Jump to content

Alcohol will/should it be next???


Pampam

Recommended Posts

The goverment has tried very hard one way and another to dissuade people from smoking , do the forum think that alcohol should be the next frontier as I see it advertised daily on the tv magazines sponsorship etc . Yet it is a drug after all and if we were to see heroin or cocaine or any other street drugs advertised most people would be appalled. Why is it the "chosen". Legal drug why not any of the others and why is it socially acceptable when it causes so much trouble?? They are almost giving it away in supermarkets yet we hear that as a nation we drink too much : PP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Had Enough

Alcohol isn't a drug. Most people can stop drinking alcohol tomorrow. Having a couple of glasses of wine won't make you an alcoholic who can't function until his or her next fix.

 

Some alcohol such as red wine, taken in moderation, can actually be beneficial. Yes, as in smoking there are many weak and stupid people who become dependent but the beauty of alcohol is that even those who get really drunk occasionally still don't become addicts. In fact they feel so bad that it puts them off drinking too much.

 

However, the other products that you mention, nicotine, heroin, cocaine and particularly crack-cocaine are incredibly addictive and people can be hooked after just one dose. Not fags by the way, that probably takes a bit longer.

 

Alcohol gives pleasure to many people. I love wine but probably drink it twice a week. Many friends love beer but again, if beer was banned tomorrow they wouldn't have to go cold turkey!

 

In everything in life there are weak and silly people. Should we ban certain foods because some can't resist stuffing their faces and end up obese?

 

The government shouldn't ban alcohol. Doing so would penalise the majority for the stupidity of the few. If it banned cigarettes for instance how long would it be before a black market sprang up selling them at inflated prices?

 

What government should do, and what it does in fact, is educate and warn people of the consequences of smoking and over indulging in anything, be it drink or food.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alcohol IS a drug and should be treated with respect.

 

But then so is the caffeine we get from Tea and Coffee.

 

If a person chooses to drink alcohol such that their intake becomes chronic, the brain attempts to adapt to the increasing amounts of ethanol.

 

.......................

 

Generally the brain can adapt to a degree - this is "neuroadaptation" and this can take place up to a point. After chronic consumption and ongoing adaptation, it will now take more ethanol to produce the same effect as the first drink.

 

When this is the case, tolerance has developed and substantial adaptation has taken place.

 

If the person now chooses to quit drinking the body tries to return to its original state in doing so causes a number of withdrawal signs including tremors, seizures, nausea, and negative emotional states.

 

The so called DT's or Delirium Tremens

 

Since further drinking will delay, diminish, or prevent withdrawal, the person often chooses to drink again. Even if the person stops drinking, the neuroadaptations that took place in the brain may persist for a period of time well beyond the time when ethanol is no longer present in the body.

 

For most people it is relatively easy to modulate ethanol intake.

 

Depending upon the vulnerability of the individual, as drinking progresses regulation of drinking becomes more difficult. Simultaneously, the ability of the brain to adapt is diminished or lost. Systems become increasingly disregulated, perhaps due to damage, so that in the brain communication and coordination diminishes or fails.

 

This is particularly true after repeated withdrawals from ethanol, since the severity of withdrawal increases. Perhaps this is the reason for saying the drink appears to take on a life of its own.

 

"First the person takes a drink, then the drink takes a drink, then the drink takes the person".

 

...........................

 

To say that alcohol is not a drug, is not addictive, is wrong.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CliveH - 2013-08-04 11:10 AMAlcohol IS a drug and should be treated with respect.But then so is the caffeine we get from Tea and Coffee.If a person chooses to drink alcohol such that their intake becomes chronic, the brain attempts to adapt to the increasing amounts of ethanol. .......................Generally the brain can adapt to a degree - this is "neuroadaptation" and this can take place up to a point. After chronic consumption and ongoing adaptation, it will now take more ethanol to produce the same effect as the first drink. When this is the case, tolerance has developed and substantial adaptation has taken place. If the person now chooses to quit drinking the body tries to return to its original state in doing so causes a number of withdrawal signs including tremors, seizures, nausea, and negative emotional states.The so called DT's or Delirium Tremens Since further drinking will delay, diminish, or prevent withdrawal, the person often chooses to drink again. Even if the person stops drinking, the neuroadaptations that took place in the brain may persist for a period of time well beyond the time when ethanol is no longer present in the body. For most people it is relatively easy to modulate ethanol intake. Depending upon the vulnerability of the individual, as drinking progresses regulation of drinking becomes more difficult. Simultaneously, the ability of the brain to adapt is diminished or lost. Systems become increasingly disregulated, perhaps due to damage, so that in the brain communication and coordination diminishes or fails. This is particularly true after repeated withdrawals from ethanol, since the severity of withdrawal increases. Perhaps this is the reason for saying the drink appears to take on a life of its own."First the person takes a drink, then the drink takes a drink, then the drink takes the person"............................To say that alcohol is not a drug, is not addictive, is wrong.

