It's in black and white: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13624303

Personally, I'm all in favour of de-criminalising. Tax and Regulation could work. Within the UK it could work with us being an island, plus it could bring much needed growth to rural areas!

I knew the southern border states in the USA were bad, but after watching a documentary, I didn't realise how bad things were. Where is the modern day John Wayne to rally the nation with a Green-Beret style film? yeah! But seriously, I feel for all the thousands who have died.

The war on drugs is outdated and deprecated. We now have the war on terror. After the war on drugs is completely phased out, we'll begin steps toward phasing out the war on terror and bring the "war on privacy" into full swing because we'll be done legislating the framework for it by then.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, can anyone tell me why the US government now bestows titles belonging to Slavic monarchy?

Mhm, Cannabis isn't bad for you any more than Cigarettes are. Alcohol is worse in all cases, which is hilarious.

The only reason Cocaine use is still pretty low is because it is expensive as feth.

The War on Drugs is a joke.

Pretty much. Why is it that two of the worst drugs, Tobacco and Alcohol, are legal, but nothing else is.

The War on Drugs was all just a waste of time and money.

daedalus wrote:Also, can anyone tell me why the US government now bestows titles belonging to Slavic monarchy?

Either because it sounds cool, or some kind of monarch-envy.

I hope the War on Drugs does come to an end. The whole thing has been a futile exercise in Prohibition 2.0 and ending this foolish and misguided campaign is he first step towards decriminalizing something that should never have been illegal in the first place.

htj wrote:

daedalus wrote:Also, can anyone tell me why the US government now bestows titles belonging to Slavic monarchy?

Either because it sounds cool, or some kind of monarch-envy.

I thought monarchy was one of the reasons why our people and yours had that little spat a few hundred years ago.

Maybe I'm too uptight, but I'd really rather we would have kept allusions to royalty outside of our government.

What title are you referring to?

daedalus wrote:

htj wrote:

daedalus wrote:Also, can anyone tell me why the US government now bestows titles belonging to Slavic monarchy?

Either because it sounds cool, or some kind of monarch-envy.

I thought monarchy was one of the reasons why our people and yours had that little spat a few hundred years ago.

Maybe I'm too uptight, but I'd really rather we would have kept allusions to royalty outside of our government.

Well, you know, when you can't have something, you want it all the more.

It's a stupid term, and it sounds more like someone who sells drugs. Surely a drug tsar is higher ranking that a drugs baron, but on the same side?

Oh, Czar/Tzar/whatever. Yeah, I hated that title.

Apparently, it's a reference to the absolute authority given to the individual in question within their department, coined by Nixon in its modern usage, though it was previously used as a denigrating term for someone perceived as overzealous and dictatorial, apparently as early as the 1880's.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:Apparently, it's a reference to the absolute authority given to the individual in question within their department, coined by Nixon in its modern usage, though it was previously used as a denigrating term for someone perceived as overzealous and dictatorial, apparently as early as the 1880's.

Oh, well it's quite appropriate then, in the second sense.

Honestly, they should just de-criminalise it. Its a waste of money because people are too stupid to listen.

Let these junkie scum die off in their own filth. De-criminalisation will do nothing to help the damage drugs will do; but thats fine.

Mhm, Cannabis isn't bad for you any more than Cigarettes are

It won't give you cancer...but it'll make you go insane later in life if a person smokes the same amount as cigarettes (And people honestly think the average public is smart enough to not do that?)

Decriminalize and legalize cannabis is my vote. Never touched the stuff, but I know more than enough that have/do. The other categories can stay illegal in my book.

Mr Hyena wrote:Honestly, they should just de-criminalise it. Its a waste of money because people are too stupid to listen.

Let these junkie scum die off in their own filth. De-criminalisation will do nothing to help the damage drugs will do; but thats fine.

Mhm, Cannabis isn't bad for you any more than Cigarettes are

It won't give you cancer...but it'll make you go insane later in life if a person smokes the same amount as cigarettes (And people honestly think the average public is smart enough to not do that?)

lol

I'm not a junkie, I do it for fun, it has never had a negative effect on me.

Nobody smokes the same amount of weed as Cigarettes, if you think that, then you're delusional.

People make a living off the drug, if it was legalized, it would encourage proper education and jobs for youths in downtrodden areas.

Oh come now...all scientific research clearly points out that smoking weed makes one insane...haven't you people been paying attention?...




....The "War on Drugs" is and always has been a huge waste of time, money and life.

The war on drugs is a make work project.

Mr Hyena wrote:It won't give you cancer...but it'll make you go insane later in life if a person smokes the same amount as cigarettes (And people honestly think the average public is smart enough to not do that?)

By which you mean, there are studies that show a mild correlation between use and schizophrenia, barely outside the margin of error for the sample size? You might as well look at the fact that almost every schizophrenic smokes tobacco, and assume that tobacco causes schizophrenia.

Can anyone predict the impact that legalizing pot may have?
On one hand you take away a huge part of the organized crimes income, and thus reducing the impact it have on our security.
On the other hand: Todays young people don't have access to alcohol, but anyone can buy from a dealer, a dealer that also sells coke and repackaged ratpoison.
Chances are that young people might be tempted by other drugs while there, and then lay the fundament for a glorious career in drug abuse.
My point is that if you control pot you don't take the dealer away, but the dealer only has harder drugs to sell thus starting a young person a step up the latter.

I don't think I can predict the outcome, perhaps my concern comes from a lack of confidence in the teenagers of today.

I like to smoke pot sometimes, but I hate the fact that I have to support scum to do so, or break the law by growing my own. I would love to be able to buy pot legal, but I'm not entirely convinced that it's the best way to go about it.

Not really sure what your argument is snapsepaven. what is commonly observed is that kids who just want to try some pot (a relatively harmless drug) often get coerced by the dealer into trying harder drugs, if weed was legal the kids wouldn't go to the dealer in the first place.

Theres also the fact that the effects of pot differ wildly from the effects of many other 'hard' drugs, kids that are into pot would probably be less likely to try other drugs, by virtue of the fact that they result in a different kind of high that they are not necessarily looking to experience.

corpsesarefun wrote:Not really sure what your argument is snapsepaven. what is commonly observed is that kids who just want to try some pot (a relatively harmless drug) often get coerced by the dealer into trying harder drugs, if weed was legal the kids wouldn't go to the dealer in the first place.

