Legalize Every Drug

[Captain Canada]

And take the crime out of the culture. I'm not just talking about marijuana, come on! Everything! Class A, B, C, prescrition drugs etc. Treat adults as adults and let them control what they put in their body. That's what the US was founded on after all isn't it - freedom of the individual to control his or her life?

[Pollux V]

Most adults don't act the way they should when it comes to drugs, their addictions come from the time when they were teenagers and were experimenting or when they were trying to fit in. People do drugs whether or not they are legalized.
The US has two legal drugs on the market. Alchohol and Tobacco. Look at all the problems we have with those. Can you imagine what it would be like if we had every drug legalized? If that ever happens we'll never be able to go back to the first two, we already tried back in the fourties-I think-and that's when organized crime sprung up and wreaked havoc upon everything in the cities. Some of those mobs still exist today. You just can't do it. The US would also look weak in the eyes of other nations if it gave up on the drug war and legalized everything. They're dangerous substances, far worse in most cases than alchohol or tobacco.
You can't have too much faith in the population as a whole.

[Captain Canada]

So what you're saying is that in some instances the state knows best and should control an individuals private life.

Perhaps you're right. Maybe we should go on and ban homosexuality. These people just don't know that it's bad for them. Their desirous side is controlling their lives and leading them down an evil path!

What else shall we ban?

Doughnuts - high fat content. Given the health problems associated with them, I suggest we ban them for the well-being of society. In fact, all junk food should be banned. We need to stop heart disease.

And books. I've read a few, and reckon others are unable to cope. Just look at those fanatics who read the bible! That book seriously affects them. Should be banned. State knows best.

Okay, okay. I know you're saying that drugs are a special case. I would argue against you from two points though:

1. Pragmatic. Legalising takes out the criminal element (the bit most people hate) and, I think, shifts the problem to dealing with addicts rather than super-rich, armed, violent drug cartels. I don't think we'd all suddenly become addicts. If they started selling heroin in your local pharmacy, would you become an instant junky?

2. Philosophical. The old JS Mill philosophy. Distinction between self-affecting and other-affecting actions. Where an activity affects society (such as violence on another) the state has a place to intervene. Where an activity affects only the individual (drug taking, consensual sex of any sort etc) the state has no place to legislate. To allow the state to do so is to invite oppression.

Any thoughts?

[Tiassa]

But I did want to make a comment regarding Shrike's post:Most adults don't act the way they should when it comes to drugs, their addictions come from the time when they were teenagers and were experimenting or when they were trying to fit in. People do drugs whether or not they are legalized.Most adults don't act like adults period, whether it's about drugs, parenthood, driving a car, shooting a gun, ad nauseam. I would disagree about addicitons coming from teen years and "experimentation", but I'll leave that issue aside for the general nature of Shrike's phrasing; there's much there I may not be accounting for in the stated perspective.

In King County, Washington, our Sheriff is about to take one step backwards, and return focus to the low-level dealers. Since we're already holding 350 people in our county jail for the crime of being foreign, I'm not sure what we're going to do with all of the hard criminals, since the rest of the bedspace will soon be occupied by nickel-and-dime dealers and users.

Captain Canada: Since the US is fighting against the negative aspects of substances without recognizing their positive attributes, I personally think caffeine should be made illegal.

Incidentally, did you know that in the US, marijuana is considered by the federal government to be more harmful to the individual, and to have a higher addiction potential than methamphetamine? Considering that it has become popular down here to attempt to establish that marijuana is as addictive as caffeine, I think a coffee ban would be appropriate.

http://www.sciforums.com/t3611/s685761fac251bdea55ea5995d0f36999/thread.html is a link to a thread I started on the coffee issue in the World Affairs & Politics forum, which includes a link to a news story on a recent art demonstration in which caffeine was banned from Amherst University for a day.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

[Pollux V]

Capn I see where you're coming from but you're wrong! The government is only interested in it's citizens safety. Do you think the kids and adults addicted to heroine, who puke, go unconscious, amongst other things LIKE using the drugs?? NO!! Because they're addictive, widly addictive. They're not like doughnuts or homosexuality, doughnuts ARE NOT addictive and homosexuality is a choice someone makes about their sex life, and disease can just be just as easy to contract if you're heterosexual and if you don't use condoms.
BUT THERE ARE NO CONDOMS FOR DRUGS!!! So many more problems would begin if all of these drugs were created, imagine how many more car accidents, how many more accidents at all would occur if people weren't only drunk but also STONED!!
Not to mention drugs kill you much, much quicker than cigarrettes, and as far as I know alchohol doesn't kill you at all unless you abuse it heavily.
Yes, Tiassa, caffiene should be banned, however I think that the people should actually vote in their own individual states after they've been educated on the pros and cons of caffiene.

[Captain Canada]

Shrike, I hope I would not be misrepresenting your view by suggesting that you are arguing along the same two lines I have been - pragamatic and philiosophical. As I see it, you are saying:

1. Legalizing drugs would create more addicts and damage society.

2. The freedom of choice involved in recreational drug taking is one that disappears as addiction and compulsion intervene.

Yes, I can see the points you are making, but I still think the dangers of legalizing are less than the dangers of keeping the drugs illegal. A couple of other arguments I'd like to offer:

1. Under prohibition in the US the level of alcoholism rose significantly. This suggests that the legality or otherwise of intoxicating substances bears little on the levels of addiction (of course the depression may have had something to do with this).

2. Britain built an empire at a time when opium dens were enjoying their heyday in London. The fact that opium was widely available did not harm Britain (the country's most succesful - in economic terms - years).

3. I can easily find any drug I want today. The fact that I don't necessarily do so is more a matter of choice than legality or availability. I would credit most people with the same ability to choose.