 

Oh no it isn't is because HE said so....how very dare you disagree.  :-)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Had Enough

OK I'll concede. Technically alcohol is a drug. I'll also concede that coffee and tea are drugs and some people become addicted to sex, so can that be a drug as well?

 

But linking alcohol to the illegal street drugs mentioned is silly. You do not become addicted by moderate alcohol consumption. You become addicted almost immediately if you take some illegal drugs and you can become addicted fairly quickly if you start to smoke.

 

Putting alcohol in the same category as 'real' drugs just gives the killjoys and the government an even better excuse to tax our favourite tipple.

 

But I repeat - if alcohol was no longer available, the vast majority of the population would suffer no ill effects or withdrawal symptoms as they are not addicted.

 

What I find amusing though is that, apart from mine, no one has addressed the question posed by the OP, which asks if the government should treat alcohol just like hard drugs and ban advertising and convince the population that drinking is socially unacceptable (all drinking that is!).

 

CliveH seems motivated just be his usual desire to prove me wrong and hasn't mentioned the OP's question. RogerC has taken the opportunity to have a little dig, just because we've clashed in the past.

 

It's all a bit sad really! Could you both actually treat the OP with some respect and answer her question, the gist of which as I see it is:

 

Is drinking alcohol socially unacceptable and should the government try to dissuade us from drinking any alcohol at all, which is the stance it takes on smoking or taking real drugs?

 

My view is that it should warn of the dangers of regular excessive drinking, which will make you an alcoholic. But moderate drinking of beer or wine or even the occasional whisky will not turn you into a drug addict!

 

If you're stupid enough to drink twelve cups of coffee a day you'll become a caffeine addict. But should the 99.99% of the population stop drinking coffee because of a few idiots!

 

We all have free will and we get one chance at life. If anyone chooses to abuse anything it's their own fault and no one elses!

 

I shall carry on with my occasion glasses of Bordeaux and Beaune thank you and I will never consider myself a drug addict! ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RogerC - 2013-08-04 11:47 AM
CliveH - 2013-08-04 11:10 AMAlcohol IS a drug and should be treated with respect.But then so is the caffeine we get from Tea and Coffee.If a person chooses to drink alcohol such that their intake becomes chronic, the brain attempts to adapt to the increasing amounts of ethanol. .......................Generally the brain can adapt to a degree - this is "neuroadaptation" and this can take place up to a point. After chronic consumption and ongoing adaptation, it will now take more ethanol to produce the same effect as the first drink. When this is the case, tolerance has developed and substantial adaptation has taken place. If the person now chooses to quit drinking the body tries to return to its original state in doing so causes a number of withdrawal signs including tremors, seizures, nausea, and negative emotional states.The so called DT's or Delirium Tremens Since further drinking will delay, diminish, or prevent withdrawal, the person often chooses to drink again. Even if the person stops drinking, the neuroadaptations that took place in the brain may persist for a period of time well beyond the time when ethanol is no longer present in the body. For most people it is relatively easy to modulate ethanol intake. Depending upon the vulnerability of the individual, as drinking progresses regulation of drinking becomes more difficult. Simultaneously, the ability of the brain to adapt is diminished or lost. Systems become increasingly disregulated, perhaps due to damage, so that in the brain communication and coordination diminishes or fails. This is particularly true after repeated withdrawals from ethanol, since the severity of withdrawal increases. Perhaps this is the reason for saying the drink appears to take on a life of its own."First the person takes a drink, then the drink takes a drink, then the drink takes the person"............................To say that alcohol is not a drug, is not addictive, is wrong.

 

Oh no it isn't is because HE said so....how very dare you disagree.  :-)

(lol) (lol) (lol) Yeah - playing with fire me B-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had Enough - 2013-08-04 12:13 PM

 

OK I'll concede. Technically alcohol is a drug. I'll also concede that coffee and tea are drugs and some people become addicted to sex, so can that be a drug as well?

 

But linking alcohol to the illegal street drugs mentioned is silly. You do not become addicted by moderate alcohol consumption. You become addicted almost immediately if you take some illegal drugs and you can become addicted fairly quickly if you start to smoke.

 

Putting alcohol in the same category as 'real' drugs just gives the killjoys and the government an even better excuse to tax our favourite tipple.

 

But I repeat - if alcohol was no longer available, the vast majority of the population would suffer no ill effects or withdrawal symptoms as they are not addicted.

 

What I find amusing though is that, apart from mine, no one has addressed the question posed by the OP, which asks if the government should treat alcohol just like hard drugs and ban advertising and convince the population that drinking is socially unacceptable (all drinking that is!).