Perhaps.
I'm concerned about what the stepstone drug is, my view is that it's easier to bounce off pot than it is to bounce off harder drugs. Teenagers are going to push the boundries, and as I said I might lag the confidence in them, as in "it's not that the dealer sells harmless pot, but that he sells stuff I shouldn't have that is alluring".

In some ways its two bags of piss.

snapsepaven wrote: Teenagers are going to push the boundries

Why?

Kragura wrote:

snapsepaven wrote: Teenagers are going to push the boundries

Why?

Because that's what we do...

Kragura wrote:

snapsepaven wrote: Teenagers are going to push the boundries

Why?

Because damn it, we are teenagers.

I would smoke a little pot if it was decriminalized, but not as much as some of the kids at my school do right now. Maybe once per every two weeks, just to cool off.

...And so you should.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Push boundries I mean.

Crablezworth wrote:The war on drugs is a make work project.

Its much more than that. Its the security industrial complex. If you added in cops, the courts, all the fed legal agencies, all the lawyers making money, the prison guards and all the contractors, it would be interesting to see how that stacks up against any other US enterprise.

purplefood wrote:

Kragura wrote:

snapsepaven wrote: Teenagers are going to push the boundries

Why?

Because that's what we do...

Why? why would YOU push the boundaries. why would YOU move on to harder drugs. why would YOU agree do do that.

Frazzled wrote:

Crablezworth wrote:The war on drugs is a make work project.

Its much more than that. Its the security industrial complex. If you added in cops, the courts, all the fed legal agencies, all the lawyers making money, the prison guards and all the contractors, it would be interesting to see how that stacks up against any other US enterprise.

Which leads to the question how much of the "War on Drugs" is about "Keeping the public safe" ( ) and how much is about keeping a failing machine " Alive" ?

Kragura wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Kragura wrote:

snapsepaven wrote: Teenagers are going to push the boundries

Why?

Because that's what we do...

Why? why would YOU push the boundaries. why would YOU move on to harder drugs. why would YOU agree do do that.

I don't know why... it's just what teens do...
Quite a few of my friends stopped drinking for a while after they urned 18 because there was no challenge in getting served.
Personally i wouldn't move onto harder drugs but that's just me.

If the Pot were legal than maybe some people would actually paint their armies.

purplefood wrote:
I don't know why... it's just what teens do...
.

This is the problem that a lot of people have in regards to this issue*. Until we understand why things are happening in out society then it is impossible to envision a future society, it is amazingly hard for us to in vision proper, radical, critiques of that society. if we don't know WHY teenagers are liable to move to heavier drugs (or at least more liable to do so). We cant really say what effect decriminalisation of those drugs is going to have.

*I'm not trying to single you out here, I'm sure either the majority or a large minority agree with you, it's just easier for me to argue when it's directed at someone.

By which you mean, there are studies that show a mild correlation between use and schizophrenia, barely outside the margin of error for the sample size? You might as well look at the fact that almost every schizophrenic smokes tobacco, and assume that tobacco causes schizophrenia.

Nothing thats smoked is healthy really. Cannabis is more clean...physically. But it does something to the mind over time. That much is obvious from the literature.

Why risk smoking something like that?

if we don't know WHY teenagers are liable to move to heavier drugs

Because people and teenagers who turn to hard drugs, or non-medical drugs, in general are idiots with no self control? Coupled with the fact that they don't really care to think what may happen in the future? There really is no justification beyond 'I wanna do it' in all honesty.

Meh ah well. Its fun to say 'I told ya so' to these people.

Meh teens are confused, they like to try new things because they don't know what they enjoy. Teens also like to rebel on some level, drugs fit being experimental, rebellious and on some level "cool" quite well and thus large amounts of teenagers do them.

I'd agree with that.
And, no worries Kragura i get where you're coming from...

Mr Hyena wrote:

Because people and teenagers who turn to hard drugs, or non-medical drugs, in general are idiots with no self control? Coupled with the fact that they don't really care to think what may happen in the future? There really is no justification beyond 'I wanna do it' in all honesty.

Meh ah well. Its fun to say 'I told ya so' to these people.

I cant think of a single teenager who thinks like that. 3 years ago you were a teenager, did you think like that? if someone gave you the option (free of any pressure) to shoot yourself up with heroin, would you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

corpsesarefun wrote:Teens also like to rebel on some level, drugs fit being experimental, rebellious and on some level "cool" quite well and thus large amounts of teenagers do them.

And therefore de-legalisation of drugs (all drugs mind you) would decrease drug use. Right?

The slippery slope doesn't exist and most dealers don't sell everything. They're not a mini mart for illegal wares.

I cant think of a single teenager who thinks like that. 3 years ago you were a teenager, did you think like that? if someone gave you the option (free of any pressure) to shoot yourself up with heroin, would you?

No way in hell would I. But I knew and had first hand experience of people who did. None of them were seriously addicted but they took ecstasy and cannabis

I've never seen such pathetic....animals as serious drug addicts. They don't even deserve to be called human.

Kragura wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Kragura wrote:

snapsepaven wrote: Teenagers are going to push the boundries

Why?

Because that's what we do...

Why? why would YOU push the boundaries. why would YOU move on to harder drugs. why would YOU agree do do that.

Ok I'll try to give an explanation.
It's all about identity, it's an awful time really. Adults and the world around you expect you to take responsability, yet they don't take off your leash. This means that teenagers often find themselves in a situation where they think/feel like adults yet they're being treated like children.
Being in the process of finding out, who they are, who they want to be, exploring sexuality and so on. Combined with not being treated as adults and not being able to return to childhood has confused the young mind.
This is why teenagers rebel, when you're not allowed to be an adult but feel as such, you're not going to ask permition to commit your own mistakes, you're simply going to do so on your own since you feel that it's well within in your rights to do so.
You might know that the adults have good reasons not to allow you doing certain things, but you feel like you actually have control and that the adults lag of confidence in you are missplaced.

Now say that your rebelious ways has led you to the doorstep of a dealer, here is one that don't pass judgement on you. He confirms you in your believe that you are responsible enough to handle this. And perhaps that this way more fun and essential harmless white powder, is nothing you can't handle.

Adults protect their teenage children by enforcing rules upon them and gradually removing the leash, and in a world where you feel alone all a dealer has to do is treat you as an equel and thus becomeing a rolemodel.

I know that most teenagers properbly can distinquis right from wrong but all will push the boundries and some will push too much.