4. The addictive qualities of drugs have not really been properly researched. Cocaine is less phyisically addictive than nicotene, but heroin is very phydically addictive. Just how much we don't really know.

There are many more arguments from a pragmatic perspective. But as this is a philosophy thread on ethics etc. I think that is the question we should focus on.

I still can't see how the state can tell me, as I sit in my house, on my own, watching TV that by smoking marijuana or taking some other drug I am destroying society. If I want to destroy my body then surely that's up to me. I think the Mill argument I put forward still stands, but perhaps you haver another view?

[Tiassa]

Yes, Tiassa, caffiene should be banned, however I think that the people should actually vote in their own individual states after they've been educated on the pros and cons of caffiene.Fair enough. But why not legalize every drug, campaign based on the truth, and let the people decide? Marijuana, cocaine, psilocybin, and LSD; heroin, methamphetamine, and PCP would fail. Opium resin and Ecstasy are up in the air; neither should be illegal, but I can easily see the voters recalling that heroin is an opiate, and that Ecstasy contains meth.

Of course, the campaigns would have to be honest. Read some of the anti-marijuana propaganda from the American 1930's, '40s, and '50s ... it's disgraceful. Oh, and we'd have to put alcohol on the ballot, too ... but I'm already against prohibition to begin with, so I'm not anxious to visit that one during my lifetime.So many more problems would begin if all of these drugs were created, imagine how many more car accidents, how many more accidents at all would occur if people weren't only drunk but also STONED!! Coulda, maybe, might ... in the United States, we are innocent until proven guilty, and protected from government intervention until the authority has probable cause to believe we are hurting someone or their property. Except, of course, for drugs, which are illegal merely because they think we might do something bad. University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center (UC-NORC) put out a study in '99 that's buried somewhere in these archives in one of my posts--I'll dig up the study later if I can--that demonstrates no perceptible difference between drug users and non-users in the workplace; the survey only applied to people who admit to using drugs, and did not collect data on how many use in the workplace.

There are several difficult-to-obtain reports that indicate that marijuana users get in less traffic accidents. I haven't one of these at hand, but I'm still working to find one.

Sam Donaldson of ABC news, in Fields of Gold (I think was the title), a special on marijuana, noted a Kentucky sheriff's department that claimed an anonymous survey of its employess showed that marijuana users took less sick days, however that works out. I'll dig up my videotape of the special and see if I can find the actual report.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

[thecurly1]

Welcome to the most conservative, Christian country next to the Vatican City itself.

Yes the US is kinda founded on the freedom to make one's own choices. Then again this doesn't apply to everything, that's why there is a government to do things after all.

Another freedom is to not suffer because of others. Yes the crime rate would reduce DRASTICALLY if all drugs were legalized, but who cares?

Guess what crime isn't that bad in the US and hasn't been even in the Depression.

If we wanted drugs legalized, we'd vote, because the government is by the people for the people.

Most people realize that drugs being legalized is a STUPID idea, that's why they aren't legal.

[Cris]

Curly,

Fifty percent of everyone currently in US hospitals are there because of either smoking or alcohol related issues. Problems related to the drugs, as in this topic, barely register.

Alcohol and tobacco are also drugs.

At the time of prohibition alcohol was made illegal and the crime rate soared accordingly. If you attempt to limit the people from what they want then they will find a way to get it, illegal or not.

We should make all drugs freely available from any pharmacist at reasonable prices, and remove the unenforceable laws.

This will do several things –

1. Make drugs vastly cheaper. This will reduce related crimes where many are forced to steal to finance their expensive habits.

2. If drug-taking becomes acceptable then many institutions and clubs will form so that people can take and use drugs safely and in controlled and pleasant surroundings instead of back-alleys and in fear of being discovered.

3. The drug dealers who thrive on exorbitant prices will fade away together with the violence that accompanies them.

A very large number of people want to experiment with hallucinatory drugs and they should have that right. The USA should be about personal freedoms yet the USA is one of the most bureaucratic, censor rife, and restrictive countries in the world.

The basis of western law is – everyone should be free to do anything they wish except where such actions would interfere with the freedom of others.

I am not interested in drugs and have never experimented and have no plans to do so. Such drugs alter the correct functioning of the brain and can cause permanent damage. But I do not see that I have any right to tell others how to run or ruin their lives and neither have governments.

Let the marketplace decide what can be bought and sold. Artificial restrictions lead to crime when something is clearly and overwhelmingly desired.

Cris

[thecurly1]

Weather or not drugs should be legalized is besides the point. I can't win this because people have dug into their trenches and won't come out. I can deal with that.

Here's another side issue, they'll never be legalized.

People realize that even during the 1980's crack epidemic/crime wave, the crime though unplesant wasn't as horrible as it could have been. The public can tend to think that their in a crime wave, when they aren't because thats what makes the 6:00 news and the front pages of the newspapers.

The US doesn't know REAL crime, go to any third world country, maybe Mexico, and Colombia. That is real crime.

Listen this country is running pretty good with ILLEGAL drugs.

I've said it once and I'll say it again, this country is ultra-conservative, and won't legalize any drugs.

P.S. I know alcohol and tobacco are drugs, though they are LEGAL. I have my quams with booze, and cigarettes but thats for another time.

I'm starting school now. Time is a wasting away.

[KalvinB]

The reason Tobbacco is legal is because the Goverment makes more than the tobacco companies off of it. Alchohol is legal for the same reason. Taxes.

The only way to make money off of the other drugs (manufacturable by any shmuck in a garden and therefore not taxable) is get it by another means. Namely arresting and charging insane fines and posting really high bails.