 

CliveH seems motivated just be his usual desire to prove me wrong and hasn't mentioned the OP's question. RogerC has taken the opportunity to have a little dig, just because we've clashed in the past.

 

It's all a bit sad really! Could you both actually treat the OP with some respect and answer her question, the gist of which as I see it is:

 

Is drinking alcohol socially unacceptable and should the government try to dissuade us from drinking any alcohol at all, which is the stance it takes on smoking or taking real drugs?

 

My view is that it should warn of the dangers of regular excessive drinking, which will make you an alcoholic. But moderate drinking of beer or wine or even the occasional whisky will not turn you into a drug addict!

 

If you're stupid enough to drink twelve cups of coffee a day you'll become a caffeine addict. But should the 99.99% of the population stop drinking coffee because of a few idiots!

 

We all have free will and we get one chance at life. If anyone chooses to abuse anything it's their own fault and no one elses!

 

I shall carry on with my occasion glasses of Bordeaux and Beaune thank you and I will never consider myself a drug addict! ;-)

 

I was not "motivated" to do anything Frank.

 

But you said alcohol was not a drug when it is. I simply put you right on that score and you take it as a personal affront such that you have to accuse me of being motivated to correct you.

 

Please do not flatter yourself Frank - if anyone had posted that I would have done the same - but I doubt anyone bar you would take it as a personal affront!!! If anyone is sad - I am not sure it is I!!!

 

I had an op recently and was given Fentanyl which is a morphine derivative.

 

Fentanyl is many times more powerful that street drugs but I was not addicted when I came out of hospital. But Fentanyl is a Controlled Substance and is highly addictive if taken regularly.

 

I too enjoy a glass of red in the evening, and I agree that regular small amounts are beneficial - this is the well documented U shaped graph of alcohol wellbeing. i.e. taking too much is as bad for your health as taking none at all, whereas having a couple of glasses is protective - primarily I believe because of the antioxidants present in red wine.

 

Being belligerent and overly sensitive on forums is probably a sign of some sort of addiction.

 

 

 

(lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had Enough - 2013-08-04 12:13 PMOK I'll concede. Technically alcohol is a drug. I'll also concede that coffee and tea are drugs and some people become addicted to sex, so can that be a drug as well?But linking alcohol to the illegal street drugs mentioned is silly. You do not become addicted by moderate alcohol consumption. You become addicted almost immediately if you take some illegal drugs and you can become addicted fairly quickly if you start to smoke.Putting alcohol in the same category as 'real' drugs just gives the killjoys and the government an even better excuse to tax our favourite tipple.But I repeat - if alcohol was no longer available, the vast majority of the population would suffer no ill effects or withdrawal symptoms as they are not addicted. What I find amusing though is that, apart from mine, no one has addressed the question posed by the OP, which asks if the government should treat alcohol just like hard drugs and ban advertising and convince the population that drinking is socially unacceptable (all drinking that is!).CliveH seems motivated just be his usual desire to prove me wrong and hasn't mentioned the OP's question. RogerC has taken the opportunity to have a little dig, just because we've clashed in the past.It's all a bit sad really! Could you both actually treat the OP with some respect and answer her question, the gist of which as I see it is:Is drinking alcohol socially unacceptable and should the government try to dissuade us from drinking any alcohol at all, which is the stance it takes on smoking or taking real drugs?My view is that it should warn of the dangers of regular excessive drinking, which will make you an alcoholic. But moderate drinking of beer or wine or even the occasional whisky will not turn you into a drug addict!If you're stupid enough to drink twelve cups of coffee a day you'll become a caffeine addict. But should the 99.99% of the population stop drinking coffee because of a few idiots!We all have free will and we get one chance at life. If anyone chooses to abuse anything it's their own fault and no one elses!I shall carry on with my occasion glasses of Bordeaux and Beaune thank you and I will never consider myself a drug addict! ;-)

 

There was recently something in the press saying that a group of 'eminent' researchers had determined that there were dangers in drinking red wine albeit having been previously deemed good for ones health by another group of 'eminent' researchers so who are we to believe.

Additionally HE that was a light hearted comment I posted in reference to someone 'disagreeing' with you.  It was nothing to do with our 'clashes', it was more to do with what has proven to be a 'trend' of yours to pounce on those who disagree with you.

 

I have to ask though ..why do all your posts have to be insulting and/or belittling?   I refer to your calling 'copious coffee drinkers'  stupid and idiots.  Your responses would be more acceptable if you didn't stand in judgement and resort to 'name calling' of all and sundry.

 

Oh and addiction to sex is more akin to a mental illness as opposed than a drug.