And as such you would be for the decriminalisation of drugs right? if it's just rebellion then obviously the right thing to do would be to remove the taboos and remove the mystification surrounding drugs right? move it out of the criminal culture and into the forefront. after all, you said yourself there going to choose either way, why not give them all the information they need to help them make the right choice.

Adults protect their teenage children by enforcing rules upon them and gradually removing the leash, and in a world where you feel alone all a dealer has to do is treat you as an equel and thus becomeing a rolemodel.

This is interesting, do you think that someone who, as you say, feels like an adult should not be treated as one? if so why not? why is it our* duty to define their lives for them. I would say most teenagers know just about as much about the drug world as do adults. and teenagers, like it or not, are not hormone fuelled robots, consistently working towards sex drugs and alcohol. most of them (hell all of them) are free thinking individuals, people, with their own rights and responsibility's. why do you get do say what we do?

* or rather your


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Hyena wrote:I've never seen such pathetic....animals as serious drug addicts. They don't even deserve to be called human.

Why? Why does taking drugs renounce your humanity? Why are they pathetic? Why do you seem to hate them so much?

Kragura wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

Because people and teenagers who turn to hard drugs, or non-medical drugs, in general are idiots with no self control? Coupled with the fact that they don't really care to think what may happen in the future? There really is no justification beyond 'I wanna do it' in all honesty.

Meh ah well. Its fun to say 'I told ya so' to these people.

I cant think of a single teenager who thinks like that. 3 years ago you were a teenager, did you think like that? if someone gave you the option (free of any pressure) to shoot yourself up with heroin, would you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

corpsesarefun wrote:Teens also like to rebel on some level, drugs fit being experimental, rebellious and on some level "cool" quite well and thus large amounts of teenagers do them.

And therefore de-legalisation of drugs (all drugs mind you) would decrease drug use. Right?

Delegalisation? I think you mean legalisation...

Sorry yes your right, legalisation.

Ok this last one and I'm off to bed.

I GET TO SAY SO BECAUSE I'M A BLODDY ADULT!!!

All kidding aside, I really don't get to say anything. I'm not anyones parrent I'm simply voicing a consern I have.
Parrents restrict their children because they want to help them make decision that are good for them. Being an adult doesn't mean that you just get to do what you want, but also that you should take responsibility.
It means that you consider consequences before you make a decision. Most teenagers are ready to make the decision but unpreared to deal with the consequences. Most adults screw this up half the time as well, and therefore we tend to protect those with less experience.
Look at the teenage years as a sort of apprenticeship, you get to make lesser decisions and the adults are there to help you deal with the consequences, a sort of trial and error periode preparing you for a time when the consequences can mean more than a grounding.
This sort of freepass also gives teenagers a responsability to rebel, do alot of stupid gak and suffer the consequences and it will help you to become a responsible adult, as long as you also learn the upside to a good decision.

Now all this responsibility crap brings me to why I don't think that you just can remove the ban on drugs.
While it is true that I would like it to be legal, I just don't see how you can make such a major change and not expect any problems. It would really surprise me if there wasn't any unforseen consequences by doing this.
But if it is to be done I predict that it will come gradually, sort of like how you would raise a teenager , by slowly releasing the leash.

Sorry for any errors, I'm too tired to spell check it now. Good night.

snapsepaven wrote:
This sort of freepass also gives teenagers a responsability to rebel, do alot of stupid gak and suffer the consequences and it will help you to become a responsible adult, as long as you also learn the upside to a good decision.

See this I agree with whole heartedly, but I'm not really sure how banning drugs stops teenagers from using them. I agree with you that most teenagers don't really have the head for consequences most adults do, it's not really something that can be taught. but surely the logical thing to do then be be to decriminalise the drugs, to help people through there addictions. whether it was a learning experience, or a bad choice or the result of some external trauma, what is important is how we deal with it and surly, for all those things, the primary response,rather than exclusion, is compassion.

Mr Hyena wrote:
Why risk smoking something like that?

Because you like it, of course. Living a long life which is free of mental irregularities is not a universal good, you know.

Mr Hyena wrote:
Because people and teenagers who turn to hard drugs, or non-medical drugs, in general are idiots with no self control?

Right, we could already infer that you don't like them, you don't need to flat out say it.

Mr Hyena wrote:
There really is no justification beyond 'I wanna do it' in all honesty.

Since desire is at the root of all justification, I fail to see why that is a problem.

Mr Hyena wrote:
Meh ah well. Its fun to say 'I told ya so' to these people.

But its much more fun to mock self-righteous people on the internet, and in person, really.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Hyena wrote:
No way in hell would I. But I knew and had first hand experience of people who did. None of them were seriously addicted but they took ecstasy and cannabis

Wait, are you comparing heroin to ecstasy and pot? That's a terrible, terrible mistake.

Mr Hyena wrote:
I've never seen such pathetic....animals as serious drug addicts. They don't even deserve to be called human.

Why? Because they do something you don't like, and you don't like being associated with them?

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:The slippery slope doesn't exist and most dealers don't sell everything. They're not a mini mart for illegal wares.

This was exactly what I was thinking while reading this thread.

Most 'drug dealers' i've met only ever sell weed and are usually teenagers themselves who just want some extra cash. I'm sure those big bad terrible drug dealers you talk about really exist but teenagers who do only ever do "light drugs" will probally never meet such people.

As I sit here reading this while smoking some weed and shooting up heroin it has become apparent to me that I don't remember what this thread is about. Well, off to smoke some rocks and down a few blue diamonds.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:The slippery slope doesn't exist and most dealers don't sell everything. They're not a mini mart for illegal wares.

You mean that I have to go to different street corners, alleys, and apartments for the different drugs, the illegal guns, AND the hitman?
Jeez, no wonder this stuff is illegal. It's un-american to not have everything you need in one convient, street corner location!



Now I just thought about 7/11 offering these products.......

Mr Hyena wrote:

I've never seen such pathetic....animals as serious drug addicts. They don't even deserve to be called human.

Why? They shouldn't be hated, they should be pitied. That is, if they actually do have a serious addiction that completely destroys their life.

Mr Hyena, I want to loathe your opinion, but those .gif s in your sig make it so hard....

Lord-Loss wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:The slippery slope doesn't exist and most dealers don't sell everything. They're not a mini mart for illegal wares.

This was exactly what I was thinking while reading this thread.

Most 'drug dealers' i've met only ever sell weed and are usually teenagers themselves who just want some extra cash. I'm sure those big bad terrible drug dealers you talk about really exist but teenagers who do only ever do "light drugs" will probally never meet such people.