They'll never be legal because the government would lose a lot of cash flow.

Ben

[Captain Canada]

Not to mention the government's friends in international banking who earn a packet from money-laundering.

Interesting correlation.

Check out where the CIA is most active, and see where the biggest supplies of illegal drugs come from.

1960s and 70s - Vietnam, Cambodia
1980s - Afghanistan
1990s - Colombia, Peru

Hmmm. What a coincidence.

[thecurly1]

The reason alcohol and tobbaco are legal is NOT because of taxes entirley, though that does have a large part of it.

Alcohol has been an anglo-saxon favorite for thousands of years, so has tobbaco.

The CIA and the US government doesn fund the drugs into the country. Don't think I've been brainwashed. The government loses more money in the loss of productivity, the war on drugs, and healthcare due to drug addictions than they do by selling it. The US intakes about a TRILLION dollars though taxes of income, tarrifs and an assortment of other things.

Its actually a bad business for a first-world country such as ours to go into. Actually too costly.

Drugs shouldn't be legalized, the addictions can be treated through our VAST physcology network and eduction system. I hope the politicans realise this soon.

[Captain Canada]

the addictions can be treated through our VAST physcology network and eduction system.

True, but bullets can't. That's why it's worth taking the crime out of the drug problem by legalising them.

The CIA and the US government doesn fund the drugs into the country

No, it doesn't fund it, but is involved. Noriega? Escobar? To name but two.

[thecurly1]

Maybe becasuse the CIA finds out about all the drug loards, and is there to gather info for wars.

That way we know what we're dealing with when we go in to take them out. Involved, yes, responsable, no.

[Captain Canada]

Sorry, but the CIA really isn't that virtuous. And tacit approval of drug trafficking goes higher up. Noam Chomsky sums it up best:

Noam Chomsky

By then (1960), the center of the drug trade shifted to Indochina, particularly Laos and Thailand. The shift was again a by-product of a CIA operation - the "secret war" fought in those countries during the Vietnam War by a CIA mercenary army. They also wanted a payoff for their contributions. Later, as the CIA shifted its activities to Pakistan and Afghanistan, the drug racket boomed there.

The clandestine war against Nicaragua also provided a shot in the arm to drug traffickers in the region, as illegal CIA arms flights to the US mercenary forces offered an easy way to ship drugs back to the US, sometimes through US Air Force bases, traffickers report.

The close correlation between the drug racket and international terrorism (sometimes called "counterinsurgency," "low intensity conflict" or some other euphemism) is not surprising. Clandestine operations need plenty of money, which should be undetectable. And they need criminal operatives as well. The rest follows.

[thecurly1]

Maybe, I'll belive it.

Two quick questions:

1) Don't you think after nearly forty years of this the CIA would have been caught with it's pants down? I think I'd be hard for them to hide this, especially when the government can't keep the lid on spys infiltrating the highest ranks of the CIA.

2) The CIA wouldn't fund their programs by selling drugs to it's own citizens. In the grand scheme of things you lose more money by selling drugs, because of more prisions, and loss of productivity as well as other pratfalls.

Could you explane these two?

[Red Devil]

Ah, now I understand, Captain Canada is really an alien! Well he/she must be? As some of the rhetoric issuing forth can only be described as misguided, for want of a polite word!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Pollux V]

I'm baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack.

I totally forgot about this thread.

Down to business.

Noam Chomsky is one hard sonofab*tch to understand, I read some of him for one of my classes. Jesus that guy can write!

Anyway, Admiral-er Captain Canada the legalization of drugs just won't happen. There's just too many conservatives and too many smart folk to do it in the US or canada. Your king or whatever you guys have is probably too busy hunting rabbits or something to care about drugs in the first place. Things are good the way they are. People aren't smoking as much, and eventually I think it'll stop altogether eventually. And alchohol, at least to my knowledge, isn't that harmful to you in the short or long term as long as you don't consume too much of it. Illegal drugs should be kept illegal and penalties for using them should be, like, exportation to mexico or something. That'd teach the bastads.

just kidding about the bastard thingy. I have nothing against anyone who uses drugs, it's their choice to take a huge risk and spend unnecessary amounts of money.

[Captain Canada]

I have nothing against anyone who uses drugs, it's their choice to take a huge risk and spend unnecessary amounts of money.

Exactly, so why keep it illegal?

[Chagur]

For all the talk of 'lessons of history', we didn't learn a damned thing from our experience with 'Prohibition'.

And, there's so much money to be made; whether it be the street corner dealers or the international banks.

[machaon]

WILMINGTON, DE—On Monday, Sloan Laboratories, a subsidiary of the Wilmington-based Merton Pharmaceuticals, unveiled Dexiflux-V, a new miracle drug its creators claim will enable users to get "high as a fucking kite."


Above: Sloan Laboratories researcher Dr. Mark Kimmel examines a sample of Dexiflux-V, a new drug expected to help countless Americans get unbelievably high.
Inset: Boulder, CO, bead vendor Zach Petersen, a Dexiflux-V test subject who reported "extraordinary results" using the drug.
The breakthrough drug, Sloan Laboratories officials said, gives hope to millions of Americans who can no longer get high as a result of years of sustained, resistance-building narcotics use. Dexiflux-V, which has already won FDA approval, will be sold over-the-counter in pill form and is expected to be available nationwide as early as July 1.

"For years, a large segment of the U.S. population has been anxiously awaiting a bold new breakthrough in self-administered mood-enhancing substances," chief developer Dr. Stanley Kupferman said. "With Dexiflux-V, that long-anticipated day has finally arrived. In clinical trials, we administered Dexiflux-V to over 1,600 people, and, in virtually every case, the test subject reported being stoned out of his or her freaking gourd."

