguing and counter arguing .....we just aint gonna agree.

    And i'm certainly not going to worry about the replies, responses or opinions or anyone who advocates their use in a social setting,

    So as worthy contributions go, the last sentence of your reply gives a great indication of a typical reaction when faced with someone who won't buy into your argument.
     
  6. @hellsbrink - I mean, using facts to support your argument? That's a new low.

    Why can't you just use wild supposition and personal anecdotes like everyone else. We don't progress as a species through 'facts and research', you know.
     
    • Show again braincell Show again braincell x 1

  7. Hmm? Obviously my use of those words was too subtle for you or anyone one else whose first reaction was to jump in and have a pop to show how clever they are , i even used quotation marks to give numpties a clue.

    Meh.

    Point i was making was that for every, book, every report every number in those 'facts and research' supporting the reason for the decriminalisation of drugs , legalisation of them, etc, there's is pretty much the same amount of 'evidence' saying the exact opposite ....

    Scientists/Politians and the legal system all have agendas, research is loaded to say what the sponsors - who provide funding - want it say, facts and figures are spun/twisted to back up various claims.....in other words, who do you trust or believe?...naturally it will be those that match your own views and opinions

    The latest evidence supports claims that smoking drugs does affect brain activity and development in certain age groups, and also that is worse for you than smoking just tobacco due the puffers taking longer and deeper drags, etc...

    Hope that you now understand why i wrote what i did?....probably not?

    Take your pick what you want to believe via the links ... I prefer to use my own eyes and experience and i've used cannabis for this example as it's usually the more common drug in our society, plus most charlie is cut as to be pretty worthless....and don't even consider taking pills made of pressed talc and rat poison


    http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/drugs/Pages/cannabis-facts.aspx

    Cannabis | FRANK

    7 surprising health benefits that come from weed smoking | Metro News
     
  8. Hush now, bitey.

    If you won't change your mind when presented with evidence (peer-reviewed scientific studies - try the book I suggested by David Nutt; not newspaper articles and web links that have been simplified for the lowest common denominator), then I can't help you. The only worthwhile point you raise is the mention of politicians; they all too often ignore scientific advice for their own party needs.

    Furthermore, you use ellipses incorrectly, me old cock sparrow.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  9. ..And? Everyone still ends up believing what suits them...just like you have with your insistence that Nutts book is the be all and all ...no doubt , x amount of years down the line it will be rejected by the scientific research of the day as a load of self justifying shite. ... and as for using easy to read links, it's called communication... I could easily have quoted some big clever words from a big clever book or used high brow scientific papers, but I never needed to show how clever I am , unlike you seem to need to do with the use of the word 'Ellipses' when there were far easier and dare say, better words that would have got you point across.

    Meh ... Great word isn't it?

    I won't read Nutts' book for the same reason that the crackheads and skunk smoking pricks I see around me won't , and that is because it won't change their or my reality, plus i've absolutely no interest in the use of illicit drugs in any setting or the reasons behind it.
     
  10. You read it in 30 mins? Well done.

    The point is that it's not just his book; it's the studies that he references. Still, you appear to be unwilling to consider that reading wider could be a good thing.

    Have a good evening - surely your other thread needs you attention?
     

  11. Nah, was thinking of getting the book from my library as I do remember his sacking and thinking that it was wrong as what he said did make sense, even if a bit insensitive to the situation , and my comments were made following a quick review of the notes on the link - might not bother now if reading it turns you in a sarcastic arrse,

    As for the other threads, i'll give as good as I get but sometimes I can fit right into some of grown up ones where people don't give me shite from the off.

    G'night.
     
  12. For what it's worth, I was a Met police officer for quite a while and I'm now a critical care paramedic. I don't give a flying fook what people jab in their veins, shove up their snotter or suck into their lungs. If they're stupid enough to do that to themselves, then they deserve all the inevitable good news they can get. But I've seen and had to manage the fallout on families, on the public, on kids and communities and it's devastating. And don't get me started on the weed induced psychosis and early onset dementia. So, legalised or not, the collateral damage is devastating.

    But hey, as long as a few trendy apologists keep banging their gums about how beneficial it is, and users keep on using, then everything's fine isn't it...:puker:
     
    • Like Like x 5

  13. You'll be accused of being a dinosaur, maaaaan!....... anyhoo, after remembering you stitching my palm up after that friggen knife went through it ,are you sure that paramedic is for you, you were much better at swanning around Heathrow with your MP5 looking mean and moody ;-)

    Hope all's well? CetA
     
  14. Trendys have worked out well in places like Rotherham...
     
    • Like Like x 1