 

As for the premise 'should alcohol be banned' I am of the opinion that the licensing laws need to revert to 'opening hours' as they were before the Government stuck it's ill thought out 'oar' in and relaxed the licensing laws trying to engender a 'cafe type society' ala Continental europe.  (In the UK 'drinking' in general is a very different social mindset to that of Continental Europe).  This would mean supermarkets etc would also have to adhere to specific hours in which they could sell alcohol.  This would curb the 'on the streets at all hours' drunken behavior, it would lessen the 'drunks' swamping A&E, it would reduce the pressure on the overstretched police and 'possibly' reduce the growing problem of alcohol dependency.  Link the foregoing to a more robust policing and prosecuting for D&D offences and it 'might' just go some way to resolving the problem that, as I see it, 'open all hours' licensing has brought about. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Had Enough
RogerC - 2013-08-04 2:39 PM

 

I have to ask though ..why do all your posts have to be insulting and/or belittling?   I refer to your calling 'copious coffee drinkers'  stupid and idiots.  Your responses would be more acceptable if you didn't stand in judgement and resort to 'name calling' of all and sundry.

 

You do have a very unpleasant trait RogerC, which is to jump on fairly innocuous comments such as mine about coffee drinkers. Just to confirm my view, I think that anyone who would drink 12 cups of coffee a day is stupid! I think that anyone who takes hard drugs is stupid!

 

You often seize on such trivial things purely to give yourself an excuse to denigrate another person. The comment about me: 'Why do ALL your posts have to be insulting or belittling is disgraceful.' ALL my posts?'That really is the most insulting and untrue thing to say!

 

I didn't insult anyone on here, I made a comment about a group of people, who I do think are stupid!

 

Would you get upset if I stated that people who drive without using their seatbelt are stupid? I think they are and won't mince my words.

 

But what is worse is your hypocrisy. I decided to do a search on the word 'stupid' and on your name. Several hits came up, this one was on a thread about immigration. It's a subject on which you easily get very hot under the collar.

 

I made a post which insulted no one, made no personal comments about anyone, but gave a view, which was my considered opinion. This is part of your response to me:

 

'So do you ever stop to think of the implications of, or even the outright stupidity of your outpourings?'

 

So because your viewpoint differed from mine my opinion was 'outright stupidity'. And that wasn't to an anonymous group of people, it was to me directly.

 

Please, stop this constant and pathetic nit-picking in order to give you the opportunity to belittle those with whom you disagree. It is unpleasant and unnecessary and, as I've just proved, you're no better than anyone else when it comes to refraining from using stronger terms to describe someone.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please give it a rest HE....I was simply pointing out that you appear to like calling people/groups of people stupid, idiots, bigots etc etc.  By doing so you denigrate those that you do not know.  Once again you prove your intolerance and rudeness to anyone who dares consider things normal which you deem to disapprove. 

 

I did respond to the OP which was my intention.  I will not get involved in hijacking another topic because of your intolerant postings despite the provocation from 'name calling' you!!!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Had Enough
CliveH - 2013-08-04 3:42 PM

 

Unbelievable hypocrisy Frank!

 

You must live in a bubble world with you and only you at the centre.

 

Quite amazing.

 

Why do you feel the need to do this? I know I can be insulting but in this case I wasn't and RogerC had no right to state that ALL my posts insult and belittle.

 

You really do take very opportunity to snipe don't you. For God's sake man, we've had the odd spat but it really is time to get over it and stop this childish and silly vendetta.

 

If someone insults me, as RogerC has just done, am I not allowed to respond? If I insult anyone you and others immediately jump on me. You really are a hypocrite you know.

 

And to get back to your response to my first post, you posted purely to nitpick about the definition of what really is a drug. You added nothing to the debate and it was another typical 'Look how clever I am' CliveH post with a load of technical stuff pasted straight from the web, which you try to disguise as your own!

 

Now please, do us all a favour and stop this childish stirring. It just makes you look petty and vindictive.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Had Enough
RogerC - 2013-08-04 3:45 PMPlease give it a rest HE....I was simply pointing out that you appear to like calling people/groups of people stupid, idiots, bigots etc etc.  By doing so you denigrate those that you do not know.  Once again you prove your intolerance and rudeness to anyone who dares consider things normal which you deem to disapprove. 

 

I did respond to the OP which was my intention.  I will not get involved in hijacking another topic because of your intolerant postings despite the provocation from 'name calling' you!!!

Me give it a rest? You are the one who sought to stir things by that silly and insulting comment about ALL my posts being insulting and belittling, and to remind you once more what you said to me:'So do you ever stop to think of the implications of, or even the outright stupidity of your outpourings?' You are a hypocrite of the first order and I'm convinced that you just enjoy stirring things up.So if anyone should give it a rest it's you. Stop leaping on innocuous comments and implying something far worse.You and CliveH could start a row in a church!As I said, I'm not perfect but you too have a very unpleasant trait as you've just demonstrated.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had Enough - 2013-08-04 3:55 PM
RogerC - 2013-08-04 3:45 PMPlease give it a rest HE....I was simply pointing out that you appear to like calling people/groups of people stupid, idiots, bigots etc etc.  By doing so you denigrate those that you do not know.  Once again you prove your intolerance and rudeness to anyone who dares consider things normal which you deem to disapprove. 

