View Full Version : Drugs, Addiction and Morality
ScaryMonster
09-26-09, 08:12 PM
Call it reefer madness, seeking a changed state of consciousness, escaping the common place, feeding a gnawing physical addiction, running away from life or rebelling against the conventional the reasons for taking drugs in western society vary.
In the end no person, government or law can really prevent anyone using drugs if they decide that’s what they want to do and have the means to do it. Maybe that's actually a good thing? People in general feel that what the put into their own bodies is their business, not that the effects of certain drugs aren’t dangerous and damaging. I’m not condoning drug abuse only that to absolutely forbid it is futile. People will do what they want to do.
The United States learned from ‘Prohibition” that you can’t legislate morality.
That’s probably why the so-called Drug war can never be won.
In fact it’s a very 20th century concept that illicit drug use is amoral, drug cultures are to be found in countries where plant life yields these substances, different ritual ceremonies have always depended on hallucinogenics.
Jean Cocteau wrote regarding he’s addiction “I therefore became an opium addict, because the doctors who cure — one should really say, quite simply, who purge — do not think to cure the troubles which first caused the addiction; I had again preferred an artificial equilibrium to no equilibrium at all This moral disguise is more misleading then a disordered appearance: it is human, almost feminine to have recourse to it.” (Jean Cocteau — Opium)
Every whore has a sad story, you can’t really equate drug abuse with having a difficult or unhappy life, everyone has gone through difficulty some times horrific and yet not everyone gets addicted to drugs.
And then can you really equate something like Alcohol and Cannabis use with synthesized drug abuse, perceptionally as far as moral turpitude is concerned there is a huge gap between Alcohol which is legal and Ice.
Omega133
09-26-09, 08:19 PM
The thing is that yes every addiction is caused by something(Divorce, death of someone, stress, loss of job) and that needs to be cured just as much as the addiction.
They say everyone has an addiction whether it be food, exercise, drugs/booze, sex, whatever. I'm not so sure it's triggered by anything or just something that starts out as a like and turns into an addiction. Like the internet. I don't think anyone suffered a traumatic event/stress situation and then got addicted to the net.
ScaryMonster
09-26-09, 10:20 PM
They say everyone has an addiction whether it be food, exercise, drugs/booze, sex, whatever. I'm not so sure it's triggered by anything or just something that starts out as a like and turns into an addiction. Like the internet. I don't think anyone suffered a traumatic event/stress situation and then got addicted to the net.
What about Internet porn? Or social networking sites like facebook or one of the others. It’s not physical addiction it’s psychological.
But that’s obsession not addiction or is it? :m: :m: :m:
Omega133
09-26-09, 10:33 PM
Obsession is wanting to do or have something so bad you would go to extreme lengths. Addiction is a sensation where you just can't stop.(they are similiar) In some cases(Drugs) you can't stop the addiction without rehabilitation.
Ganymede
09-27-09, 01:54 AM
Can anyone explain why the citizens of the United States lead the world in drug consumption? You would think that people in 3rd world countries where the drugs are manufactured and more plentiful would consume more narcotics. I can't figure this out for the life of me, what is it about our culture that compels many to indulge in drugs and alcohol more so then other cultures?
In the end no person, government or law can really prevent anyone using drugs if they decide that’s what they want to do and have the means to do it. Maybe that's actually a good thing? People in general feel that what the put into their own bodies is their business, not that the effects of certain drugs aren’t dangerous and damaging. I’m not condoning drug abuse only that to absolutely forbid it is futile. People will do what they want to do.
The United States learned from ‘Prohibition” that you can’t legislate morality.
That’s probably why the so-called Drug war can never be won.
Unfortunately, it's the people doing the drugs now that want the free, state sponsored healthcare in 20 years time. Should the government be obliged to cover the cost of an individuals ignorance? Are (certain) governments not making a choice between:
lets try to stop drug taking now,
lets give them freedom to take drugs now, and use money (which could be used for better things) to cover their medical costs later in life - when the consequences catch up to their actions.
I guess that raises the point of whether free healthcare should be afforded to the overweight, heart attack prone ingester of deep fried fats and cakes. <Off topic>
In fact it’s a very 20th century concept that illicit drug use is amoral, drug cultures are to be found in countries where plant life yields these substances, different ritual ceremonies have always depended on hallucinogenics.
That which morality encompasses, widens with our understanding of the world. Science shows that certain drugs affect the developing foetus, so where that risk occurs - the use is immoral.
Science also shows that drug use / abuse affects the neurochemistry of the user, to such an extent that they might steal, lie (from close, loved family included) and generally turn upside down their integratibilty in society, family or friendship circles. If a person is a link in the great chain of being :p - is there not a moral obligation to ensure that one avoids those things detrimental to ones interaction with the world around?
And then the 'raw', hallucinogenic drugs of isolated cultures, are very different to the refined, enhanced and synthetic drugs of our world. People don't generally tend to take hallucinogenics each and every day. Yet we're quite familiar with the urges, the tugs and pulls which the drugs of our culture have on the user.
Our drugs aren't done for wisdom or insight. For communion or kinship. They done to fill the a void within which maybe, some have forgotten how to fill; or never been taught how to fill. Maybe its hard drugs, maybe soft; maybe its food or self-harm. But somehow, somewhere, sometimes - there's a space that needs filling.
And then can you really equate something like Alcohol and Cannabis use with synthesized drug abuse, perceptionally as far as moral turpitude is concerned there is a huge gap between Alcohol which is legal and Ice.
It'd be interesting to see statistics on the amount of domestic violence, road deaths etc. (where victim[s] are involved) - where the offender was using alcohol, versus those using hard drugs, such as ice. I have a feeling that alcohol is worse when it comes to collateral damage - but I might very well be wrong here.
If certain substances pose a greater chance of leading to actions which harmfully impose on those around us - and imagine alcohol is such a substance; is there really so big a gap between alcohol and Ice?
EndLightEnd
09-27-09, 02:27 AM
Can anyone explain why the citizens of the United States lead the world in drug consumption? You would think that people in 3rd world countries where the drugs are manufactured and more plentiful would consume more narcotics. I can't figure this out for the life of me, what is it about our culture that compels many to indulge in drugs and alcohol more so then other cultures?
Its simple. Were a country of excess. Its not just drug consumption, even though we constitute only 5% of the world population, we use 25% percent of the total energy. Its called materialism and its running rampant in the US.
On average, one American consumes as much energy as
2 Japanese
6 Mexicans
13 Chinese
31 Indians
128 Bangladeshis
307 Tanzanians
370 Ethiopians
Found at http://www.mindfully.org/Sustainability/Americans-Consume-24percent.htm
The thing is that yes every addiction is caused by something(Divorce, death of someone, stress, loss of job) and that needs to be cured just as much as the addiction.
It could just be caused by regular intake and nothing else.
Can anyone explain why the citizens of the United States lead the world in drug consumption? You would think that people in 3rd world countries where the drugs are manufactured and more plentiful would consume more narcotics. I can't figure this out for the life of me, what is it about our culture that compels many to indulge in drugs and alcohol more so then other cultures?
My guess would be that since people in the US can pay so much more for drugs than people in crappy 3rd world countries, the guys who make the drugs prefer to ship them to wherever the price is highest. Why would you sell a gram of cocaine to some third-world peasant for $5 when you could sell it to some frat-boy in the US for $50?
Of course, there's some expense and risk involved in moving the drugs to another country - but my guess is that the higher prices that you can get more than cancels it out.
Fraggle Rocker
09-27-09, 02:55 PM
In the end no person, government or law can really prevent anyone using drugs if they decide that’s what they want to do and have the means to do it.Indeed. People were able to get drugs in the USSR. People are able to get drugs in prison. The idea that the authorities could stop people from getting drugs in a country with a high level of freedom, AND in which the population routinely flouts laws (speeding, income tax, property zoning, etc.), is ludicrous.People in general feel that what the put into their own bodies is their business, not that the effects of certain drugs aren’t dangerous and damaging.Unfortunately by lumping all drugs together, the government makes it harder for people to distinguish between those drugs and the ones that are not dangerous and damaging. In fact, the two drugs that are the most dangerous and damaging, alcohol and tobacco, are legal. And our culture actually panders caffeine to children, which is the last thing they should have!
