bh wrote:Gaucho wrote:BigMcK wrote:Lyrics say so much.
If your point is that drugs can be bad for people I don't see anyone arguing that.
Yeah, not sure the point there BMK. Are you suggesting that Lynott would have died quicker if drugs were legal?
People will OD on drugs whethor they are legal or not. It's a destructive behavior that has little to do with legality.
By posting those, more to draw attention to the sad state of what addiction to a powerful narcotic brings about. In the last public performance his voice was gone, he could no longer remember words, while at that same time being in denial that he was addicted.
Keeping narcotics hold-up in a closet and acting like they are not available and hoping they go away is not my stance on the issue. They are here; we, Americans, have done a crappy job dealing with them. Do people here think society is ready to deal with the destructive nature caused by addiction? I do not, and personally see no value in bringing such an addictive influence into the mainstream and introducing it to a wider base of potential users. Experiment with it once just to see what it's all about and hope you can resist a second, third, fourth,... time.
Also, my feelings are for hard narcotics, not weed.
It's a debate that needs to happen without political divide. Money will be made either through legal or illegal channels. Deaths will occur, success from rehabilitation will be discovered, and awareness to how powerfully addictive narcotics are will (hopefully) be raised. New users will be found to replace those are no longer using. Just my opinion.