Bingo. In some "less legal" months of my life I sold pills. That's what I had access to, and all I dealt with directly. I would set up deals between different people for other things then quote them extra and the dealers would give me the overflow, but each had their niche. It was actually really, really hard to find cocaine. I tried to score heroin for a guy that was willing to pay on the extreme high end for it and nobody was even willing to deal it. It's not something I'd do again because of how much care you have to put into it and how often you have to look over your shoulder. It's also a little disheartening when you're unsure if your friends are trustworthy and some of them randomly disappear.

@snaps: Quit watching the TV specials. That's not how buying drugs actually works 99% of the time.

Why? Why does taking drugs renounce your humanity? Why are they pathetic? Why do you seem to hate them so much?

Did you grow up in a poor area? I did. Have you seen or read some of the things these...things do, to get money to fuel their addiction? Have you actually walked into a pharmacist and seen these 'zombies' (seriously, thats what they look like. Shrunken face and everything) lining up for their Methadone? Its a horrible situation to be in when your just in for a prescription.

Pot probably wouldn't be as bad as that. That much is true. However I doubt it will take long for Heroin, Ecstasy and similar to become legal as well after.

Wait, are you comparing heroin to ecstasy and pot? That's a terrible, terrible mistake.

Heroin is worse of course. But ecstasy has had deaths before too.

duty to define their lives for them.

Heres the problem: what works for one...likely doesn't work for all.

Why? Because they do something you don't like, and you don't like being associated with them?

Ever had someone in your area die due to a junked-up idiot?

Mr Hyena wrote:
Did you grow up in a poor area? I did. Have you seen or read some of the things these...things do, to get money to fuel their addiction?

No, I've only seen what self-righteous things do in order to fuel their righteousness.

Of course, they aren't human, I throw them into the garbage when they cross my dinner plate. Too stringy, you see.

Mr Hyena wrote:
Have you actually walked into a pharmacist and seen these 'zombies' (seriously, thats what they look like. Shrunken face and everything) lining up for their Methadone? Its a horrible situation to be in when your just in for a prescription.

Oh No! I'm sorry that you were inconvenienced!

Mr Hyena wrote:
Pot probably wouldn't be as bad as that. That much is true. However I doubt it will take long for Heroin, Ecstasy and similar to become legal as well after.

Right, your moral checklist is clearly the rasion behind all legalization decisions.

Mr Hyena wrote:
Heroin is worse of course. But ecstasy has had deaths before too.

So do cars.

Mr Hyena wrote:
Ever had someone in your area die due to a junked-up idiot?

Don't care. People are expendable. I'm waiting for a non-emotional justification.

@snaps: Quit watching the TV specials. That's not how buying drugs actually works 99% of the time.

Look I've been at different dealers in my time, I know how it works. You might have had a different experience but don't kid yourself into thinking that it doesn't happen.
Drugs comes to most countries under extreme contraband, It is not unusual for somebody to get injured or killed in the process of getting it there. It doesn't matter if it's pot or heroine, somebody risked their life getting it to you. Whenever somebody chooses to buy/sell any kind of drug it is a serious stain on that persons morality. Remember that behind every dealer there is a criminal enterprice, and somewhere down the line some scumbag are cashing in on what you see as harmless.

As it is now there are dealers contempt with only dealing in lesser damaging drugs, but if you remove those comodities from the dealer my concern is that maybe the next drug will step up and take the place that pot fills now.

If we're talking about the entire spectre of drugs, it presents the problem of wether people can handle this. On one hand you're saying that you have confidence in people being able to deal with it. On the other hand you're kinda saying that drugs aren't as dangous as they used to be.

I'm not strongly against legalizing, but I don't think that you can just go from illegal to legal in an instance. you need to do as we do now, slowly introduce/confront the public with drugs in order for them to accept the change, or else you risk cultural chock that could backfire in ways that nobody can foresee.

As short as I can boil it down my opinion is: If legalizing only affected me then I would do it today since I know where I stand, but other people have to live with it as well and they might not be prepared for the social changes it would bring. Or something like that.

When my parents were young, back in the seventies, the were very involved in the small time rock scene. My Dad was a drummer (still is) and played in several bands at different times. One of the best bands had a lead guitarist who was both supremely skilled and ahead of his time. Listening to what recorded music I have heard of them, his songs sounded like early Red Hot Chili Peppers stuff, and this was in the late seventies. That man was extremely talented.

Now, some recreational drug usage was common in that scene, at that time. Most people smoked weed recreationally, some took other, 'harder' drugs. This man, the guitarist, smoked weed a lot. Way beyond most peoples recreational habits. He smoked it several times a day, and he was, of course, addicted. As the years past and he entered his mid twenties, the effects of his excessive use began to show. He began to lack focus, unable to concentrate for any length of time, and his memory became more and more unrelaible. Eventually, it got to the point where he would forget what he was doing whilst doing it, he would be unable to remember how a song went half way through and would stop playing. His mind was shot, fried from his addiction to weed. A man who was once an intelligent and extremely skilled musician was now unable to follow through on the simplest of tasks.

Why am I telling this story? There's been talk of weed being 'harmless' and having no addictive qualities. Whilst it is certainly less addictive and less harmful than tobacco, it is still an addictive mind-altering substance that will leave you with brain damage if you don't treat it with the respect it deserves.

I am pro-legalisation of weed, seeing it as no more of a threat that tobacco or alcohol, but those people who are saying that it is 'non-addictive' or that 'people who think that anyone smokes it like tobacco are delusional' need to get their facts straight before they make ignorant claims, born out of their own limited experience. Apologies if this comes across a little hostile, but it makes me angry when people speak about potentially dangerous things that they do not understand.

Mr Hyena wrote:Ever had someone in your area die due to a junked-up idiot?

No, have you? if so, why?

htj wrote:There's been talk of weed being 'harmless' and having no addictive qualities. Whilst it is certainly less addictive and less harmful than tobacco, it is still an addictive mind-altering substance that will leave you with brain damage if you don't treat it with the respect it deserves.

I am pro-legalisation of weed, seeing it as no more of a threat that tobacco or alcohol, but those people who are saying that it is 'non-addictive' or that 'people who think that anyone smokes it like tobacco are delusional' need to get their facts straight before they make ignorant claims, born out of their own limited experience. Apologies if this comes across a little hostile, but it makes me angry when people speak about potentially dangerous things that they do not understand.