Kupferman said Dexiflux-V, which will cost just $12 for a 50-count bottle of 100-mg tablets, has a wide range of applications, from getting hippies royally baked before a Dave Matthews Band concert to helping businessmen deal with the stress of a major merger, to helping homeless persons numb the pain of a life of poverty and despair.

"This drug has an impressive number of uses and, hence, can meet the needs of an array of consumers," Kupferman said. "So, while its target market is the stoner, Dexiflux-V should also prove popular with speed freaks, gas-huffers and hardcore baseheads."

Test subjects have responded positively to the much-heralded miracle drug.

"I would definitely categorize this drug as effective," said Zach Petersen, 23, a Boulder, CO, bead vendor who took part in Sloan Laboratories' clinical tests. "The highs I was able to achieve using Dexiflux-V far surpassed those I previously got using other drugs. In all my years of drug usage, I can honestly say that I have never been so fucking high."

Fellow test subject Pete Renfro, a 26-year-old Austin, TX, convenience-store worker, agreed. "Dexiflux-V is some very good shit," he said. "The results I got from it were way positive, and I would not hesitate to recommend it to friends, particularly Chad."

As excited as drug users are about Dexiflux-V, one group is even more excited: Merton Pharmaceuticals stockholders. The day the drug was unveiled, Merton Pharmaceuticals stock rose from 23 1/4 to 44.

"I haven't seen such a commotion over a new product since crack," said Merton CEO and principal shareholder Gordon Bianchi, whose shares in the company have nearly doubled in value to $4.2 billion. "This truly is a wonder drug."

[Stryder]

Here is something to mention.... don't buy anthrax cures through the net... that's what the press has been on about... dodgy cures could be worse than getting the bug, or you could get a worse bug.

Anyway....

I don't think drugs that are illegal now should be legalised, it's not for the reason that some stoners put "Awww! man, it's just those Men in suits putting a crimp on my high!"

In truth drugs have many negative effects, one of which being that if your taken to a state of euphoria, your body tries to balance you, this means when that drug runs out (through your body over time) you begin to get the low, and the lows are far worse than that of normal lows without drugs.

Smoking cannabis in a country that defines it illegal also leaves you prone to losing a sense of what right and wrong is, Not directly at the cannabis, but because it's illegal and a person does it they are more likely to let people take other drugs without giving them any concerning remarks over their dangers.

There is also the point that Crime is fed by peoples need to fulfill their addictions, So peoples cars regularly lose their radio's due to some crackhead after his fix through selling a multichanger at a knocked down price.

Not to forget to mention that Terrorists use drug shipments to do a number of things:

1: Undermine law enforcement (creating chaos)
2: Funding themselves through the sale of narcotics for weapons in such places as Afghanistan (Or supporting war lords in other countries)
3:It undermines the economy

Then there is the legal problem of Tobacco:

1: People should be able to sue the tobacco companies over Second degree smoke inhalation from their parents or collegue workers of course prior to their second degree warnings.

2: People on social benefits that smoke, are actually giving money back to the governments through smoking tobacco.

(Of course some see this as a population control, or a method of getting people to pay for treatments with something like cancer that have no real value for treating, they are just a source of income.)

Chocolate bars and young children are the next concern, along with fizzy drinks.. Yes the dreaded E-numbers, adding perks to children similar to a diabetic being forcefed a bag of sugar.

Horrible uncontrollable brats (okay I'm speaking from experience) that as soon as they've tasted an adrenalin peak, they become so incensantly uncontrollable.

Then there is alcohol, a long time oldie of trying to remove depressions by drinking depressants.

All these points occur over the entire topic of "Should we legalise drugs?", I say NO.

I don't want some festering crackhead sleeping on my shoulder when there is no where else to sit on a bus, having those drugs illegal makes their appearance unacceptable, so they hide in their grotty little holes, doing what they do.
I've seen roads where children play littered with heroin needles, this is a bad state to see, it makes me think of such things as Bubonicplague when rats an even peoples cats, could be out for the night and get infected with a needle, and possibly pass it on as a new form of contagion.

Okay hypothetically they legalise it and they have some club to head for, that club will be surrounded with their litter, and those sorts of people would be travelling for miles to that location, making that town uninhabitable by White or blue collar workers, because of the destitute social benefit parasites.

So the towns economy is ruined.

[Bambi]

I'd start with marijuana, and nothing else. Simply because hemp has such high potential economic value (as well as potential medical uses for marijuana extracts.)

IMHO, marijuana is not worse than tobacco smoke damage-wise, and not worse than alcohol intoxication-wise. There may be increased accidents or whatnot; however, I don't think everyone who isn't already a smoker would suddenly become one. I'm skeptical of the doomsday scenarios, especially with regard to marryjay; the point with respect to it that these days everyone who wants it gets it and does it anyway. Plus, the forbidden aura makes it a coolness factor for the kids.

So, start with legalizing marijuana. Don't allow commercial campaigns promoting it. Continue the psychological/educational assault against its usage. Just stop freaking wasting money chasing after it and its users, and start taking some economic advantage of hemp as a renewable resource. If I'm wrong and legalizing marijuana really does make all hell break loose, then make it illegal again.

And don't tell me that once legal it won't ever become illegal. It happened to opium. It even happened to marijuana itself.

I say give it a try. A real-world test to put all the speculations and what-ifs to rest once and for all. And then if the end of the world doesn't materialize, consider the next most innocuous drug to legalize...

[Captain Canada]

I have posted numerous arguments on this thread stating why, on balance, I feel there is more to be gained from legalising drugs (all of 'em) than there is to keep them illegal. I don't want to sound like a broken record but essentially I feel that most of the effects of drugs that are socially damaginf stem from their illegal status rather than the drugs themselves. We can argue about the hypothetical consequences - but none of us really knows what would happen. I think we can agree that the fight against drugs is unwinable, and right now is about as good as it gets.