 

I did respond to the OP which was my intention.  I will not get involved in hijacking another topic because of your intolerant postings despite the provocation from 'name calling' you!!!

Me give it a rest? You are the one who sought to stir things by that silly and insulting comment about ALL my posts being insulting and belittling, and to remind you once more what you said to me:'So do you ever stop to think of the implications of, or even the outright stupidity of your outpourings?' You are a hypocrite of the first order and I'm convinced that you just enjoy stirring things up.So if anyone should give it a rest it's you. Stop leaping on innocuous comments and implying something far worse.You and CliveH could start a row in a church!As I said, I'm not perfect but you too have a very unpleasant trait as you've just demonstrated.

 

HE I apologise.  I should have said 'the majority' of your posts.  You have a propensity to resort to using 'stupid' and 'idiot' amongst other derogatory writings when referring to any or all who have a differing viewpoint to you.  Maybe you should look 'inwards' and consider those broad church comments before tarring the many with insults if they deign to hold views at odds with to yours.

 

Yes I have resorted to using those terms when replying to some of your posts in our 'to and froing' but I do try not to insult unless it is in response to those received.

 

Now I am, as I said before, not going to hijack the OP any more. 

 

To the OP member who posted the topic I apologise for this unfortunate diversion.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RogerC - 2013-08-04 4:18 PM

Now I am, as I said before, not going to hijack the OP any more.

To the OP member who posted the topic I apologise for this unfortunate diversion.

 

Don't worry Roger - nobody 'owns' any thread on a public forum and this is just a normal expansion of the conversation in which you are as entitled to post your views and have them respectfully disagreed with without personal insult as anyone else is - so please - do carry on and enjoy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had Enough - 2013-08-04 3:51 PM

 

CliveH - 2013-08-04 3:42 PM

 

Unbelievable hypocrisy Frank!

 

You must live in a bubble world with you and only you at the centre.

 

Quite amazing.

 

Why do you feel the need to do this? I know I can be insulting but in this case I wasn't and RogerC had no right to state that ALL my posts insult and belittle.

 

You really do take very opportunity to snipe don't you. For God's sake man, we've had the odd spat but it really is time to get over it and stop this childish and silly vendetta.

 

If someone insults me, as RogerC has just done, am I not allowed to respond? If I insult anyone you and others immediately jump on me. You really are a hypocrite you know.

 

And to get back to your response to my first post, you posted purely to nitpick about the definition of what really is a drug. You added nothing to the debate and it was another typical 'Look how clever I am' CliveH post with a load of technical stuff pasted straight from the web, which you try to disguise as your own!

 

Now please, do us all a favour and stop this childish stirring. It just makes you look petty and vindictive.

 

 

 

 

Actually Frank - I do know a fair bit about drugs like Fentanyl - it was marketed by a Company I worked for called Janssen Pharmaceuticals, as Sublimaze. Janssen also marketed an even faster acting version called Alfentanyl as well as their hypnotic - Etomidate - marketed as Hypnomidate.

 

Anaesthesia has three parts - Pain control, Sleep Agent and Muscle Relaxant. Too much of the latter and you can be paralysed on the table in pain and wide awake. Too much pain control and you can take days to come round. Too much sleep agent and you can feel the pain pain such that your muscles contract so the surgeon can not do his job properly.

 

Because of this I learnt a fair bit about what makes a drug addictive.

 

Once again - IT IS YOU THAT MAKES THE CONCLUSION THAT NOBODY CAN KNOW AS MUCH AS FRANK!

 

If I do cut and paste - I reference it.

 

Where it is me - - I just post.

 

Either way - it is quite easy to point out your genuine ignorance in these matters. I expected a BLAST from you because you were silly enough to say that Alcohol was not a drug.

 

Like I say - anyone else would have said - "yes you are right - my mistake" - which of course you did.

 

But you also had to go onto make a personal attack - because Frank being Frank - just cannot stand being told he is wrong. Don't take it so personally Frank.

 

 

 

 

 

(lol) (lol) (lol) (lol)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CliveH - 2013-08-04 4:38 PM

Alcohol is not a drug.

 

I know you didn't say it but rather than leave too much quote in I chopped it!

 

Would I be right in thinking that pure alcohol is more of a poison than a drug and only in diluted form and added to other ingredients does it become addictive?

 

I don't know - I'm only asking!

 

As for should it next on the social outcast horizon - absolutely yes of course it should when used to excess.