Marijuana is the most benign of all popular recreational drugs. (It does not cause aggressive driving and fist fights like caffeine.) Yet because it's smelly, bulky, and shows up in a urine test a month later, many people have switched to drugs that are less dangerous to their careers but more dangerous to their health.The United States learned from ‘Prohibition” that you can’t legislate morality.Apparently not. At least then the Constitution was respected, and the government went through the arduous process of passing an amendment before they assumed the power to tell people what they can put into their own bodies. (It's not widely known that arguably the main reason FDR spearheaded the repeal was that the Great Depression was in full force, today's confiscatory income tax was not yet in effect, and the government wanted the 30% increase in revenue from alcohol tax.)
Today Congress passes unconstitutional laws regulating the behavior of consenting adults, the President signs them, and the Supreme Court sits on their fat asses letting it all happen.Can anyone explain why the citizens of the United States lead the world in drug consumption? You would think that people in 3rd world countries where the drugs are manufactured and more plentiful would consume more narcotics. I can't figure this out for the life of me, what is it about our culture that compels many to indulge in drugs and alcohol more so then other cultures?For starters, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_consumption_by_country) says we are not even close to the top of the list when it comes to alcohol. The USA is #43 in world alcohol consumption, at 9 liters of pure alcohol per capita per year. Uganda is #1 at 19 liters. Luxemburg, the Czech Rep., Ireland, Moldova, Hungary, France, Reunion, Bermuda and Germany (13 liters) round out the top ten.
We're a nation of excess, it's a defining part of our culture. Food, exercise, sex, entertainment, shopping, energy consumption, driving (15,000 miles per year is not exceptional), the size of our houses (we have three whole rooms we don't use), even our average work week (just about 50 hours). Naturally drugs fall into the same category.Unfortunately, it's the people doing the drugs now that want the free, state sponsored healthcare in 20 years time. I guess that raises the point of whether free healthcare should be afforded to the overweight, heart attack prone ingester of deep fried fats and cakes.You must be an American because your premise is stated without any numbers. Tobacco causes the greatest health problems and it's legal. By what percentage are illegal drugs going to increase the lifetime medical costs for the average user?Science shows that certain drugs affect the developing foetus, so where that risk occurs - the use is immoral.Again, in typical American rhetoric, you don't give us any numbers? You can't perform rational risk management without rational risk analysis, and you don't provide the data for us to do so.Science also shows that drug use / abuse affects the neurochemistry of the user, to such an extent that they might steal, lie (from close, loved family included) and generally turn upside down their integratibilty in society, family or friendship circles. If a person is a link in the great chain of being :p - is there not a moral obligation to ensure that one avoids those things detrimental to ones interaction with the world around?You cleverly left out the word "certain" before "drug use" this time, making your conclusion bogus. Not all drugs do that. Marijuana users, taken statistically, are one of the most trustworthy demographic groups. The drug induces a healthy sense of paranoia that discourages them from doing anything that could get them in trouble beyond simply smoking the pot itself.And then the 'raw', hallucinogenic drugs of isolated cultures, are very different to the refined, enhanced and synthetic drugs of our world. People don't generally tend to take hallucinogenics each and every day. Yet we're quite familiar with the urges, the tugs and pulls which the drugs of our culture have on the user.So far you haven't impressed me as a person with a lot of first-hand experience with drug users, so your arguments come across as a little disingenuous. I know people who have been smoking grass for fifty years. They have succeeded professionally, raised fine children, accumulated nice retirement portfolios, and in general are perfectly responsible citizens.Our drugs aren't done for wisdom or insight. For communion or kinship. They done to fill the a void within which maybe, some have forgotten how to fill; or never been taught how to fill.Again, none of this rings true, suggesting that you read it in some government propaganda (such as TV news) rather than learning it by observation. I go back to the days when pot and LSD were the major drugs, but many people used them for the kinds of purposes you mention. I'm a musician and I knew many musicians who got more inspiration while high than not.
Can anyone explain why the citizens of the United States lead the world in drug consumption? You would think that people in 3rd world countries where the drugs are manufactured and more plentiful would consume more narcotics. I can't figure this out for the life of me, what is it about our culture that compels many to indulge in drugs and alcohol more so then other cultures?
many countries have the same drug problem. the u.s is also right next to where they grow them. but a segment of the people would always gravitate towards drugs.
ScaryMonster
09-27-09, 08:24 PM
I think it might be useful to categorize Drugs in a general way so we can talk about them individually. This is just off the top of my head from my very general knowledge of pharmacology:
Drug are divided into two types, Organic Drugs and Synthesized Drugs.
Organic Drugs are:
1. Tobacco
2. Cannabis
3. Hashish
4. Opium
5. Amanita Muscaria (Fly – Agaric Mushrooms. Purportedly used by the Vikings to induce a Berserker rage for battle )
6. Peyote
7. Psilocybin (Mushroom)
8. Alcohol (Although one might consider this a synthesized drugs I put it in the first list)
Synthesized Drugs are:
1. Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)
2. Dimethltriptamine (DMT)
3. Mescalin and Psilocybin (Both have been synthesized in the lab, they are stronger then the organic versions.)
4. LSD 25
5. Cocaine
6. Morphine
7. Heroin
8. Barbiturates and Tranquilizers
9. Amphetamines. (Speed)
10. Methamphetamine (Ice or Meth)
11. Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) also known as Ecstasy.
This list is in no way comprehensive, some are derivatives of others and some are unique.
Pick one or however many you want and we can talk about them.
They say everyone has an addiction whether it be food, exercise, drugs/booze, sex, whatever. I'm not so sure it's triggered by anything or just something that starts out as a like and turns into an addiction. Like the internet. I don't think anyone suffered a traumatic event/stress situation and then got addicted to the net.Well, I am sure some have actually, but I agree with your general point. Not every addiction is caused by trauma or used to deal with it. Trauma increases the liklihood that one will use addiction to deal with the aftermath though.
I think it might be useful to categorize Drugs in a general way so we can talk about them individually. This is just off the top of my head from my very general knowledge of pharmacology:
Drug are divided into two types, Organic Drugs and Synthesized Drugs.
First off, all the drugs you listed below were organic molecules, so it kind of hurts my chemist brain to say that only some of them were "organic". Maybe "naturally occurring" would be be a better label.
Also, cocaine and morphine are natural plant extracts. The mescalin and psilocybin that's synthesized in a lab aren't any stronger than plant-extract mescalin and psilocybin, they're all exactly the same molecule - your body can't tell if the molecules were made by a plant or a synthetic chemist in a lab.
ScaryMonster
09-28-09, 09:15 AM
First off, all the drugs you listed below were organic molecules, so it kind of hurts my chemist brain to say that only some of them were "organic". Maybe "naturally occurring" would be be a better label.
Also, cocaine and morphine are natural plant extracts. The mescalin and psilocybin that's synthesized in a lab aren't any stronger than plant-extract mescalin and psilocybin, they're all exactly the same molecule - your body can't tell if the molecules were made by a plant or a synthetic chemist in a lab.
My meaning for organic was something that grows out of the ground or is only processed slightly, so naturally occurring might be a better term! But that’s just semantics. Should Cocaine and Morphine go in the organic –naturally occurring list? It takes a fair bit of processing to make them though.
I always thought synthetically manufactured Mescalin and Psilocybin were stronger in effect then “naturally occurring” derivatives? Maybe the synthetic dose of these drugs is more concentrated then a comparable amount of the natural stuff because its in a pure form?
I’m not a chemist, I’d like to get a more comprehensive list together then the one I made, I think my so called organic (naturally occurring) list is a little short and there must be some more exotic synthesized drugs to add to it as well.
I’ve heard that LSD is not physically addictive and that there are no known proven physical side effects to this drug, but I’ve heard rumors that it might cause schizophrenia and that people can have LSD flash backs.
Watcher
11-23-09, 07:03 AM
Can anyone explain why the citizens of the United States lead the world in drug consumption? You would think that people in 3rd world countries where the drugs are manufactured and more plentiful would consume more narcotics. I can't figure this out for the life of me, what is it about our culture that compels many to indulge in drugs and alcohol more so then other cultures?
Are you serious? You can't figure this one out? If you had to choose whether you and your children are going to starve to death today, or you are going to buy a recreational drug, which would you choose?
America is a consumerist, I must have WHAT I want WHEN I want it society from top to bottom, we have been brainwashed for a half-century by Madison Avenue to spend our extra pennies on indulgences. Why would the purchase and use of recreational drugs be any different?
Fraggle Rocker
11-27-09, 05:11 PM
America is a consumerist, I must have WHAT I want WHEN I want it society from top to bottom, we have been brainwashed for a half-century by Madison Avenue to spend our extra pennies on indulgences.Actually it's been going on for much longer than that, more than a century. The U.S. economy passed the tipping point from scarcity-driven to surplus-driven in the 1880s.