I don't want some festering crackhead sleeping on my shoulder when there is no where else to sit on a bus, having those drugs illegal makes their appearance unacceptable, so they hide in their grotty little holes, doing what they do.

Oddly enough 80% of regular illegal drug users are whitecollar workers - check out the London legal profession (I'm talking about the lawyers no the criminals!) for drug use. It's staggering. But we only ever talk about the impoverished, the weak the 'festering crackheads' rather than those in the suits, nice apartments and BMWs who happily live a life with recreational drug use.

I'm not saying it's a good thing, but perhaps the problem is social and economic at source rather than the drugs. And if it is the drugs, how does the illegal element help them now?

[mrk]

Hi, I'm still kinda new, but I did want to say that legalization solves the problems in a couple of ways. There are those who feel I am a little intense;

The intensity comes from a fundamental overriding principle of "Don't tread on me", which was the SC state flag in 1777... The feds override this princple daily, and fuel my frustration. Their corruption of the schools, framers intents, specifics, and abuse of the system (and my inherent passionate nature) tend to meld into this same "intensity".
---------------
My thoughts on legalization of all "controlled substances

1. It puts the responsibility for addiction back where it belongs upon the inidvidual--whether it's getting stoned 24/7 or whatever, the indiviual is
responsible for his (that includes the ladies, ladies) actions/use--period.

2. It reduces LEOs (Law Enforcement Officers--not astrogocial lions) interaction with the general populace (hopefully).

3. Legalization (and taxation) increases revenue sources for the feds and perhaps they'll lower the personal rates (I can dream, can't I?).
-----------------
Now as to my comments on the thread.

Capt Canada:

I agree with you that the responsibility of use is upon the user (not gov't). WE don't need them to "protect" us or the bill that goes along with it.

You'll find there are surveys that show a marked difference between "experimentation" and frequent users. The majority of pot smokers are under 30, and a very small portion of the populace are 'frequent' abusers opposed to users (and there is of course a difference) of 'hard' drugs.
-----------
Keeping it illegal is generating MORE percieve revenue to employ LEOs, that's why legalization would cause a PERCEIVED decrease in employment
in that field. What happens when a quarter of a million people all hit the federally funded Unemployment line ALL at the same time?? Follow the MONEY.

Shrike:

Most of the time I couldn't agree with you more about most humans being lemmings who refuse to think for themselves, but many people find that
frequent drug use actually gets in the way of living life, and knock it off (style it down, cool it etc.) Addictive behaviour is a personality 'defect' and can apply to ANY thing from hand washing to heroine addiction. ANY one with a ritual is "suspect" to the shrinks as an obessive compulsive, btw.

Nicotine is actually one of the most deadly subtances on the face of the planet and primary addictive component of tobacco ( I smoke Dutch half zware which is far stronger than the "tailormade" crud, so I know--I also don't get all the additives, either)... A smoker gets his "hit" seven times faster than a junkie injecting his skag IV so...Why the junkies don't put it in
their tobacco/marijauna is beyond me...

Alcohol does have it challenges but it comes from abuse, not use. AND you have SIG/PACs SCREAMING about it. If you start looking at the actual
number of incidents/perprotionately you find out they are NUT groups with a grudge.

If you really belive the gov't gives a damn in hell about the safety of its citizens, you've been smoking WAY too much (whatever). It is only
interested in TAXES. This is why I am for legalization (dopers will pay MORE taxes, just as drinkers and smokers do now). The feds have already proven repeatedly they will, shall, and have always violated "States Rights". Look at what Ascroft is doing to OR's Pain Patient Treatment Act, as an example. THe FEDS have NO lawful means to intervene, but they have...
and their lackeys appointed for LIFE are backing him up.

RE: Chomsky:
Quantity (eg: frosted flakes) is not quality. His logic is wanting, and facts frequently skewed. In about half of his stuff he is either deliberately lying, or compeltely ignorant of the issues involved. No, I'm not one of his fans.
Try Reason.com and FrontPage.com for alternative views of contemporary political issues.
---
First rule of Statistics:
Correlative data does NOT provide CAUSITIVE results...
This is the entire problem with the ANTI smoking lobby, all of their "data" is corelative (eg:
epidemiological, not scientific fact).
You are appling the same non sequitor to dope...
---------
How many CEOs LIE deliberately to their bankers about what they will do with the bank loans? Some? Many? Most?
Now, could Noriega or Escobeda have lied to the CIA about what they would do with the money?

Could you have named two political persons paid by the CIA to influence their governments for various reasons, unnamed or embarassing who used the money to fund their drug operations (which the CIA did not necessarily know about, becasue of their being STRIPPED of the HumInt funding)? Just a question regarding logical process... Could the Feds have lied about their involvements with them? Is our government honest? If they are honest, why are they?

Tiassa

Your sheriff is postioning his department for fed law enforcement matching funds (your dopers have nothing to do with the issue) other than they just
happen to the Feds poster kids of the moment. As you mentioned he's illegally (the APA doesn't make it legal) detained aliens, to validate his fed
feeding trough, already.

Tell me your joking about putting Coffee on the Class 1 list, please, please, I NEED my coffee, please don't make that illegal, too... I'm begging :) and I'm serious. I WANT MY COFFEE!!! oh, :0

A econ prof of mine once said "...if really you want to study history, follow the money... So far he's been right. Take a look at the budget (public docs)of your local sheriff. I'm willing to bet you a crispy creame donut (if he doesn't eat it, first) he's funded by MORE dollars through the feds these days than he is by the county--so who's he going to listen to, Ashcoft, or your county supervisor? Just a thought :) IF you want to get him to back down his dogs, you'll need to kick him in the wallet a few times (eg: cop brutality cases).