 

No human being is born needing alcohol to exist so why should it be seen as acceptable to get drunk in order to misbehave in public, or commit crimes using booze as an excuse, or cost the NHS (aka the taxpayer - aka you and me!) millions due to self inflicted poisoning?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Had Enough
CliveH - 2013-08-04 4:38 PM

 

Had Enough - 2013-08-04 3:51 PM

 

CliveH - 2013-08-04 3:42 PM

 

Unbelievable hypocrisy Frank!

 

You must live in a bubble world with you and only you at the centre.

 

Quite amazing.

 

Why do you feel the need to do this? I know I can be insulting but in this case I wasn't and RogerC had no right to state that ALL my posts insult and belittle.

 

You really do take very opportunity to snipe don't you. For God's sake man, we've had the odd spat but it really is time to get over it and stop this childish and silly vendetta.

 

If someone insults me, as RogerC has just done, am I not allowed to respond? If I insult anyone you and others immediately jump on me. You really are a hypocrite you know.

 

And to get back to your response to my first post, you posted purely to nitpick about the definition of what really is a drug. You added nothing to the debate and it was another typical 'Look how clever I am' CliveH post with a load of technical stuff pasted straight from the web, which you try to disguise as your own!

 

Now please, do us all a favour and stop this childish stirring. It just makes you look petty and vindictive.

 

 

 

 

Actually Frank - I do know a fair bit about drugs like Fentanyl - it was marketed by a Company I worked for called Janssen Pharmaceuticals, as Sublimaze. Janssen also marketed an even faster acting version called Alfentanyl as well as their hypnotic - Etomidate - marketed as Hypnomidate.

 

Anaesthesia has three parts - Pain control, Sleep Agent and Muscle Relaxant. Too much of the latter and you can be paralysed on the table in pain and wide awake. Too much pain control and you can take days to come round. Too much sleep agent and you can feel the pain pain such that your muscles contract so the surgeon can not do his job properly.

 

Because of this I learnt a fair bit about what makes a drug addictive.

 

Once again - IT IS YOU THAT MAKES THE CONCLUSION THAT NOBODY CAN KNOW AS MUCH AS FRANK!

 

If I do cut and paste - I reference it.

 

Where it is me - - I just post.

 

Either way - it is quite easy to point out your genuine ignorance in these matters. I expected a BLAST from you because you were silly enough to say that Alcohol was not a drug.

 

Like I say - anyone else would have said - "yes you are right - my mistake" - which of course you did.

 

But you also had to go onto make a personal attack - because Frank being Frank - just cannot stand being told he is wrong. Don't take it so personally Frank.

 

 

(lol) (lol) (lol) (lol)

 

Can't you read? I conceded immediately that alcohol was technically a drug! Did you miss that in your rush to hurl your usual insults? Please go back and then you can say 'Yes, you are right, my mistake'. But I won't hold my breath!

 

Your problem Clive is that you're the one who for some reason constantly has to impress on any subject under the sun. In a search for a quote from RogerC I came across a thread on the fishing industry, which by the way, I didn't even bother participating in as I know nothing about it.

 

Guess who was the resident expert who knew more about it than anyone? Yep, CliveH. We had people who'd grown up in the fishing industry, whose family were steeped in it. But Clive was the expert!

 

But of course you do know all about these things, helped by a bit of 'referencing' of course!

 

But I get back to the main problem with you, which is that you cannot resist your infantile little snipes as in the one above. You really were insulting about my reaction to a post by RogerC.

 

Have you noticed that he has since apologised for that post? So perhaps I wasn't unreasonable in complaining about it?

 

For all your bluster, you have one problem. We've crossed swords and you were proven to be so wrong. Now you take every opportunity to have these unpleasant little digs. It does you no credit and if you were really interested in some kind of peace on this forum, you'd think twice before doing it again.

 

So please, if you want to respond to me I welcome it but stop this playground behaviour of sniping from the sidelines when what's being discussed is nothing to do with you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Had Enough
RogerC - 2013-08-04 4:18 PMHE I apologise.  I should have said 'the majority' of your posts.  You have a propensity to resort to using 'stupid' and 'idiot' amongst other derogatory writings when referring to any or all who have a differing viewpoint to you.  Maybe you should look 'inwards' and consider those broad church comments before tarring the many with insults if they deign to hold views at odds with to yours.

 

Yes I have resorted to using those terms when replying to some of your posts in our 'to and froing' but I do try not to insult unless it is in response to those received.

 

Now I am, as I said before, not going to hijack the OP any more. 

 

To the OP member who posted the topic I apologise for this unfortunate diversion.