Of course today we consider electric lights, washing machines, telephones, motorized transport, no more than two children sharing a bedroom, and the like, to be necessities. But 110 years ago people who had never had them--or even seen them!--regarded them as luxuries. They needed to be convinced to spend their modest surplus income on those luxuries, rather than salting it away for an old age which they didn't expect to be subsidized by children who would be even wealthier, or by government programs.
The American Christmas as we know it, focusing on giving gifts rather than counting blessings, came into being shortly before the turn of the century. The modern American Santa Claus, a man who has enough food for two people and enough surplus wealth to give gifts to complete strangers, was invented by the Coca-Cola company in the 1930s (yes kids the same folks who mass-marketed cocaine to a previous generation) because it wasn't easy to sell ice-cold soft drinks in winter. And the result was the cultural institution known as "Christmas shopping."
Our consumer culture is older than communism.:) Think of that while you're out there on Black Friday. (For you non-Americans, the day after Thanksgiving is "the first shopping day before Christmas" and the stores open early, some at midnight. It's best to wear full-body armor.)
takethewarhome
12-10-09, 09:04 PM
I think that some drug tolerance can actually be beneficial. People's minds just take time to change, that's all. I don't think fifty years down the road that there'll be such a stigma around drugs and their use.
Orleander
12-10-09, 09:05 PM
I think that some drug tolerance can actually be beneficial. People's minds just take time to change, that's all. I don't think fifty years down the road that there'll be such a stigma around drugs and their use.
you don't think there will be a stigma around cigarette smoking?
takethewarhome
12-10-09, 09:09 PM
you don't think there will be a stigma around cigarette smoking?
Yeah, actually I do. Thanks for bringing that up. I think that cigarette smoking will be more and more frowned upon as time passes.
And why aren't more people getting in on the whole nicotine vaporizer thing, anyway? Has anyone tried one of those?
Orleander
12-10-09, 09:11 PM
Ah cool!!! Is there a raygun type thing that vaporizes nicotine? So you could just point it at a pack of cigs and vaporize all the nicotine out of it?
takethewarhome
12-10-09, 09:13 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-cigarette
Not quite, hhaha.
Fraggle Rocker
12-11-09, 05:42 PM
And why aren't more people getting in on the whole nicotine vaporizer thing, anyway? Has anyone tried one of those?I met someone who was using it and she thought it was wonderful. What surprised me was that it was so carefully crafted to mimic a real cigarette:There's a red light on the end that lights up when you inhale, looking like the ash. It delivers a small volume of water vapor into your lungs, so when you exhale, steam comes out and it looks like smoke.I guess people want the entire experience, not just the nicotine.
Of course if they used the vaporizers that are built for aromatherapy (and are also used for marijuana), there would be no telltales at all. I'll bet you could keep it in your purse, turn on the heating element, wait for the little thermostat light to come on, then puff on it unobtrusively, and you might get away with "smoking" indoors and nobody noticing.
And it would be much cheaper. With the imitation cigarettes you have to buy the individual ciggies and they only last for about ten smokes. The Amsterdam-style vaporizer looks like it's a real appliance; you just grind up some tobacco--which isn't too expensive--and toss it in. I guess maybe because it just doesn't look like a cigarette and feel like a cigarette, it spoils the experience so they're willing to pay more.
With what cigarettes cost these days I'd think they'd be looking for ways to economize. Vaporizing the nicotine won't waste 95% of the tobacco by burning it up, so you get something like ten to twenty times as much use out of the same quantity.
I guess people want the entire experience, not just the nicotine.
It's a strange phenomenon. While nicotine withdrawal is a bitch, what I always miss most when I quit smoking is the harsh, hot sensation of inhaling. I'm sure it's Pavlovian, but still ....
Of course, marijuana out of a glass pipe usually suffices.
shichimenshyo
12-11-09, 06:38 PM
Yes, it does =p
Orleander
12-11-09, 07:05 PM
My husband had knee surgery 4 weeks ago. Since he couldn't drive to get cigarettes and I'm not gonna enable him, he quit smoking 4 weeks ago.
He's been doing fine, except that now his hands are constantly doing something. Its like they have a mind of their own and he can't make them stay still. What's up with that? I thought smoking was more of an oral thing.
takethewarhome
12-11-09, 07:21 PM
My husband had knee surgery 4 weeks ago. Since he couldn't drive to get cigarettes and I'm not gonna enable him, he quit smoking 4 weeks ago.
He's been doing fine, except that now his hands are constantly doing something. Its like they have a mind of their own and he can't make them stay still. What's up with that? I thought smoking was more of an oral thing.
I thought smoking was more of a something-to-do-with-yourself kind of thing. Maybe that's what it is.
I personally like to buy cigars when I go to the smoke shop. It gives me something to do and doesn't last as long as a whole pack.
What's up with that? I thought smoking was more of an oral thing.
His brain is freaking out. Not only are his impulses all out of whack, he's also looking for something to occupy the manual activity that is ritualistically fundamental to the oral fixation. You're seeing both a somatic disorientation and signal interference, and the one is not necessarily dependent on the other. His electrical and chemical systems are reconfiguring; the addiction puts up a hell of a fight.
fellowtraveler
12-12-09, 03:16 AM
Call it reefer madness, seeking a changed state of consciousness, escaping the common place, feeding a gnawing physical addiction, running away from life or rebelling against the conventional the reasons for taking drugs in western society vary.
In the end no person, government or law can really prevent anyone using drugs if they decide that’s what they want to do and have the means to do it. Maybe that's actually a good thing? People in general feel that what the put into their own bodies is their business, not that the effects of certain drugs aren’t dangerous and damaging. I’m not condoning drug abuse only that to absolutely forbid it is futile. People will do what they want to do.
The United States learned from ‘Prohibition” that you can’t legislate morality.
That’s probably why the so-called Drug war can never be won.
In fact it’s a very 20th century concept that illicit drug use is amoral, drug cultures are to be found in countries where plant life yields these substances, different ritual ceremonies have always depended on hallucinogenics.
Jean Cocteau wrote regarding he’s addiction “I therefore became an opium addict, because the doctors who cure — one should really say, quite simply, who purge — do not think to cure the troubles which first caused the addiction; I had again preferred an artificial equilibrium to no equilibrium at all This moral disguise is more misleading then a disordered appearance: it is human, almost feminine to have recourse to it.” (Jean Cocteau — Opium)
Every whore has a sad story, you can’t really equate drug abuse with having a difficult or unhappy life, everyone has gone through difficulty some times horrific and yet not everyone gets addicted to drugs.
And then can you really equate something like Alcohol and Cannabis use with synthesized drug abuse, perceptionally as far as moral turpitude is concerned there is a huge gap between Alcohol which is legal and Ice.
REPLY: Yes, end the drug wars by legalizing them. It just makes sense. ...FT
Fraggle Rocker
12-12-09, 07:49 AM
He's been doing fine, except that now his hands are constantly doing something. I thought smoking was more of an oral thing.Smoking is not just a bad habit. Nicotine is a psychoactive drug.
Its immense popularity is due to its effect as a mood leveler: If you're a little nervous it brings you down, if you're a little depressed it brings you up. You don't even have to have enough self-awareness to be able to figure out how you feel, you can just reach for a ciggy and be confident that whatever it is, it will go away in a couple of minutes! In the Third World people cut cigarettes in half and sell them that way. For many of them it is their only fleeting glimpse of pleasure in a bleak life.
Your husband is apparently a little hyper and when he can't dispel the symptoms with drugs they manifest as compulsive hand activity. I hope he channels it into something productive and doesn't just dust the house eight times a day or have an entire wardrobe of cute outfits for the dog. If he doesn't have a dog, this might be a good time to get him an unflappably cheerful hyperactive playmate like a Maltese or a collie.
In many ways nicotine is the most addictive of all drugs. It rewires your brain chemistry so thoroughly that it takes some people years to get over the withdrawal symptoms. If he's going to take advantage of this opportunity to quit the habit, be prepared for an extremely long recovery and thank your stars that it's channeled into a relatively harmless quirk instead of a six-month bitchy mood.
Synanon was one of the first of the new wave of pop drug rehab clinics in L.A. in the 1960s. At one point, in order to cut back on expenses, they stopped giving their residents free cigarettes. More people walked away over that than because of the withdrawal from the (mis-named) "hard drugs."
parmalee
12-12-09, 12:39 PM
Smoking is not just a bad habit. Nicotine is a psychoactive drug.