The Curly 1:
Uh, this is a republican democracy (because of universal enfrancisement) opposed to a Democracy where EVERYTHING is decided by those that bother to show up (In the last persidential election, 101 MILLION voters couldn't be bothered to show UP. Their reasons don't matter, they didn't). I'm not 18 so I remember when ANYone started a political discussion the FIRST question was, "Did you vote in the last election?" (if the answer was NO, they were told to SHUT UP, because if you don't vote, you can't have an opinion). CA made some steps to legalization (medical usage, first, like antihistymines) and the FEDS are revoking DEA medical script licenses like the docs are passing out skag. The message from Ashcoft and Reno before him is, "YOU acted without OUR permission".

She's (Reno) being sued for enforcing COPA by the way (the courts are saying you cannot apply LOCAL standards Globally. There may well be a way to apply the same princple to dope, eg: State's Rights...

IF you did manage to get a legalization bill on the floor of the senate, they'd make it die on the floor of the HOUSE or vice versa. THEY want drugs
illegal to justify the 85 BILLION a year they spend on COPS to control us. The issue has never been drugs, it is control. Follow the money.
-----
IF it were put to national popular vote, I think you'd be very suprised by the results (the polls are skewed, btw). I do agree this country will not ever see legalized heroin. The media has so wrongfully stigmatized it, that legalization will never happen however it along with coke (which is not a narcotic as skag is, btw) could be decriminalized. In the 60s the brits took about 30 herion users off the streets of Manchester, fed them up, cleaned them up, gave them SCRIPT for their maintainance dose, and they went back
to work... When it became too much of a hassle to keep getting the script, they opted for rehab. Keep in mind the USA is the ONLY country which does not use pharmacuitical herion medicinally. It is alos the ONLY country which requires a "permission slip"--script--for antibiotics...
----
Uh, tobacco was discovered about 1592. that would be 410 years at most. Yes Booze has been around for millennia, but there were opium eaters as
early as 600 AD in India when It and Zen were imported to CHINA.

Brief Tobacco history lesson:

When Walter Raliegh (soon to be Sir) returned from Roanoke VA, he showed up with it, the ENGLISH loved the stuff. Capt James Smith actually
(along with the Dutch in NY) set up regular shipments of the stuff, cuz Nobody figured out what happend to Roanoke Island Colony. Later, James I despised its smell, taste, and looks of people using it, and banned it at court as was his right (his house, his rule). Uh, yeah I know, Walter didn't hang out that long, as QEI stretched him and a hemp rope, simultaneously. He made the mistake of backing the WRONG horse (Mary Queen of Scots)...

Cris
Where did you GET that figure? Fifty percent of hospializations are due to booze and cigaretts, an anti smoking website? IF as documented, only 26%
of the populace smoke, there is NO WAY 50% of the addmissions could be smoking related--it implies that if you don't smoke or drink you'll never be
hospitalized (uh, what about burn victims? what about cancer (non smoking related) what about appendectomies or an menisci tear repairs... huh?

YOU do have the right idea, though. The hash clubs in Amsterdam cause FEWER problems than the booze bars do. SOME are currently selling both,
but there are a number of cafes which VOLUNTARIALLY dropped booze because of the instant AH problem, which they DON'T have with hash or
pot. The Dutch are giving them a choice at present either or both, but soon it will be either cannabis OR booze NOT both. The brits are easing their pot arrests as they are finding MORE problems with the booze than with the dopers. The brits are even thinking of putting in Ecstasy purity machines like the Dutch clubs have (Ecstasy is actualy classified by theDutch as a "hard" drug, but they base their LEO priorities upon "public nusiance factors rather than "morality" as the USA does.
----------------
uh, the BASIS of U.S. law is: English COMMAN law is not quite so implicit, all authourity reverts back to the Crown through an unsuspendable
Parliment--middle french for gabfest.

(shhh. Don't tell anyone Cris, but you may be a closet libertarian.. :)


Chagur:
AT LAST, the voice of reason. Passing all that money around, generates taxes. The perscriptive cost of Percodan (synthetic morphine and aspirin) is about 8¢ a pill/5mgs, vs $15/gr~ of skag on the street (average purity 89%). btw my knowlege comes from READING not using...
(I like your avatar, but what is the FIW?) I am ignorant of it.

machaon:
Interesting concept, but who feeds the bulldog if EVERYBODY is stoned out of their gords? Enslaved droids, no doubt, all of whom stike for 'sentient' rights, right, and then sue because they CAN'T get high?...

Stryder
Been watching too much TV? Legalization makes the drugs cheaper, by far. Look at hash prices in Amsterdam. It is WAY below US street prices,
because it is legal. Just as booze prices dropped after the depression (until the tax man cometh...) When I lived in FL, nearly EVERY liquor store had a picture of a bottle with showing the percentage of local, state, and federal tax. I wish they would do that for gasoline prices and tires, and telephone bills, etc that have STUPENDOUS fed excise taxes that go 'unnoticed'. In Europe at least the VAT is added at the point of sale so you KNOW how much it is (like retail sales tax).
Your supposed 'litter' would remain in the clubs, and I think you'll find that given alternatives IV injection would be on the LOW end of the scale. Not to mention there is the high pressure gun used in large scale inoculation
theaters which IF IV injection were the chosen means would no doubt be used in lieu of hypodermics...