Accepted and thank you but again you are no better than me! You now say the 'majority' of my posts. Many of my posts are as innocuous as anyone else's and I get just as much and even worse from others, as I'm sure you know. Have you counted my posts and worked out in how many I use 'insulting' words?But of course it's very subjective. I think that people who take drugs, or don't wear a seatbelt, or drink 12 cups of coffee a day are stupid. Do you think that I shouldn't use that phrase? I'm not sure how else to describe them! I accept that I am much more robust than you in my language, that's just how I am and perhaps you could try getting used to it?But what I never do is attack a poster indirectly, as we've seen today, and I'm not accusing you of that by the way. You tell it to my face so to speak. But we have one or two on here who just can't resist sticking their nose in and attacking someone just for the sake of it, nothing to do with the thread!Their behavior stirs trouble. They must know how people will react and I'm convinced it's purely to start a row.Anyway, thank you for the apology. I still think it's a bit over the top but I'm not getting excited about it, so let's forget it shall we?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't suggesting that alcohol be banned I just wondered why its the "chosen " legal socially acceptable drug , when the effects of drink are far more damaging eg violent crime domestic and sexual crime .if you are at a&e on a weekend it's full of drunken patients ,and town centres are frightening and no go areas for a sober person .so should we reassess our attitude to other hard drugs eg heroin and cocaine .heroin addicts tend not to be violent cocaine I'd say makes people think they're invincible and obnoxious .so that's what I'd like to know WHY ?? Thanks pp Oh yes by the way it is a poison. Hence the saying "what's yer poison"? You couldn't drink it neat so they add flavourings lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had Enough - 2013-08-04 5:05 PM

 

CliveH - 2013-08-04 4:38 PM

 

Had Enough - 2013-08-04 3:51 PM

 

CliveH - 2013-08-04 3:42 PM

 

Unbelievable hypocrisy Frank!

 

You must live in a bubble world with you and only you at the centre.

 

Quite amazing.

 

Why do you feel the need to do this? I know I can be insulting but in this case I wasn't and RogerC had no right to state that ALL my posts insult and belittle.

 

You really do take very opportunity to snipe don't you. For God's sake man, we've had the odd spat but it really is time to get over it and stop this childish and silly vendetta.

 

If someone insults me, as RogerC has just done, am I not allowed to respond? If I insult anyone you and others immediately jump on me. You really are a hypocrite you know.

 

And to get back to your response to my first post, you posted purely to nitpick about the definition of what really is a drug. You added nothing to the debate and it was another typical 'Look how clever I am' CliveH post with a load of technical stuff pasted straight from the web, which you try to disguise as your own!

 

Now please, do us all a favour and stop this childish stirring. It just makes you look petty and vindictive.

 

 

 

 

Actually Frank - I do know a fair bit about drugs like Fentanyl - it was marketed by a Company I worked for called Janssen Pharmaceuticals, as Sublimaze. Janssen also marketed an even faster acting version called Alfentanyl as well as their hypnotic - Etomidate - marketed as Hypnomidate.

 

Anaesthesia has three parts - Pain control, Sleep Agent and Muscle Relaxant. Too much of the latter and you can be paralysed on the table in pain and wide awake. Too much pain control and you can take days to come round. Too much sleep agent and you can feel the pain pain such that your muscles contract so the surgeon can not do his job properly.

 

Because of this I learnt a fair bit about what makes a drug addictive.

 

Once again - IT IS YOU THAT MAKES THE CONCLUSION THAT NOBODY CAN KNOW AS MUCH AS FRANK!

 

If I do cut and paste - I reference it.

 

Where it is me - - I just post.

 

Either way - it is quite easy to point out your genuine ignorance in these matters. I expected a BLAST from you because you were silly enough to say that Alcohol was not a drug.

 

Like I say - anyone else would have said - "yes you are right - my mistake" - which of course you did.

 

But you also had to go onto make a personal attack - because Frank being Frank - just cannot stand being told he is wrong. Don't take it so personally Frank.

 

 

(lol) (lol) (lol) (lol)

 

Can't you read? I conceded immediately that alcohol was technically a drug! Did you miss that in your rush to hurl your usual insults? Please go back and then you can say 'Yes, you are right, my mistake'. But I won't hold my breath!

 

Your problem Clive is that you're the one who for some reason constantly has to impress on any subject under the sun. In a search for a quote from RogerC I came across a thread on the fishing industry, which by the way, I didn't even bother participating in as I know nothing about it.

 

Guess who was the resident expert who knew more about it than anyone? Yep, CliveH. We had people who'd grown up in the fishing industry, whose family were steeped in it. But Clive was the expert!

 

But of course you do know all about these things, helped by a bit of 'referencing' of course!

 

But I get back to the main problem with you, which is that you cannot resist your infantile little snipes as in the one above. You really were insulting about my reaction to a post by RogerC.

 

Have you noticed that he has since apologised for that post? So perhaps I wasn't unreasonable in complaining about it?