Its immense popularity is due to its effect as a mood leveler: If you're a little nervous it brings you down, if you're a little depressed it brings you up. You don't even have to have enough self-awareness to be able to figure out how you feel, you can just reach for a ciggy and be confident that whatever it is, it will go away in a couple of minutes! In the Third World people cut cigarettes in half and sell them that way. For many of them it is their only fleeting glimpse of pleasure in a bleak life.
on this note, i feel compelled to chime in on the defense of tobacco:
i smoke proper tobacco, i.e. i roll my own cigarettes from quality tobaccos--no stale packaged shit--and i smoke shisha tobacco from a narghile. epilepsy has my moods vacillating between extremes--suicidal ideation to psychotic delusions of grandeur--as frequently as hundreds of times in a day. (it's not always like this :rolleyes: ; otherwise, i'd be completely fucking wacked.) anticonvulsants, atypical antipsychotics, benzos, etc. are mostly worthless to me, but tobacco at least does something.
takethewarhome
12-12-09, 01:51 PM
but tobacco at least does something.
What? Gives you cancer?
parmalee
12-12-09, 02:01 PM
What? Gives you cancer?
and what doesn't give you cancer? moreover, while i don't drive (i bike or walk), i typically live in cities and the emissions from automobiles are a vastly greater threat in this respect than tobacco smoke--need i provide data on such?
moreover, i only smoke (narghile excepted) outside. one estimate has it that for every mile the average automobile is driven, the emissions are comparable to about 30 thousand cigarettes--my one cigarette hardly makes a dent in that.
i was sitting outside of a cafe one time smoking a cigarette, and an enormously obese lady, in typical american passive-aggressive fashion, says very loudly (obviously, so as to be overhead by me) to the person she was sitting with, "i am so disgusted by people and their goddamn cigarettes." i turned to her and said, "lady, you're sitting outside a cafe with dozens of automobiles passing by every minute and you're complaining about my one cigarette. i don't drive, so at least my carbon footprint is slightly minimized--how about you? given your size, i'm guessing that you don't walk or bike terribly much, so i think i know the answer to that one."
takethewarhome
12-12-09, 03:09 PM
and what doesn't give you cancer?
True that.
Fraggle Rocker
12-12-09, 06:38 PM
What? Gives you cancer?You didn't read his post carefully enough. He is utilizing the mood-leveling narcotic effect to mitigate the symptoms of epilepsy.and what doesn't give you cancer? moreover, while i don't drive (i bike or walk), i typically live in cities and the emissions from automobiles are a vastly greater threat in this respect than tobacco smoke--need i provide data on such?Yes, as a matter of fact. You're exaggerating the difference between the effects of tobacco smoke (on the smoker) and auto emissions--which have fallen precipitously in the fifty years that I've been driving. Obviously your hookah filters out some of the carcinogenic material. But if you're serious about this you should get a vaporizer. They don't set anything on fire so you're not inhaling smoke at all. (This old hippie had to look up the word "nargile" because Turkish people and their slang are not nearly as common in America as they are in Europe.)
Nonetheless as a libertarian I support the right of consenting adults to do whatever the hell they want so long as they cause no direct harm to others, so smoke away, my friend. I ain't buyin' this crap about "secondhand smoke." In this regard you're absolutely right about the much greater risk of auto exhaust.. . . . i turned to her and said, "lady, you're sitting outside a cafe with dozens of automobiles passing by every minute and you're complaining about my one cigarette. i don't drive, so at least my carbon footprint is slightly minimized--how about you? given your size, i'm guessing that you don't walk or bike terribly much, so i think i know the answer to that one."Hopefully you'll eventually discover that sinking to someone else's level and responding to bile with bile is not the way to inner peace. You won't change her mind by attacking her any more than she changed yours. All you're doing is flooding your metabolism with more of the chemicals that will make it even harder to regain the serenity she interrupted.
parmalee
12-12-09, 08:05 PM
Yes, as a matter of fact. You're exaggerating the difference between the effects of tobacco smoke (on the smoker) and auto emissions--which have fallen precipitously in the fifty years that I've been driving. Obviously your hookah filters out some of the carcinogenic material. But if you're serious about this you should get a vaporizer. They don't set anything on fire so you're not inhaling smoke at all. (This old hippie had to look up the word "nargile" because Turkish people and their slang are not nearly as common in America as they are in Europe.)
the problem with statistics pertaining to this matter is that there is a massive disparity between the conclusions; nevertheless, automobile emissions vastly exceed cigarette emissions. still, there are countless factors and variables to consider, i.e. the diffusion throughout the atmosphere (if one is comparing the cigarette smoked indoors, to the outdoor used automobile)--and in this context, i was more specifically addressing the effects of the emissions upon others, i.e. not on the smoker (and, as noted above, i only smoke outside and i make a concerted effort to not smoke in the presence of children and the elderly). regardless, no matter which statistics you review--the most conservative or the implausibly exaggerated--methinks the auto trumps the cigarette in terms of emissions.
Nonetheless as a libertarian I support the right of consenting adults to do whatever the hell they want so long as they cause no direct harm to others, so smoke away, my friend. I ain't buyin' this crap about "secondhand smoke." In this regard you're absolutely right about the much greater risk of auto exhaust.
Hopefully you'll eventually discover that sinking to someone else's level and responding to bile with bile is not the way to inner peace. You won't change her mind by attacking her any more than she changed yours. All you're doing is flooding your metabolism with more of the chemicals that will make it even harder to regain the serenity she interrupted.
oh, trust me--i figured this one out lloonngg ago. unfortunately, my epileptic temperament, if you will, tends to bring out the worst in me at times. it's taken some people who know me considerable time to figure out that i honestly cannot control some of my outbursts, and it's tremendously frustrating. i will open my mouth and say the most outrageous and inflammatory things, irrespective of context, and not infrequently does some sort of "complication" ensue. just one of the many benefits of a massively damaged amygdalae. ;)
lostontheroad
12-14-09, 08:53 PM
Once again you can explain tobacco usage by catagorizing it with drug use in general. Those who are even just psycologically addicted to drugs will ignore consequences and use anyway because the brain says make me happy 24/7. All people are predisposed to drug use. If a person does not use drugs, it is more because they are afraid of something else, such as being arrested or having an overdose, or even the social stigma that surrounds drugs, then of the harm to the body and mind that takes place. So with drugs that are legal and highly available, there is a considerable amount of usage from people who would be afraid to break the law or be disowned by family. This explains why the use of tobacco, though detrimental to ones health, is so vastly popular. If all drugs were legal, there would be a significant jump in the amount of people using the common illicit drugs of abuse. I believe that the actual number of people using any drugs would stay about the same.
I rambled a bit. What thinks ye?
fellowtraveler
12-14-09, 09:51 PM
Call it reefer madness, seeking a changed state of consciousness, escaping the common place, feeding a gnawing physical addiction, running away from life or rebelling against the conventional the reasons for taking drugs in western society vary.
In the end no person, government or law can really prevent anyone using drugs if they decide that’s what they want to do and have the means to do it. Maybe that's actually a good thing? People in general feel that what the put into their own bodies is their business, not that the effects of certain drugs aren’t dangerous and damaging. I’m not condoning drug abuse only that to absolutely forbid it is futile. People will do what they want to do.
The United States learned from ‘Prohibition” that you can’t legislate morality.
That’s probably why the so-called Drug war can never be won.
In fact it’s a very 20th century concept that illicit drug use is amoral, drug cultures are to be found in countries where plant life yields these substances, different ritual ceremonies have always depended on hallucinogenics.
Jean Cocteau wrote regarding he’s addiction “I therefore became an opium addict, because the doctors who cure — one should really say, quite simply, who purge — do not think to cure the troubles which first caused the addiction; I had again preferred an artificial equilibrium to no equilibrium at all This moral disguise is more misleading then a disordered appearance: it is human, almost feminine to have recourse to it.” (Jean Cocteau — Opium)
Every whore has a sad story, you can’t really equate drug abuse with having a difficult or unhappy life, everyone has gone through difficulty some times horrific and yet not everyone gets addicted to drugs.
And then can you really equate something like Alcohol and Cannabis use with synthesized drug abuse, perceptionally as far as moral turpitude is concerned there is a huge gap between Alcohol which is legal and Ice.
REPLY: The ONLY reason people take drugs or drink is to kill pain. If you are not in pain there is an aversion to doing these things. Check into PRIMAL THERAPY if you feel like it. ...traveveler
ScaryMonster
01-18-10, 07:46 PM
If a chemist went into the lab and genetically altered tobacco so that it was harmless, but still gave the same sort of nicotine hit would we still frown on its use?