[Staffy]

HMMMMMMMMM interesting subject guys


My opinion is with any luck those that use will eventually do themselves in and OD, but in the meantime the hospital staff and inocent ppl are overworked,injured by the thoughtless acts of these idiots wanting to get high. Legalisation might be good but still would be a added workload to the hospital system. Anyone that shoves a needle in their arm for anyother reason then medical should be left to die when they are in need of help

[razz]

Ok well I kind of lean towards not legalising drugs.

I can understand the freedom of choice issues, however i still cant say that i believe crime would not drop, if drugs were made legal, people with expensive habbits would still need to fund this addiction.

I do not believe for a second that this drug legalisation idea would be benificial to our social culture or employment statistics.

How many more teenagers and adults would try these drugs if they were readily available and legal?

I think education is the first step in fixing the worlds drug problem.
Secondly i believe official corruption should be stamped out ,
I doubt that will ever be possible, and i think a harder penalty should apply to dealers.

Drug education starts at home, educating yourself then your children is the first step in the right direction.

I have been through the whole drug lifestyle scene when i was much younger, fortunately i did not get onto the harder more addictive drugs, but many of my friends back then did.

They were not bad people, more niave than anything.

Social responsiblity needs to be stepped up and the opinion of the public needs to finaly be adressed and met by those in power.

cheers

[Chagur]

Glad to see your lack of logic and your emotionalism extends
beyond cruelty to animals! Particularly you Staffy.

Have a good one. ;)

[razz]

Glad to see your lack of humanity and enthuisiastic emotionalism extends beyond your inflated ego.

Have an even better one :D

by the sounds of it you havent had A GOOD ONE ;) in quite a while. :eek:

Was that rude?

I really must learn to behave in public.
Send me to your dungeon and spank me Chagur.

Ps.. I dont think other members want to continue reading this petty bullshit... so if you please.. just build a bridge and get over yourself chagur and stop following me.

[Staffy]

Well , Well , Well
Good Morning Chagur fancing seeing u here:p

I am glad to see my lack of logic and emotionalism extends further too gosh hate to think i was just stuck in one field of expertise :rolleyes:
How naive and stupid of me would that be and so small minded now we can't have me acting like u now so yes i do branch out into other topics and come to think of it i did it on my own unlike some who seem to follow around other members.

Though i will thank you Chagur for finding mine and razz's comment so thrilling and our personalities so riveting that u must make a comment after us. ;)

I applaud u Chagur
Ohh a helpful hint if i was u i would get that fascination with urine quotes checked out there, bit of a perverted fetish maybe;)
Maybe ask ya lover to get out the 12 inch dildo this time the 10 inch one does not seem to satisfy you, your still sounding frustrated.


Cheers and G'day Mate :D

[odin]

You know how to really turn razz & Staffy on.

:D :D :D :D :D :D

[Chagur]

T'ain't nothing to it. Kids turn on easy like.

Take care and have a good one ;)

[Mungo]

I am not a new member, simply an old face with a new account, I am well informed and up to date as to the general flow of chat within these pages.

Please note, I have read various posts and threads @sciforum over the past few hours, weeks and months.
In a thread/post I read earlier, razz has made note that you seem to follow him around, and go out of your way to insight arguements.
I have to agree!
Further more, your rudeness and God complex does not stop with razz. On more than one occassion you have laughed at members educated/personal opinions, abused them and called them names without real provication.
You seem an intellignet man, why waste your time being trivial.
Please respect other members of Sciforum.com its not to much to ask.

[Chagur]

Then you know I enjoy a bit of a tiff.

And it's pretty difficult not to 'follow' him around when as you have no
doubt noticed, I post far and wide. That is, except for the religious forum.

As to castigating others at times, I plead guilty. There's a quirk to my nature that
makes it difficult for me to suffer a**h*l*s lightly when I consider the provocation
to be sufficient.

Intelligence has nothing to do with whether or not one is trivial at times ... just
makes it that much more enjoyable.

As to the 'god complex' ... what need? I've already declared myself 'Dictator of
the Universe'.

And as for respect ... I'll consider it after I get this bloody 12 inch dildo out of me
arse - Thought Staffy had a right good suggestion there ... Wasn't.

By the by, why the change of identity? Someone following you around too?

Take care. :rolleyes:

[Staffy]

LOL helloooooooooooooooooooooooo


Sorry to interrupt a serious topic with petty crap but just to reply to chagur when u refer to me I am a BITCH LOL not arsehole

U are a very bored man i see get a life and you might :D more often like i do i enjoy ya idiotical remarks proves it really takes all kinds to make this world up.


Have a lovely day

[Chagur]

I am a BITCH Suspected as much. Thanks for the confirmation.

Have a good one. ;)

[Bells]

Dearest Chagur,

I'm glad to see that you're still the emotional git I once gave you credit for. You call Staffy and Razzy kids but are you any better? Surely you can find something better to do than to attack people as you have done so well? And another thing... read a book on human feelings... your lack of feelings in some of the responses you have given in this site have shown you to be one who is totally unfeeling... or stupid... take your pick as to which you wish to be. Please do something about your lack of emotion and understanding, as your coming off as the bad guy here:).