 

For all your bluster, you have one problem. We've crossed swords and you were proven to be so wrong. Now you take every opportunity to have these unpleasant little digs. It does you no credit and if you were really interested in some kind of peace on this forum, you'd think twice before doing it again.

 

So please, if you want to respond to me I welcome it but stop this playground behaviour of sniping from the sidelines when what's being discussed is nothing to do with you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow ! - once again you demonstrate a memory that lets no slight go.

 

As for the Fishing debate - once again you manage to get it wrong. I spoke as I felt. Something you demand that you can do with impunity but whoa betide anyone that says something you do not agree with! (lol) (lol) (lol)

 

My point re Controlled Drugs was that I do know something about it. And yet my knowledge in this area is so offensive to you that you felt the need to say:-

 

"And to get back to your response to my first post, you posted purely to nitpick about the definition of what really is a drug. You added nothing to the debate and it was another typical 'Look how clever I am' CliveH post with a load of technical stuff pasted straight from the web, which you try to disguise as your own! "

 

I did not "nitpick" - I corrected your falsehood that alcohol was not a drug.

 

I think I did add a fair bit to the debate - but none of it was to your liking because I dared to point out you were wrong about something.

 

I do not try to point out how clever I am - this is the Ad Hom attack you regularly use against anyone who proves you wrong.

 

Like I say - when I quote from something I reference it - you should know this because you have criticised me for so doing.

 

Similarly when I have cut & paste and then referenced it - that is wrong in your eyes as well! (lol) (lol)

 

Still you do give us all a good laugh.

 

 

:-D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Had Enough
CliveH - 2013-08-04 6:27 PM

 

Wow ! - once again you demonstrate a memory that lets no slight go.

 

As for the Fishing debate - once again you manage to get it wrong. I spoke as I felt.

:-D

 

I'm beginning to worry about you. I never forget a slight? *-)

 

I told you that I found the fishing thread when I put in a search using the words 'RogerC' and 'stupid' in order to show Roger that he too can be very insulting at times.

 

Please try it. You'll find the fishing thread comes up. I read it as I got quite interested in reading your usual bluster where you try to convince everyone that you know about everything under the sun!

 

There was no slight as I wasn't even in the thread! And you talk about me giving 'us' a laugh! Who's 'us' by the way Clive? Is it the people that you put pat on the back when they make a silly joke, by putting a row of smileys in the next post? Do you have any idea how sad and ingratiating that makes you look!

 

But this one sentence sums you up:

 

'I spoke as I felt!'

 

It doesn't matter if you knew bugger all about the subject, but as long as you 'felt' about it, that's OK! You couldn't make this up! (lol) (lol)

 

This will be my last post to you Clive. I've had it with your petty vindictiveness and snide little attacks. We had a row, you were incredibly foolish and accused me of lying about being a businessman. I dangled a bet and you, you silly boy, took it! And I still don't believe that you paid the bet by the way. If you did you'd be waving the receipt around for all to see! ;-)

 

You lost and were so humiliated that you took a month off to sort yourself out. Since returning you have been obsessed with exacting some kind of petty revenge by constantly making sad little attacks as in the one that started this off. And it wasn't even about you!

 

I've had it. There's no hope and I can't see you ever forgetting what happened and I can see no end to your spiteful malevolence.

 

So, that's it. I have no more to say to to you, life's too short and I'm sure that others are sick to death of these silly disputes that arise because you can't let go.

 

I know exactly what will come now. The usual self-justification and insults followed by a snide and sarcastic remark. At least you're predictable! *-)

 

Now do 'us' a favour and stop your little vendetta.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you also make the last post you wrote to me the last time you respond to me as well please Frank?.

You DO have an annoying habit of trawling back through threads that are months if not years old just to bring up some snippet that you can fling at someone when good old fashioned factual debate is beyond your capabilities.

 

It gets rather tedious to be honest.

 

No need to confirm my request old chap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Had Enough
donna miller - 2013-08-04 7:43 PM

 

Can you also make the last post you wrote to me the last time you respond to me as well please Frank?.

You DO have an annoying habit of trawling back through threads that are months if not years old just to bring up some snippet that you can fling at someone when good old fashioned factual debate is beyond your capabilities.

 

It gets rather tedious to be honest.

 

No need to confirm my request old chap.

 

Another one with reading difficulties. I didn't trawl back through threads. I wasn't even in that thread and hadn't even read it as it was no interest to me. I'm not even sure what the date was. I've explained how I found the thread, try it, it works!

 

And can I remind you that you began things by having a go at me in the other thread. I didn't have a go at you. Now if you can't take the heat, don't go into the kitchen! ;-)

 

Oh, and perhaps if you read a little more slowly you might understand the post and not jump to the wrong conclusion as you have done above! Bad night last night maybe with 'the girls' in the gay bars of Cardiff! ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...