Also just say a drug was invented that had all the pleasant effects of illicit drugs and none of it’s harmful effects except maybe intoxication whist under it, would society and government still ban its use?
These substances might remain physiologically addictive but the chemical addiction would be cut out of them, this is quite possible given the advances in modern science but would it be wrong for a scientist to make such a substance?
Also what if someone invented a cap you could wear that stimulated the pleasure centers of your brain and had no detrimental side effects, would we be lining up at Wal-Mart to buy these things? Would they let us?
The issue is that drugs have been banned under the excuse that they harm people and yet alcohol and tobacco are legal, if that wasn’t an issue would drug taking just become another recreational past time or would it always hold a sigma of moral turpitude?
Omega133
01-18-10, 07:56 PM
If a chemist went into the lab and genetically altered tobacco so that it was harmless, but still gave the same sort of nicotine hit would we still frown on its use?
The issue is that drugs have been banned under the excuse that they harm people and yet alcohol and tobacco are legal, if that wasn’t an issue would drug taking just become another recreational past time or would it always hole a sigma of moral turpitude?
Yea we'd still frown on it. Mainly because it ruins lives.
The reason the government finds it illegal is because it is smuggled into the country and not regulated by the U.S. government. Beer and cigarrettes are legal because they make a profit.
ScaryMonster
01-19-10, 07:20 AM
Yea we'd still frown on it. Mainly because it ruins lives.
If is not physically harmful how could it ruin lives? Or do you think everyone would be too stoned all the time and civilization would collapse?
The reason the government finds it illegal is because it is smuggled into the country and not regulated by the U.S. government. Beer and cigarrettes are legal because they make a profit.
Way to state the obvious Omega dude! High Five! :worship:
Addiction in our society is a description of results commented upon by the powers that be.
That can be demonstrated to some degree by comparing the notion "heroin addiction" to the notion "oil addiction".
The notion that nations can become addicts to oil (http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/08/keeping-up-with-jones-addiction.html) is of late vintage. Once it was fashionable to use oil, once it was fashionable to use cocaine ("coke -> coca-cola").
When the majority sees the result of the use of oil, the result of the use of coke, and the like, there tends to be a reaction.
It can change the criminal prosecution system, or the energy distribution system.
In general our western world is reactionary instead of visionary in our approach to the use of commodities.
takethewarhome
01-19-10, 06:03 PM
In general our western world is reactionary instead of visionary in our approach to the use of commodities.
Isn't that really kind of true for all cultures.
ScaryMonster
01-19-10, 06:09 PM
Addiction in our society is a description of results commented upon by the powers that be.
That can be demonstrated to some degree by comparing the notion "heroin addiction" to the notion "oil addiction".
The notion that nations can become addicts to oil (http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/08/keeping-up-with-jones-addiction.html) is of late vintage. Once it was fashionable to use oil, once it was fashionable to use cocaine ("coke -> coca-cola").
When the majority sees the result of the use of oil, the result of the use of coke, and the like, there tends to be a reaction.
It can change the criminal prosecution system, or the energy distribution system.
In general our western world is reactionary instead of visionary in our approach to the use of commodities.
But are drugs commodities, I think half the appeal of drug taking has to do with its forbidden nature, sure once addiction takes hold the reasons for taking drugs might change but there is still this element of saying ‘screw you I’ll do what I want’ to the conventions of society.
Addiction to the use of oil? Well modern society might use a lot of it as fuel; lubrication, plastics and such but most people wouldn’t care if a substitute came along.
And why does society need to be anything but reactionary about the use of oil? To be honest when I eat the cow most people and I don’t really care about its family tree beyond the fact that its healthy and nutritious and available.
If it’s not available we’d eat a different tasty animal.
Drugs could be commodities, alcohol and tobacco are, why not cocaine and the opium poppy?
:m:
Omega133
01-19-10, 06:54 PM
If is not physically harmful how could it ruin lives? Or do you think everyone would be too stoned all the time and civilization would collapse?
I just think that drugs ruin lives from the addiction. I mean wasting $50 on dope instead of gas to go to work is not a good thing.
Way to state the obvious Omega dude! High Five! :worship:
Somebody has to.
ScaryMonster
01-19-10, 08:05 PM
I just think that drugs ruin lives from the addiction. I mean wasting $50 on dope instead of gas to go to work is not a good thing.
Somebody has to.
You misunderstand my question, I'm asking: “what if the drugs didn’t have any bad side effects?” Would it then be okay to take them then?
Omega133
01-19-10, 08:09 PM
You misunderstand my question, I'm asking: “what if the drugs didn’t have any bad side effects?” Would it then be okay to take them then?
Okay to take, yes. Legal, maybe/no.
Fraggle Rocker
01-19-10, 09:50 PM
I just think that drugs ruin lives from the addiction. I mean wasting $50 on dope instead of gas to go to work is not a good thing.The only reason it costs $50 is because it's illegal, so the only people who sell it are gangsters. Because selling drugs is illegal, it's a high-risk occupation, and people who work in high-risk occupations charge more for their services than we do. Furthermore, gangsters have their own way of eliminating competition, and reduced competition results in higher prices.
This is Economics 101A and everyone knows this except the shit-for-brains government.
The second-order effects of drug prohibition cause far more harm than the drugs themselves. My parents were hardly what you would call liberals, but they saw with their own eyes what Prohibition did to this country (gunfights in the street, children recruited as runners, corrupted cops and officials, declining respect for the law, sound familiar?) and they cheered when it was repealed.
Marijuana is a frelling weed that is so hardy that if left undisturbed it will grow wild in vacant lots in urban Moscow and in the hostile environment of Alaska. Why should anyone have to pay $600 for an ounce of it? And how stupid does a government have to be to think they can eradicate something like that?
Baron Max
01-20-10, 06:13 AM
The only reason it costs $50 is because it's illegal, so the only people who sell it are gangsters. Because selling drugs is illegal, ....
This is Economics 101A and everyone knows this except the shit-for-brains government.
And it all goes back to the ideals and principles of the Constitution of the USA .... "...of the people, by the people, for the people..."
It's all so simple to blame "the government" as if it's some kind of stand-alone entity without public support. The reason MJ and other drugs are illegal is because the people, the voters, don't want them to be legal. Every single time it's come to a vote, almost anywhere, but in particularly in California, the druggie capital of the freakin' world, it was still voted illegal.
The people don't want drugs to be legalized. Why is that so hard to grasp for y'all? Right, wrong, harmless, harmful, or otherwise, ain't got nothin' to do with it. The people, the voters, don't want the drugs to be legal.
Y'all can continue to blame "government', but understand that it's the people, the voters, .....and not just YOUR friends, but ALL of the voters.
Baron Max
And it all goes back to the ideals and principles of the Constitution of the USA .... "...of the people, by the people, for the people..."
Um ... er ... never mind.
Baron Max
01-20-10, 11:35 AM
Um ... er ... never mind.
One of your better posts, Tiassa. In fact, I put it right up there damned close to the top of the list of great Tiassa posts! It might still be a little wordy, however, so if you could work on that a little it would be nice. :D
Please, please, try to keep up this same level of posting - it is so freakin' refreshing not to have to labor through tons of useless words to get at your main point or topic ....which often doesn't even exist!
Baron Max
Fraggle Rocker
01-20-10, 05:54 PM
It's all so simple to blame "the government" as if it's some kind of stand-alone entity without public support. The reason MJ and other drugs are illegal is because the people, the voters, don't want them to be legal."The people" have been misinformed and manipulated by the government many times. Need I remind you that the Backward Baby Bush actually convinced the American people that Saddam Hussein bore some responsibility for 9/11 while his oil-baron buddies, the Saudis, bore none? The problem with representative democracy, especially an ungainly huge one like ours, is that it's not too difficult for special-interest groups with a lot of money and organization to mount a successful propaganda campaign. In 2000 it was the petroleum industry who wanted to overthrow the government of Iraq rather than Saudi Arabia. In the early decades of the 20th century it was the Temperance movement, a well-organized religiously-motivated group who subscribed to the classic Protestant ethic that if someone, somewhere is having a good time, they must be stopped. First they used slick propaganda to convince people that booze was bad--something counterintuitive to a near-majority of the population. Then it was a piece of cake to convince them that other recreational drugs, which most people had no exprience with, were even worse.Every single time it's come to a vote, almost anywhere, but in particularly in California, the druggie capital of the freakin' world . . . .You haven't been to D.C.. . . . it was still voted illegal.Apparently you're about five years behind in reading the news. Under the wink-wink-nudge-nudge guise of "medical marijuana" (which is nonetheless a valid campaign in its own right because the shit really works) it has been decriminalized in something like eight states, the feds have agreed to not enforce federal law in those states, and it's even scheduled for the District of Columbia, the shit-for-brains government's own backyard.