Yeah I mostly agree with you, but I really dont think its medically addictive. Its the feeling you get addicted too, you get comfortable in the escape from reality.Its like saying your addicted to COD 4 or something. You really like it, play it alot, but not physically addicted to it. Mental addiction in someways I think is worse, you believe you need it.

But anyway weed is a gateway drug, if you think differently, wait a few years and I can guarantee you will try something harder. But people presume harder drugs would be meth, heroin etc. I never ever touched or went near anything like that, the hardest drug I did would either be mushrooms or LSD. It expands you mind. seriously, fething awesome

Id recommend trying it, its always best at the start, giggling at dogs and stuff, after a few years you start to get more adventurous

Smoke weed everday!
RIP Nat Dogg

I think you're probably right, Toastedandy, it's more of a mental addiction than a physical one. I've never had much fun with weed myself, my body tends to ignore any drugs I put into for the most part, legal or otherwise. But I wouldn't caution anyone off it. It's pretty harmless if used sensibly. Just got annoyed by those who seemed to be dismissing it as having no possible negative effects.

Mr Hyena wrote:

By which you mean, there are studies that show a mild correlation between use and schizophrenia, barely outside the margin of error for the sample size? You might as well look at the fact that almost every schizophrenic smokes tobacco, and assume that tobacco causes schizophrenia.

Nothing thats smoked is healthy really. Cannabis is more clean...physically. But it does something to the mind over time. That much is obvious from the literature.

Do you have citations?

Flood the market with all the seized drugs and taint them with some slow acting poison to allow the market to soak it up before things start happening.

No more drugs problem.


Edit: Clarification.

Don't really know about any reliable textbook on the subject. But I'm sure you don't need to look long for an author that delves in mindaltering substances . Love those guys by the way.

Any book by Hunter S. Thomson

No, have you? if so, why?

Why would I know? I don't know what goes through the minds of addicts (apart from their addiction)

No, I've only seen what self-righteous things do in order to fuel their righteousness.

Sounds like something someone from a moderately decent neighbourhood would say. It doesn't seem bad unless your living in an area troubled by the stuff.

Oh No! I'm sorry that you were inconvenienced!

You do know these people are dangerous right? They've mugged people for money for the addiction. Addicts will go to whatever length they need to, to get money to fuel their thirst for their drug of choice.

I'm waiting for a non-emotional justification.

The fact that literally no good will come from legalisation anyway?

Mr. Hyena wrote:I've never seen such pathetic....animals as serious drug addicts. They don't even deserve to be called human.

You know who really doesn't deserve the title 'human'?

An ignorant bigot who judges all people based on one denominator. One who is completely oblivious and lacking any sort of sympathy or empathy for his fellow man, and who thinks his own view of things is the only acceptable view.

You're despicable. Honestly. I don't think that any statement I've read over the internet has ever caused me to become so irate. I can tell that you aren't fishing for arguments, and that you honestly believe this, but I am completely incredulous.

Did you grow up in a poor area? I did. Have you seen or read some of the things these...things do, to get money to fuel their addiction? Have you actually walked into a pharmacist and seen these 'zombies' (seriously, thats what they look like. Shrunken face and everything) lining up for their Methadone? Its a horrible situation to be in when your just in for a prescription.

Pot probably wouldn't be as bad as that. That much is true. However I doubt it will take long for Heroin, Ecstasy and similar to become legal as well after.

I'm sure you would have the same reaction in a cancer ward at a hospital, wouldn't you?

Prescriptions are just as much of a crutch, they cause just as much damage to your mental condition (and most of the time, just as many physical problems), and the only reason they are deemed acceptable is because your government can serve to make some money off of them. If you depend on prescription medication to function, how are you any better than a Heroin addict? Because you paid top dollar to your psychiatrist or physician so he could pump you full of horrible medications that are all synthesized, bastardized clones of real, effective drugs? I think it's time you did a little introspective reality check.

There are just as many drug addicts in rich areas as there are in poor areas. The types of drugs differ, the legality of drugs differ, and 'drug-fueled' crimes are more apparent in less policed areas, but drug addiction is a fairly universal thing.

Most hardcore drugs have a synthetic equivalent that are already legal via prescription. There are tons of opioids already on the legal market used for pain relief, and you can get a fething prescription to amphetamines for attention deficit disorder (which isn't even a debilitating disorder by any means). The neurological blockers present in these drugs are generally worse for you than the 'hard drug' they are derived from. Honestly, what's the negative difference that you place so much importance in?

Heres the problem: what works for one...likely doesn't work for all.

You should really take your own advice to heart.

Ever had someone in your area die due to a junked-up idiot?

Yes. But you should really consider placing more value in the fact that they were an idiot than the fact that they were high; the two terms are not exactly interchangeable. The things that someone will do to get high is indicative of the person, not the drug. If every heavy drug user was sucking dick and mugging people to get their fix, you would see a whole lot more prostitution and theft than you currently do.

There are far more drunk driving accidents than any other ancillary drug-related crimes, and it's all due to the user's idiocy and lack of self-control.

One who is completely oblivious and lacking any sort of sympathy or empathy for his fellow man

That flew well out of the window thanks to personal experience. I have no empathy for people who give nothing to the country and instead do all they can to make it worse for everyone else.

I'm sure you would have the same reaction in a cancer ward at a hospital, wouldn't you?

Thats completely different. You don't choose to get cancer. But you choose to take drugs.

Medical drugs aren't perfect but they are the only alternative to heal the body. Its the doctors choice to decide if the overall payoff is worth it for the body.

real, effective drugs

I really really hope you aren't trying to say that 'natural' herbal treatments are as good as true medicines...

Honestly, what's the negative difference that you place so much importance in?

Its the addiction.

If every heavy drug user was sucking dick and mugging people to get their fix, you would see a whole lot more prostitution and theft than you currently do.

Do you think it would lessen, at all, with legalisation?

Mr Hyena wrote:

I really really hope you aren't trying to say that 'natural' herbal treatments are as good as true medicines...

What would you call a true medicine? weeds been used for 2,500 years +, you saying its useless?



If your addicted too drugs, your not automatically a mugging anti social blight, that is a sterotype used by people who dont have any experience in poor/drug areas

I grew up in a good area, middle of nowhere to be honest, but alot of my mates live in an area notorious for its drug users
Nice people, honestly, nicer people than my neighbours. They are not ignorant people with dillusions of grandeur.
The are is infamous for knife related crime. But these are from alcohol related instances.

stoners live stoners die, but in the end we all get high, so in life if you dont succeed feth the gak and smoke some weed...

