I didnt start a debate did I, I said I had nor remorse for peopel who die from using drugs.

I am who I am and if it's not liked then I have np with that.

Those left behind yes, but not the user/abuser.

Not heartless or callas, my father died in 1993 he was just 55 years old, didn't drink/smoke and never did, he lived a fairly healthy life as well.

He had a heart attack, no previous health problems either, now that is the sort of person I feel sorry for, and not just because it was my father, but he didn't do anything to harm is health as such.

He had is life taken away, a life he did try to look after, but it seems it was all in vain

OK he might have had chips and likes once in a blue moon, then again who doesn't.

First off my condolences and apologies to those who deserve them.

As for the main topic of debate that appearrs to be unfolding here, we have to acknowledge that the 21st century is a more complex environment than ever before; and that extends to its debates on drugs and their usage.


Most ppl who do recreationals tend to be fairly decent and ethical ppl {for the most part}.

With this in mind, consider this for a moment.

Poor farmers are having their families kidnapped, threated with rape and murder, and being burnt out of their homes for not producing particular consumables.

Now if your conscience if comfotable with these facts then at least your a bit more informed than you may have been.

Governments have their part to play, many have been offered to 'buy the problem' such as the Americans in Afghanistan they refused and production went through the roof. Same within the Southern Americas.

What these High level failures of governments to engage, and opt for might and force is the equivalent of using a sledge hammer to kill a room full of black widow spiders - you might get some but you'll get bite sooner or later.

I neither condone nor condem usage, just feel that there's a lot of aspects to it.