The kids who spent their youth discovering that marijuana is less harmful than tobacco and alcohol are finally taking their turn as the elders. So much for Reefer Madness.The people don't want drugs to be legalized. Why is that so hard to grasp for y'all? Right, wrong, harmless, harmful, or otherwise, ain't got nothin' to do with it. The people, the voters, don't want the drugs to be legal.Right. These are the same people who want us to keep pushing the Islamic terrorists so far to the northeast that they're almost within marching distance of the capital of a country with nuclear weapons.
Apparently they can be convinced to do any damn fool thing if you lie to them earnestly enough.
I still think our system is the best, but only in the context, "It's the worst system there is, except for all the others."Y'all can continue to blame "government', but understand that it's the people, the voters, .....and not just YOUR friends, but ALL of the voters.Yes, I blame them for being so easily duped. Nonetheless, having wasted most of my career contracting for or working inside several layers of government, I'm convinced that the system is almost too badly broken to fix. Lobbyists have disproportionate power and there doesn't seem to be anything we can legally do about it. The citizens are so enamored of their entitlements that they're unwilling to make any substantive changes that might endanger them. Demagogues can sweet-talk the people into supporting their agenda, and corporations can control the demagogues.
The only hope I see is that the power of the corporation is waning in the Post-Industrial Era, as massive concentrations of capital are no longer necessary to fund big projects. Instead of being producers, corporations have turned into scavengers, buying up each other's carcasses and ripping the last few morsels of profit out of them before they topple over. Eventually they will run out of power by attrition.
But by then it may be too late, and besides, what clever new form of control will the government invent to take their place, once the "artificial persons" they created are obsolete?
Baron Max
01-20-10, 06:05 PM
"The people" have been misinformed and manipulated by the government many times. ...
Isn't that always the response when the vote doesn't go just the way people want it to go? Yep, the gov misinformed the.... Yeah, the gov manipulated..... Yep, the CIA.... Yeah, sure, the FBI.... ...LOL!!
Sorry, Fraggle, you're excuses are just the same as have been used as "reasons" for such things since the cave men held their first elections! ...LOL!!
Need I remind you that the Backward Baby Bush actually convinced.....
I was banned for calling our new president a different "name" than his real one. Do you suppose some moderator will ban you for calling President Bush such a nasty name???
And all the rest of your post was just more of the same basic stuff ...blaming someone or something else when you didn't get what you want in life. If your candidate didn't win, it's due to the stupid, ignorant voters. If some bill you like doesn't pass, it's due to the gov/CIA/FBI/etc manipulation of facts and data. ..LOL!
C'mon, Fraggle, you and I are too old to be making such silly, childish excuses, aren't we? You and I have heard exactly that for over 60 years ...surely you haven't been brainwashed at this late date, have you? :D
Baron Max
ScaryMonster
01-20-10, 08:27 PM
Isn't that always the response when the vote doesn't go just the way people want it to go? Yep, the gov misinformed the.... Yeah, the gov manipulated..... Yep, the CIA.... Yeah, sure, the FBI.... ...LOL!!
I don’t recall ever hearing about a referendum in the United States to legalese MJ? Maybe there was but I don’t remember hearing about it.
Sorry, Fraggle, you're excuses are just the same as have been used as "reasons" for such things since the cave men held their first elections! ...LOL!!
Same as above, but my view on this is that governments should have no right to dictate to people what they do with their own bodies, if idiots want to take dangerous drugs let them! It’s no ones business except theirs.
I was banned for calling our new president a different "name" than his real one. Do you suppose some moderator will ban you for calling President Bush such a nasty name???
I think Bush earned that nasty name, “America's dumbest President.”
And all the rest of your post was just more of the same basic stuff ...blaming someone or something else when you didn't get what you want in life. If your candidate didn't win, it's due to the stupid, ignorant voters. If some bill you like doesn't pass, it's due to the gov/CIA/FBI/etc manipulation of facts and data. ..LOL!
Sounds good to me!
C'mon, Fraggle, you and I are too old to be making such silly, childish excuses, aren't we? You and I have heard exactly that for over 60 years ...surely you haven't been brainwashed at this late date, have you? :D
From my perspective age does not necessarily impart wisdom, that reefer madness thing was stupid in the 50s and its hypercritical now given that tobacco and alcohol are known to be more harmful the MJ and yet are legal.
I've heard neo-coms going on about socialized medicine being like the government nannying people, if that's the case then what's this nonsense about banning MJ because its bad for us? Under that logic they should ban KFC.
Baron Max[/QUOTE]
Baron Max
01-21-10, 06:55 AM
I don’t recall ever hearing about a referendum in the United States to legalese MJ? Maybe there was but I don’t remember hearing about it.
And that matters .....how?
..., but my view on this is that governments should have no right to dictate to people what they do with their own bodies, ....
Your one, single, solitary vote is hereby counted and added to the tally.
I will suggest to you, however, that there are many, many people in our society that feel that protecting others from harm is, in fact, part of their role and duty as members of the society. Back in the old days, didn't clan members protect others of their clan? Family members protect family members, right? So as a "natural" extension, shouldn't society members protect other society members?
Baron Max
ScaryMonster
01-21-10, 06:45 PM
And that matters .....how?
Well it matters if no such vote ever took place and you're basing your argument on the premise that it was voted down. That's being disingenuous.
It might get voted down, but the people have never really been asked have they.
Your one, single, solitary vote is hereby counted and added to the tally.
Is this in that non-existent ballet you keep talking about?
I will suggest to you, however, that there are many, many people in our society that feel that protecting others from harm is, in fact, part of their role and duty as members of the society.?
By that logic then they should ban dangerous sports, unhealthy food, alcohol, cigarettes, pointy objects, driving in cars, violent films - television, and walking around without a crash helmet on uncase you fall over and hit your head.
Back in the old days, didn't clan members protect others of their clan? Family members protect family members, right? So as a "natural" extension, shouldn't society members protect other society members?.
I don’t object to that, I only think that in the case of drugs it’s a lie, why ban MJ and not tobacco, why allow alcohol?
Dealing with addiction is awful thing, but the criminality behind the drug trade costs a lot more the rehabilitation a few drug addicts.
cosmictraveler
01-21-10, 06:56 PM
If anyone tries to sell me hard drugs and I tell them no, but if they persist I will destroy them so they can never harm anyone ever again. Those that"push" heavy drugs are just manipulators wanting only to control and use you until your no longer needed which means you can't pay then they either let you go or use you to their advantage. I think those types of people are the lowest forms of scum that ever existed. There's a difference between hard drugs and soft ones like pot, but it to can be "cut" with chemicals so you never really know what your taking today.
Many drugs are habbit forming which can and does lead to addiction. Another problem is that wherever the soft core drugs are located the hard core drugs are very close by.
I don’t object to that, I only think that in the case of drugs it’s a lie, why ban MJ and not tobacco, why allow alcohol?
This is a good question. I think the easiest answer is that there is clear historical proof that this won't work with alcohol.
Dealing with addiction is awful thing, but the criminality behind the drug trade costs a lot more the rehabilitation a few drug addicts.
Whenever there are costs, there are profits. You do know that the US has the largest prison population in the world (higher than Russia if I'm not mistaken), right?
Prison is business, plain and simple. This hit me pretty hard when I was watching the show DEA on Spike TV. Its clear as day that some of these agents smoke, like when one grins and turns "Smell that? I can smell that outside the house." But hey, this is about justice, right?
Perhaps there is an unspoken agreement between the cartels and the agencies. Everyone makes more money this way. The dealers can sell their stuff for 50$ per gram, and the prisons get to put them behind the bars and make money off government contracts. So maybe its in everyones interest to keep it illegal. Who knows, it might eeven be good for the economy. I know for sure there are books about this.
This is a good question. I think the easiest answer is that there is clear historical proof that this won't work with alcohol.It is clearly not working with the others either.
It is clearly not working with the others either.
If cocaine was legalized it would spread like the plague, please don't bundle them together like that. MJ is practically decriminalized in my parts and it is easier for a minor to get than alcohol. A line has to be drawn somewhere and right now its at marijuana, but thats not saying much.