What would you call a true medicine? weeds been used for 2,500 years +, you saying its useless?

People use it to get high and for pain relief (in moderation). I'd hardly say it compares to proper; safe pain relief.

Mr Hyena wrote:

No, have you? if so, why?

Why would I know? I don't know what goes through the minds of addicts (apart from their addiction)

No, I've only seen what self-righteous things do in order to fuel their righteousness.

Sounds like something someone from a moderately decent neighbourhood would say. It doesn't seem bad unless your living in an area troubled by the stuff.

Oh No! I'm sorry that you were inconvenienced!

You do know these people are dangerous right? They've mugged people for money for the addiction. Addicts will go to whatever length they need to, to get money to fuel their thirst for their drug of choice.

I'm waiting for a non-emotional justification.

The fact that literally no good will come from legalisation anyway?

You do realize that every single problem you're describing would be mitigated by regulated legalization, right? Criminalization only creates a black market, which is a profitable revenue source for criminals, and black market goods are inherently lower quality, more expensive, and more dangerous than those produced by a regulated industry. You don't see people looting houses because they need beer or cigarette money (unless they're already robbers, of course).

Unless they find a way of strictly limiting how much weed each person can buy, I don't see how they can improve our streets from them.

Cigarette/Alchohol addiction is alot different to other drug addiction.

Mr Hyena wrote:

What would you call a true medicine? weeds been used for 2,500 years +, you saying its useless?

People use it to get high and for pain relief (in moderation). I'd hardly say it compares to proper; safe pain relief.

You mean the extremely addictive, extremely dangerous, relatively ineffective opiates that are legal painkillers? Or the extremely toxic, largely ineffective stuff like acetaminophen that get stuffed into 90% of over the counter medicines as a pain reliever?

You mean the extremely addictive, extremely dangerous, relatively ineffective opiates that are legal painkillers? Or the extremely toxic, largely ineffective stuff like acetaminophen that get stuffed into 90% of over the counter medicines as a pain reliever?

Psychosis and other effects are better?

Mr Hyena wrote:

What would you call a true medicine? weeds been used for 2,500 years +, you saying its useless?

People use it to get high and for pain relief (in moderation). I'd hardly say it compares to proper; safe pain relief.

No pain relief is safe. It's all hazardous in any kind of stronger dosage, and are extremely addictive.

You know that heroin is made out of the same stuff, right?

I know. I just don't think we have anywhere near the right sort of plan ready to even begin to think of legalising these drugs.

Mr Hyena wrote:Unless they find a way of strictly limiting how much weed each person can buy, I don't see how they can improve our streets from them.

Joints should be sold like cigarettes, in cheap packs in convenience stores. No one's going to bother selling them on the black market if they're even as cheap as tobacco, which is in excess of 50% vice tax.

Cigarette/Alchohol addiction is alot different to other drug addiction.

You ever gone into nicotine withdrawal? Going from even three or four cigarettes a day to nothing feels like a barbed hook in the back of your skull, and leaves your entire body feeling numb and tense. Sure, it can't kill you; alcohol withdrawal can, though. Granted to get to the point of being physically addicted to it you have to be genetically predisposed, and drink an absurd amount for a very long time, but the point stands.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Hyena wrote:

You mean the extremely addictive, extremely dangerous, relatively ineffective opiates that are legal painkillers? Or the extremely toxic, largely ineffective stuff like acetaminophen that get stuffed into 90% of over the counter medicines as a pain reliever?

Psychosis and other effects are better?

There is no medical basis to believe it causes neurological problems, and the only studies on the matter showed a minor (one or two percent) correlation with schizophrenia, with a small sample size. You'd find the same correlation with tobacco use, because of the well-documented fact that schizophrenics have a tendency to try to medicate themselves with psychoactive chemicals, even prior to being diagnosed.

Mr Hyena wrote:

What would you call a true medicine? weeds been used for 2,500 years +, you saying its useless?

People use it to get high and for pain relief (in moderation). I'd hardly say it compares to proper; safe pain relief.

Safe pain relief? what would you call safe pain relief?
Panadol? overdoses cause liver failure and death

You obviously have no idea of the medical use of weed,

its been proven too fight/relieve symtoms:
Brain cancer
Opioid dependence (Heroin dependence)
multiple sclerosis
HIV/AIDS
Alzheimer's disease
Back pain
Insomnia
Headaches
Boredom lol
a whole host of gastrointestinal disorders

Seriously dude, do some research

htj wrote:
You know that heroin is made out of the same stuff, right?

Opium? I know that they both have the same plant-derived compound, but developed in deferent ways

Mr Hyena wrote:I know. I just don't think we have anywhere near the right sort of plan ready to even begin to think of legalising these drugs.

But do you not think that a plan could be implemented?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pursuit-Oblivion-History-Narcotics-1500-2000/dp/0753813718/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1307102407&sr=8-2-spell

is an excellent review of the history of drugs in the Western World.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cannabis-Culture-Journey-Disputed-Territory/dp/0747566143/ref=pd_sim_b_1

is a more personal, yet erudite and very interesting review of the situation around Cannabis. It has little or nothing to say about harder drugs.

Mr Hyena wrote:That flew well out of the window thanks to personal experience. I have no empathy for people who give nothing to the country and instead do all they can to make it worse for everyone else.

Your experience is all secondhand, and though you've encountered numerous drug addicts in your life (I promise), you only remember the worst of the bunch. As such, you cannot even pretend to know anything. Also, you continue to make broad, sweeping generalizations of an entire culture of people based on your closed-mindedness and ignorance, so that further drives home this point.

Even the worst drug users are entirely selfish; they aren't actively seeking to make your life worse, they just don't care what they have to do in order to make their lives better. Again, I have to stress that this is definitely a minority, not the majority that you make it out to be

What do you do that contributes to society? Will your life make an honest impact on more than a handful of people? Probably not. Ultimately, you aren't any more or less useful than someone who spends all of their money on self-indulgence, in the grand scheme of things.

Thats completely different. You don't choose to get cancer. But you choose to take drugs.

I was referring more to how you were disgusted by their very appearance, as if someone looking like a zombie offended you greatly. It's still the same shallow principle.

Medical drugs aren't perfect but they are the only alternative to heal the body. Its the doctors choice to decide if the overall payoff is worth it for the body.