Now to the topic at hand... While drugs are deemed illegal, they will be seen as something that must be tried and used. I'm sure we all did things as kids that we were not supposed to do. Unfortunately it is the same with drugs in todays society. People find that the thrill of doing something bad gives them an added high. Legalising drugs would get the kids selling them off the streets and it would give the bigger dealers nothing to do. The drug trade is one that has a very high return in profit for the main dealers. Legalising drugs would mean that these dealers would not be able to sell their wares. And by legalising drugs, you are taking away the thrill factor. Users could get the correct dose for their everyday use. This would also mean that these users would not get bad batches and it could lessen the risk of overdose. And it would be deemed uncool to have to get a prescription for the drugs that the individual uses. Kids would find it more difficult to come into contact with the drugs and the thought of having to go to a doctor for a prescription to get their drug of choice would be a deterrent. As a result the added pressure on our health system would be greatly reduced. By having users go to a clinic everyday for their daily dose would mean that many users could get on with a normal life instead of going into crime and prostitution to support their habits. In the meantime, users could get counselling at these clinics to try to get them into a form rehabilitation. There are many options for the drug problems that plague our society, and until the politicians get off their arses and actually get out there and see for themselves, nothing will be done. But I guess that money talks and until the dollars stop talking to the Governments, they wont get off their butts to see the damage that is being done to society.

[orthogonal]

If I were so inclined I could fill a jar with gasoline and breathe the fumes for a high. The poor kids in South and Central America can't get enough of it. It's outrageous that such a dangerous drug is freely available by the gallon on street corners all over America.

Seriously, is it practical to save people from themselves? You can't stop me from swilling the cleaning ammonia I keep on the shelf under my kitchen sink. There must be thousands of ways to get high from perfectly legal substances...and probably kill myself in the process.

Man has lived with narcotics for thousands of years. Why is it that we feel less able today to trust ourselves to make the proper choice concerning them than we did in the distant past? Are we evolving to be less intelligent or less responsible humans? If so, we have a problem larger than drugs!

It's about trust
I expect airline pilots, brain surgeons, people driving cars, etc. to be drug and alcohol free. I also expect them to have gotten a good night sleep. We don't legislate our hours of sleep, instead we trust that the airline pilot had enough sense to go to bed early enough to be rested for his flight. We have to continuously size up people and institutions in the course of our everyday lives. For example, I've known physicians that I wouldn't let touch me even though I'm quite certain they are drug free.

It's about responsibility
If I were king I'd legalize all drugs, educate our kids, and still expect to lose 10 or 20 thousand each year to drugs (yes, kids would also die). We lose as many to automobile accidents, to alcohol, and to cigarettes. Life goes on for the rest of us. But there are rewards for a life of making good personal choices; driving cautiously, eating a low fat diet, not taking drugs...

Michael

[TruthSeeker]

Captain Canada,

And take the crime out of the culture. I'm not just talking about marijuana, come on! Everything! Class A, B, C, prescrition drugs etc. Treat adults as adults and let them control what they put in their body. That's what the US was founded on after all isn't it - freedom of the individual to control his or her life?

Freedom, yes... But with discipline. You can give freedom for your children, but you can't let them do everything they want, unfortunatly. They shall want fly, like the superman...

Ok... you are talking about adults... But adults knows the consequences of using drugs. They probably use them because their lifes are not worth living... in this world that we live in...

That's a hard question. If it kills you, I don't think it should be legal. Cigarettes shouldn't be legal. Not even alchohol! But our "freedom-lover" society makes it legal... But where is the freedom on being addicted by a chemical substance and kill yourself each day more and more, slowly...?

US should reformulate it's concept of freedom...

Love,
Nelson

[goofyfish]

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
If it kills you, I don't think it should be legal.That is a rather broad stroke. Let's get rid of the cars, hockey, dogs, doctors, ceramic tiles, bacon, Coke machines...US should reformulate it's concept of freedom... Do you have a recommendation?

[TruthSeeker]

goofyfish,

That is a rather broad stroke. Let's get rid of the cars, hockey, dogs, doctors, ceramic tiles, bacon, Coke machines...

Dogs...? Doctors!?!?... Coke machines...? :confused: :confused: :confused:

I meant the things that is ALLWAYS harmfull...
Eventhough we could get rid of those things, if we lived in a more Natural world...


Do you have a recommendation?

Surely I have!

My Concept of Freedom:

Live without any superficial need. To live without the need of getting more and more. To be fulfilled with yourself, with no outside needs. You don't need a car to survive, do you? Or a computer, do you? It's all superficial. It's like the Eastern Religions say... Desires bring suffering. If you can be fulfilled with what you naturally got, with yourself, with NO DEPENDENCE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, then you are free of every suffering. ;)

You can be sure I feel fulfilled only by saying those things here... :)

PS: Look at your signature... ;)
I Love it... :)

Love,
Nelson

[lixluke]

Freedom from any attatchments, and full emotional control is an important part of personal freedom.

[MetaKron]

Most adults don't act the way they should when it comes to drugs, their addictions come from the time when they were teenagers and were experimenting or when they were trying to fit in. People do drugs whether or not they are legalized.
The US has two legal drugs on the market. Alchohol and Tobacco. Look at all the problems we have with those. Can you imagine what it would be like if we had every drug legalized? If that ever happens we'll never be able to go back to the first two, we already tried back in the fourties-I think-and that's when organized crime sprung up and wreaked havoc upon everything in the cities. Some of those mobs still exist today. You just can't do it. The US would also look weak in the eyes of other nations if it gave up on the drug war and legalized everything. They're dangerous substances, far worse in most cases than alchohol or tobacco.
You can't have too much faith in the population as a whole.

What gives you the right to decide how people should act when they take drugs?

What gives you the right to take those drugs away when in your estimation they don't follow your rules?

[Athelwulf]

Fucking necromancy, man! :eek:

I have the perfect article that people should read concerning this topic: http://www.ranting-gryphon.com/Bitchslap/Bitchslap-Illegal_God_Use.htm

Freedom from any attatchments, and full emotional control is an important part of personal freedom.

Is this to argue that psychoactive drugs should be illegal?

[MetaKron]

I just need a cheap way to make fuel for my car and home heat. I do not have hard enough issues with drugs to have to live with the results of bans.