Fraggle Rocker
01-22-10, 12:14 AM
If cocaine was legalized it would spread like the plague . . . .Cocaine was once legal and it did not "spread like the plague." My grandfather sold it in his pharmacy, along with Heroin, a trademark of the Bayer company.
Baron Max
01-22-10, 06:10 AM
Cocaine was once legal and it did not "spread like the plague." My grandfather sold it in his pharmacy, along with Heroin, a trademark of the Bayer company.
...LOL! Geez, Fraggle, you can't even see that the key phrase in that statement is "...sold in his pharmacy...."?
Cocaine wasn't sold on the streets by greedy drug dealers or gang members or terrorist organizations, etc. It was a "controlled" substance by virtue of being "...sold in his pharmacy".
Fraggle, I'd be willing to be that your grandfather sold lots and lots of things in his pharmacy that would be considered highly illegal in today's world ...and might have even been considered illegal back then. The "pharmacy" was a highly respected trade/enterprise right up there with doctors and dentists ...who also were permitted to sell/use/prescibe/etc lots and lots of things that weren't available to the general public on the street corner.
Personally, I'm beginning to think that we should bring in gazillions of tons of cocaine, heroin, MJ and every other drug there is ...bring them in giant dump trucks ...and dump them out along city streets free of charge. Just keep dumping tons of illegal, dangerous drugs until billions of people, kids and adults, have died of their own greedy need for easy pleasures.
Baron Max
Cocaine was once legal and it did not "spread like the plague." My grandfather sold it in his pharmacy, along with Heroin, a trademark of the Bayer company.
You can still get [synthetic] heroin in pharmacies, but it is regulated. It has certainly ruined several lives, including that of Rush Limbaugh when there was a scandal as to his abuse of these pain killers.
There is decriminalization, legalization, and deregulation. Even alcohol and tobacco are regulated, these painkillers are legalized and heavily regulated. So is medical MJ.
I do expect that MJ may some day become simply regulated, much like alcohol and tobacco. But don't expect this to happen for any other drugs.
I think the deeper question is whether or not its okay to regulate your feelings and emotions using drugs (be it alcohol or MJ or cocaine) or whether this should be done through therapy or through a healthy life style.
...LOL! Geez, Fraggle, you can't even see that the key phrase in that statement is "...sold in his pharmacy...."?
Cocaine wasn't sold on the streets by greedy drug dealers or gang members or terrorist organizations, etc. It was a "controlled" substance by virtue of being "...sold in his pharmacy".
Fraggle, I'd be willing to be that your grandfather sold lots and lots of things in his pharmacy that would be considered highly
Baron Max
Exactly. Of course it seems many peole dont want to acknowledge that. Even lead was used in paint and they painted plates with it.
And how the hell is weed safer than cigarettes?
synthesizer-patel
01-22-10, 06:44 PM
Exactly. Of course it seems many peole dont want to acknowledge that. Even lead was used in paint and they painted plates with it.
And how the hell is weed safer than cigarettes?
In terms of its toxicology, weed is fairly mild comparison to more socialy acceptible drugs like tobacco, and alcohol. It is not - as some advocates would have you beleive - completely benign though - but fuck it, neither is tapwater :D
While weed smoke does contain some carcinogens ( name one thing that doesnt get blamed for causing cancer these days :D) it's not nearly as carcinogenic as tobacco smoke.
A few alarmists will focus on the fact that weed smoke contains carcinogens, but neglect to mention that most recent research suggests that, unlike nicotine, THC binds to cell receptors outside of the lungs.
synthesizer-patel
01-22-10, 06:59 PM
...LOL! Geez, Fraggle, you can't even see that the key phrase in that statement is "...sold in his pharmacy...."?
Cocaine wasn't sold on the streets by greedy drug dealers or gang members or terrorist organizations, etc. It was a "controlled" substance by virtue of being "...sold in his pharmacy".
Fraggle, I'd be willing to be that your grandfather sold lots and lots of things in his pharmacy that would be considered highly illegal in today's world ...and might have even been considered illegal back then. The "pharmacy" was a highly respected trade/enterprise right up there with doctors and dentists ...who also were permitted to sell/use/prescibe/etc lots and lots of things that weren't available to the general public on the street corner.
That's one of the key arguments in support of legalisation.
Take drugs off the streetcorner, remove the prohibitions that feed organised crime, and make them available through controlled, licensed distributors.
As you rightly acknowledge, it worked in the past so why not try it again.
Personally, I'm beginning to think that we should bring in gazillions of tons of cocaine, heroin, MJ and every other drug there is ...bring them in giant dump trucks ...and dump them out along city streets free of charge. Just keep dumping tons of illegal, dangerous drugs until billions of people, kids and adults, have died of their own greedy need for easy pleasures.
partaaaaaaay!
Baron Max
01-22-10, 07:05 PM
That's one of the key arguments in support of legalisation.
Take drugs off the streetcorner, remove the prohibitions that feed organised crime, and make them available through controlled, licensed distributors.
As you rightly acknowledge, it worked in the past so why not try it again.
No, it was completely different then. The drugs were controlled ....and that means that they were controlled all over the nation. There were no drug dealers, meth labs, drug pushers at schools, etc. See? The difference is the society and the criminal elements ....completely different now. Nope, ain't even close to the same argument for legalization.
**
As to dumping the drugs into the streets, I was trying to be a bit sarcastic, but also playing to my normal contrariness of hoping that trillions of humans would take the free drugs and kill themselves with over-fuckin'-doses.
We could solve all the world's problems in one fell swoop ...no humans, no problems. No pollution, no overpopulation, no human natural disasters, no human viruses/pandemics/epidemics, etc.
Baron Max
synthesizer-patel
01-22-10, 07:41 PM
No, it was completely different then. The drugs were controlled ....and that means that they were controlled all over the nation. There were no drug dealers, meth labs, drug pushers at schools, etc. See? The difference is the society and the criminal elements ....completely different now. Nope, ain't even close to the same argument for legalization.
Times have changed, but the argument is still the same.
If drugs are controlled all over the nation it destroys the black market - it creates opportunities for taxation to mitigate health risks - and education for potential users before they become users/addicts. It got rid of the "dealers" when prohibition of alcohol was repealed - and it made alcohol safer and less related to other crime (not saying its crime-free now of course).
Dunno if I buy into it completely, but controlling (or at least trying to) the black market supply has only succeded to make drugs purer, cheaper, and more available. Attempts to control demand have been nothing short of laughable.
Not sure I'm comfortable with taking control of drugs from one group of criminals and giving to another one though. But the evidence from countries like Holland where "soft" drugs are decriminalised, and addicts are treated more like patients rather than criminals, show significantly better results in terms of reduced drug use, reduced addiction, ageing demographic of addicts (i.e. few new addicts, and older addicts surviving), and reduced drug related crime overall, in comparison countries like the USA which have a viagra-like hardon for law enforcement.
We havent really made much concerted effort controlling the other leg of the supply chain tho - production. I read an intersting idea recently - has interesting political implications too - western governments, in conjunction with pharma - buy opium / coca / etc direct from the producers and cut out the terrorists / drug barons at the source.
Might be worth a try
As to dumping the drugs into the streets, I was trying to be a bit sarcastic,
so was I
Not sure I'm comfortable with taking control of drugs from one group of criminals and giving to another one though.
Yeah, it seems that regulating hard drugs will simply put the power in the hands of different people - they won't be readily available to anyone and so those with access will be granted power. If you can get it cheaper at the pharmacy than from unauthorized dealers then you will have a profit margin, but if you make it more expensive it won't sell or will only sell to those who really need it.
Here is an interesting article about weed -
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527446.100-its-lack-of-balance-that-makes-skunk-cannabis-do-harm.html
supposedly new strains of weed termed 'skunk' have very high THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) content but no CBD (canabidiol). This is due to selective breeding for extra THC content.
Pure THC has psychotic effects while CBD has anti-psychotic effects.. mixed together they make for a very different high than pure THC. It would be interesting if some grower out there went in the opposite direction and grew a strain with extra CBD especially for people with mental illnesses.
sifreak21
01-26-10, 01:01 PM
how come weed marijuana is a drug but cigeretts arnt?
Fraggle Rocker
01-27-10, 05:38 AM
We havent really made much concerted effort controlling the other leg of the supply chain tho - production.Drugs are too easy to produce. Marijuana is an extremely hardy weed that will grow wild almost anywhere. Opium poppies thrive in the climate that corresponds almost exactly to the latitude of some of the world's most dysfunctional governments. Coca grows in the hinterlands of South America where corruption and poverty have more power than weak governments.