Medicinal drugs are far from 'not perfect'. If I had to go through a list of debilitating effects of popular medications, it would take an endless number of hours. The truth is, watered-down prescriptions have far more negative side effects than the majority of illegal drugs, without nearly as many tangible positive effects. I know someone who is morbidly obese, has to wear a diaper due to incontenance, and gaks blood because of a series of mood stabilizers. If you consider that 'healing the body', then you're insane.

Doctors shouldn't have any more of a right to decide what goes in my body than I do (more often than not, they're terribly inaccurate anyway). If I want to spend my free time getting fethed up and self-medicating, let me. If it ends up harming anyone else in any tangible way, then you should arrest me.

I really really hope you aren't trying to say that 'natural' herbal treatments are as good as true medicines...

While I'm not insinuating that hard drugs are natural in any way, I am saying that they have more positive effects that can be more beneficial if treated as medicine. Again, most 'true medicines' are just molecular derivitives of hard drugs with neurological blockers added in that serve to give them less of a kick and make them legal (and destroy your brain chemistry even worse than before in the process).

Its the addiction.

If you don't think that it is possible to become addicted to prescription drugs (even on a regulated basis), you're an idiot.

Hell, withdrawal from Xanax can fething kill you. Not even heroin can boast that.

Do you think it would lessen, at all, with legalisation?

Ever seen anybody suck dick for some alcohol?

Point proven.

Cigarette/Alchohol addiction is alot different to other drug addiction.

Psychosis and other effects are better?

Sounds like someone really needs to do their research. You should honestly learn about something before you try to justify hatred towards it.

Cigarette and Alcohol addiction is the same thing, in principle, as any other physical or mental addiction (though cigarettes cause a bit less dependance, since they do so little for you aside from keeping you from withdrawing from them). Alcohol addiction is far, far worse for you than any other kind of drug addiction. If you have unfortunately become consumed by it, physical addiction to alcohol can kill you. The only other class of drug that can kill you via withdrawal are barbiturates (which are alll legal as well, by the way). If you want to see true drug-induced psychosis, try having a basic conversation with a heavy alcoholic, even when they aren't drunk.

My father suffers permanently from minor brain damage, heart disease, liver damage, and ulcerative collitis because he was an alcoholic. He is in worse shape than any drug user I have ever seen in my life, and my entire social circle basically consists of assorted drug addicts. He barely even recognizes me most of the time, and I'm his own fething son. All of this damage he has suffered is permanent; he's been completely clean for more than a decade.

Other drugs do not cause this sort of permanent damage so readily.

Sorry about your father man, that's terrible.

You do make a valid point on medical drugs not being any more dangerous than illegal.

But I think it's important to remember that the illegal drugs are designed to have a intoxicating effect on people, and that our legal drugs are designed to relieve pain or some other illness. The same basic incredience are used in both but the desired effect may differ.

I'm currently on an opiat based presciption to relieve backpains. Although pot works about 10 times better, in the relief of my pains, it also leaves me babling and staring at my hands for hours. Medical prescribed drugs at least leaves me with a clear head.

It is not always a case of the drugs themselves being more or less dangerous, but also the environment, quality of supplies, lack of structured support, etc that make illegal drugs so much more dangerous.

And the fact that they are often taken for recreational purposes rather than carefully prescribed medicinal reasons.

Toastedandy wrote:
But anyway weed is a gateway drug, if you think differently, wait a few years and I can guarantee you will try something harder.

I've been on the Herb for more than half my life, dabbled a bit with psychedelics (i even watched Saw whilst tripping my tits off) but i have never felt the need to indulge in pills or powders or anything harder... Gateway drug, yeah the gateway to high sugar intake at antisocial hours and spending 40mins looking for papers

Blackskullandy wrote:I've been on the Herb for more than half my life, dabbled a bit with psychedelics (i even watched Saw whilst tripping my tits off) but i have never felt the need to indulge in pills or powders or anything harder... Gateway drug, yeah the gateway to high sugar intake at antisocial hours and spending 40mins looking for papers

Thats what I meant, hardest thing I did was Shrooms or LSD, but I tried them through weed, and same with you(I presume)
Psychedelics would be considered a harder drug, which was opened to us through weed

So ipso factso weeds a gateway drug

And for those anecdotal evidences, I have plenty of friends who haven't done anything "harder" than marijuana. Meh? Better proof would be research.

"I smoked pot and never escalated my drug use to heroin" Is a lame attack on the gateway drug theory. The gateway drug theory is total BS, but there is a right and a wrong way to attack it. Drug addicts have psychological problems that overcome their healthy coping mechanisms. They will continue to either abuse their current drug of choice larger quantities, or turn to a more powerful drug. The choice to advance to hard drugs is because their need to get wasted is greater than their self of self preservation, their need to get wasted is greater than their common sense, and/or they have a delusional sense of invulnerability where they honestly believe that they can do hard drugs and not become addicted. The drug addict will continue to use harder and harder drugs because their need to get wasted is infinite, and quality of a high that drugs provide is finite. If THC did not exist on our planet they would skip the pot smoking phase entirely and move straight from alcohol to hard drugs. If hard drugs did not exist they would just end up sniffing paint fumes. Smoking pot doesn't turn people into hard drug addicts, on the road to addiction hard drug addicts discover pot doesn't do gak for them so they move on to more powerful drugs in an attempt to fill a want that can never be fulfilled. "I smoked pot and never escalated my drug use to heroin" is a gak attack against the gateway drug theory because as a person who is a not a hard drug addict your subjective experience is worthless in this debate. I've worked in the psych field with hard drug addicts since the early 90s, and their subjective experience is more valid in this debate than yours. Most of them will say pot had no impact on their life, and with or without pot they would have still made the worst mistake they have ever made in their life by getting into hard drugs. That is the end all and be all of attacks against the gateway drug theory.

All of that being said drug prohibition has failed on an even larger scale than alcohol prohibition. Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The only nation that has ever won a war on drugs is China after WW2. Because of the long history of other nations pushing opium on the Chinese people to either exploit them (as the British did) or destabilize the nation (as the Japanese did) the communist party regarded the sale and use of opium as an act of treason that was intended to destabilize the state, with the penalty for treason being death. The same tactics the Chinese used would work in the USA. Declare martial law, suspend every amendment in the bill of rights, and summarily execute anybody with any quantity of illegal drugs in their possession. Smuggle drugs into the USA=summarily execute all offending parties on the spot. Sell drugs on a street corner=summarily execute all offending parties on the spot. Have drugs in your house=summarily execute all offending parties on the spot. Pulled over with a joint in your car=summarily execute all offending parties on the spot. Catch a couple of 13 year old kids smoking pot in the boys room at school=summarily execute all offending parties on the spot. Have the military conduct unwarranted searches to look for drugs, and if they feel like it torture people you suspect might have information before executing them. Winning the war will cost all civil liberties and a few million bodies. History has shown that nothing short of what post WW2 China did is sufficient to win the war on drugs, and as soon as a nation softens up the war starts all over again. If we as a nation are not willing to pay the price for a prolonged war what are we doing entering the war in the first place?