Refinement of drugs from these raw materials is not rocket science. From opium to cocaine to methamphetamine, the small labs that produce the finished product are the most intractable links in the supply chain.
In the modern world with an economy dependent on extensive international commerce and private travel, it's impossible to prevent those drugs from being moved across international borders.
So controlling supply is impossible. Shut down one producer and someone with a more efficient organization, more weapons, and more corrupted cops and other government agents will take over. This increase in the cost of production will result in increased cost to the consumer. This leads to the ridiculous phenomenon of users committing crimes to finance the use of drugs made from plants whose farmers earn subsistence wages.
This is why most governments focus on controlling demand. This can be modestly effective in countries with draconian law enforcement like Iran and China, but who wants to use them as models? It is arguably ineffective in free countries like the United States. My parents assured me that alcohol consumption increased during Prohibition because we are not an authority-loving people, and many Americans went to speakeasies, patronized bootleggers, and set up operations in their own homes, just to make a point that the government has no right to tell consenting adults what they can put in their mouths. My mother lamented the fact that Prohibition got women going to bars, which had previously been the exclusive province of men and of girls who were not "nice."
Drugs were available in the old Soviet Union. Drugs are available in America's prisons. Clearly if you increase the price of a commodity to the point that only gangsters are willing to take the risk inherent in its commerce, supply will be uninterrupted and demand will keep pace.
Fraggle Rocker
01-27-10, 06:02 AM
how come weed marijuana is a drug but cigarettes aren't?When I was young enough to know a fair number of people who remembered the 1930s, they told me (and I have read a few accounts over the years that corroborate this) that the campaign against marijuana arose as part of the rising tide of racism against Mexican immigrants and Mexican-Americans in the Southwest during the Great Depression.
Hard times often turn people against each other, and they're most likely to turn first against the ones they regard as "outsiders." Marijuana was not terribly popular across America in those days. Musicians were into it because there is considerable truth to its reputation for slightly throttling down left-brain function and causing a modest increase in creativity and other right-brain functions. But most Americans never even thought of using it. But it was popular among the Mexican immigrant community, because as a weed growing wild in Mexico it was a real cheap high for poor folks, and it was easy enough to bring it across the border.
This was virtually ignored by the general population and by the authorities. Contrary to D.A.R.E. propaganda, marijuana is not known for triggering violent, antisocial behavior like alcohol, and the people who smoked it simply did not do much of anything to make themselves stand out. In an era when people did not bathe as regularly as we do, deodorants were not as popular, garbage was not managed as meticulously, factories did not clean up their smoke, some towns still had horse shit in their streets, and because of all of this strong perfume was commonplace, the smell of marijuana did not stand out like it does today so you could walk down the street smoking "a reefer the size of a cigar" (to quote an old jazz musician I talked to) and nobody would even give you a second glance.
But the racial discrimination of the 1930s (does "they're taking our jobs" sound familiar?) created a need for a reason to jail or deport Mexicans. The criminalization of alcohol in the 1920s emboldened the government to do the same with other drugs, so marijuana was the logical target. The infamous "Reefer Madness" movie was government propaganda aimed at teenagers, much like today's D.A.R.E. lectures, full of exaggerations and outright rubbish, are aimed at younger children. Of course even then adolescents were rebellious and would try anything, but there was no epidemic of teenage marijuana use like there was in the 1960s as a manifestation of the Generation Gap.
They also outlawed cocaine and heroin, which my grandfather had been selling in his pharmacy. "Heroin" is a Bayer Corp. trademark: "It makes you feel like a hero!"
synthesizer-patel
01-27-10, 04:07 PM
Fraggle - the concept of controlling the production side wasnt to try to wipe out production - thats about as likely to succeed as anything else thats been tried.
Instead you take the terrorists / warlords / drug barons etc out of the equation by - for example - setting up an opium marketing board in Kabul and guaranteeing the growers you'll outbid all other buyers for the opium.
Fraggle Rocker
01-27-10, 08:24 PM
Fraggle - the concept of controlling the production side wasnt to try to wipe out production - thats about as likely to succeed as anything else thats been tried. Instead you take the terrorists / warlords / drug barons etc out of the equation by - for example - setting up an opium marketing board in Kabul and guaranteeing the growers you'll outbid all other buyers for the opium.Well that would be sensible. Considering that all that money (around $13B per annum) is going into the treasury of the Taliban, this is a classic and frightening illustration of the Law of Unintended Consequences: "You can never do just one thing." By criminalizing heroin our shit-for-brains government is, in effect, funding a large portion of the international anti-Western terrorist movement. Shit howdy, isn't that just so much better than respecting the Constitution and letting consenting adults have their damn drugs?
I assume that your opium marketing board will wholesale it to corporations who will produce heroin of pure quality and consistent dosage, to vastly reduce overdose deaths, and sell it at free-market prices to consumers, which will eliminate the drug-poverty-crime cycle. I would let poor Bayer AG have first right of refusal, since they trademarked the name "Heroin" in the first place.
Anyone who's expecting the opium marketing board to just throw it in a big pile and burn it, just doesn't understand what thirteen billion dollars in bribes can do to even the most respectable citizens!
synthesizer-patel
01-28-10, 03:04 PM
I assume that your opium marketing board will wholesale it to corporations who will produce heroin of pure quality and consistent dosage, to vastly reduce overdose deaths, and sell it at free-market prices to consumers, which will eliminate the drug-poverty-crime cycle. I would let poor Bayer AG have first right of refusal, since they trademarked the name "Heroin" in the first place.
Thats the general idea yes - although bear in mind that the substances from which drugs like Heroin and cocaine are derived from also have "legitimate" uses in Pharma.
Of course its not going to work for all drugs - not sure how it could be applied for drugs which are completely, or mostly, synthetic like Methamphetamine
Fraggle Rocker
01-28-10, 05:13 PM
Thats the general idea yes - although bear in mind that the substances from which drugs like Heroin and cocaine are derived from also have "legitimate" uses in Pharma.And that's just another weak spot where bribery induces corruption and results in the "legitimate" supply being raided and siphoned off to the black market.Of course its not going to work for all drugs - not sure how it could be applied for drugs which are completely, or mostly, synthetic like MethamphetamineThe same problem does not exist because the Taliban is not involved so it doesn't matter if the same solution can't be applied. Legalize methampetamine and corporations will be turning it out in chemically pure doses, selling it at reasonable prices, and making a fabulous profit. Everybody wins.
The only drug that will be hard to corporatize is marijuana, because it grows practically anywhere and city dwellers can just grow their own in window boxes. Still, commercially grown marijuana could be sold so cheaply that no one would bother with the considerable effort of cultivating it on a second floor balcony.
Of course since you brought up meth, the issue comes up that some drugs truly are worse for the users than others. But in my observation (and one that has been echoed by many others), one of the main reasons there has been such an explosion in the use of "alphabet soup" drugs is the criminalization of marijuana. Most people were pretty content to smoke pot back in the day. (And those newfangled vaporizer thingies even make it unnecessary to ream out your lungs with smoke any more.) But the crackdown made it really expensive; it's very bulky and hard to conceal; it stinks and betrays its presence wherever you keep it; and it shows up in a urine test a frelling month later. So people started experimenting with other drugs that are cheaper and easier to get away with.
I'll wager that if pot is relegalized, you'll see a dramatic dropoff in the use of meth and all these other new inventions.
Pandaemoni
01-28-10, 07:13 PM
The United States learned from ‘Prohibition” that you can’t legislate morality.
Of course you can. We have laws prohibiting prostitution, having sex with minors, assault, murder, etc. We formerly had laws requiring people to turn in runaway slaves, and that law was in place for a while. All of that has a moral dimension, Of course people break those laws, but the proof of legislatability is that the law passed will never be broken, then nothing can ever be legislated.
Second, the belief that Prohibition increased crime is somewhat overstated. The homicide and violent crime rates went up, but ...
A second reason why Prohibition was a successful program is due to the fact that it did not -- contrary to popular myth--cause an increase in the crime rate. It is true that there was an increase in the homicide rate during Prohibition, but this is not the same as an increase in the overall crime rate. Furthermore, the increase in homicide occurred predominantly in the African-American community, and African-Americans at that time were not the people responsible for alcohol trafficking.108 The drama of Elliot Ness and Al Capone largely was just that, drama sensationalized by the media of the time." From Chapter 6 - Role of Tobacco and Alcohol in the Drug Legalization Debate from "Drug Legalization: Myths and Misconceptions" by the U.S. Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration.
The homicide rate went up, but in a way that is not clearly linked to Prohibition.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.