Drug prohibition has failed on an even larger scale than alcohol prohibition. Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Melissia wrote:And for those anecdotal evidences, I have plenty of friends who haven't done anything "harder" than marijuana. Meh? Better proof would be research.

I dont understand
Research from me? or you?
and proof for what?

Chrysaor686 wrote:(though cigarettes cause a bit less dependance, since they do so little for you aside from keeping you from withdrawing from them)

This isn't true. Nicotine feels great on its own, although removing withdrawal symptoms does play into things aside from that. It's a myth that people only smoke to get rid of withdrawal symptoms, and a patently absurd one when one applies any thought to it: it takes months of regular use to get to noticeable withdrawal symptoms, and to start with there are unpleasant side effects when one's not used to it, like one's lungs aching, or the nausea that accompanies nicotine until one develops a mild tolerance to it; the positive effects are more than enough to override the immediate negatives.

Mr Hyena wrote:
Sounds like something someone from a moderately decent neighbourhood would say. It doesn't seem bad unless your living in an area troubled by the stuff.

You really can't see beyond your own system of valuation, can you?

Mr Hyena wrote:
You do know these people are dangerous right? They've mugged people for money for the addiction. Addicts will go to whatever length they need to, to get money to fuel their thirst for their drug of choice.

All people are dangerous. You're dangerous. By your very existence you present a threat to everyone around you, so do I, and so does everyone else.

Mr Hyena wrote:
The fact that literally no good will come from legalisation anyway?

That's an emotional justification. Try again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Hyena wrote:
Psychosis and other effects are better?

There's a qualitative difference?

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:This isn't true. Nicotine feels great on its own, although removing withdrawal symptoms does play into things aside from that. It's a myth that people only smoke to get rid of withdrawal symptoms, and a patently absurd one when one applies any thought to it: it takes months of regular use to get to noticeable withdrawal symptoms, and to start with there are unpleasant side effects when one's not used to it, like one's lungs aching, or the nausea that accompanies nicotine until one develops a mild tolerance to it; the positive effects are more than enough to override the immediate negatives.

A myth cannot have evidence backing it up, even if it is anecdotal.

I have been smoking for about eight years. The only time I really feel the effects of cigarettes anymore is when I smoke one when I first wake up (even then, nicotine only lasts so long). Other than that, I might get a slight buzz for a minute or two (esp. if I'm high on something else), but I only smoke because if I don't, I get extremely irritated and incredibly hungry.

True, when you first start smoking cigarettes, they do give you a pretty heavy buzz and allow you to relax (though again, it doesn't last for a prolonged period of time). This phase does go away fairly quickly, though, and you will end up smoking only because you're addicted to cigarettes, unless you're intelligent enough to avoid cigarettes completely. Overall, smoking is a completely worthless endeavor, as the negative effects far outweigh the positive ones (moreso than any other substance).

snapsepaven wrote:But I think it's important to remember that the illegal drugs are designed to have a intoxicating effect on people, and that our legal drugs are designed to relieve pain or some other illness. The same basic incredience are used in both but the desired effect may differ.

A lot of prescription drugs still have a fairly intoxicating effect. OxyContin, Percocet, Phentanyl, etc. will feth you up pretty hard (and that's basically their entire purpose). Recently, there has been a major influx of people who actively seek out prescription medication for recreational purposes, and become addicted to it. Withdrawal from opioids is awful (it causes severe migraines, joint pain, a ridiculous amount of mucus drainage, tremors, vomiting, etc.), so it is much easier to become addicted to these drugs than the majority of black market drugs, despite the fact that the high really only boils down to a basic body high (it's not even a great pain reliever, it simply makes you apathetic towards your suffering).

While there are some truly beneficial and life-saving medications, they are few and far between. Most prescriptions have just taken the basic structure behind black market drugs (because they actually work) and watered them down enough to make them acceptable to the FDA. For instance, most anti-depressants are designed to mimic the euphoric effects of amphetamines, yet psychiatrists will not prescribe amphetamines for depression (despite the fact that they are also a controlled substance; this is probably due to the fact that legal amphetamines contain a drug which dampens your dopamine receptors and can lead to permanent manic depression). Instead, you are left with a sad shell of this drug, with ten times as many negative side effects (including autonomous suicide, which seems incredibly counterintuitive for a drug that is supposed to cure depression!).

The title says "We lost", but I prefer to think of it as my side winning.

Mr Hyena wrote:Why would I know?

So then you have no idea what happened?

Jeez, it's like they think they were ever -winning- the war on Drugs.

In order to actually lose, there has to be some level of comparable competition in the first place. Can't say I've ever seen that on a national, or international, level.

It's what some teens do. Teens who 'act out will do it overtly(assault) or covertly(breaking non-violent laws) and it usually isn't about 'pushing boundaries' its about seeing who's the baddest of the bad in their peer group.

I got a cigarette--> I got alcohol--> I got marijuana--> I got cocaine.

This thread amuses me.

Karon wrote:This thread amuses me.

Adolescent psychology was the second most interesting class I've taken, being below Abnormal Psychology.

halonachos wrote:

Karon wrote:This thread amuses me.

Adolescent psychology was the second most interesting class I've taken, being below Abnormal Psychology.

What exactly is 'abnormal psychology'

youbedead wrote:

halonachos wrote:

Karon wrote:This thread amuses me.

Adolescent psychology was the second most interesting class I've taken, being below Abnormal Psychology.

What exactly is 'abnormal psychology'

Abnormal psychology is a class college kids take for fun that usually involves a college professor who has never actually worked with the mentally ill teaching about various mental illnesses to college kids that will most likely never will work with the mentally ill except for the rare few who decide to get a job in a psych hospital or criminal justice that then find themselves woefully unprepared to deal with the mentally ill if they actually do end up working on a psych unit or in criminal justice.

I thought of a good counter argument to legalizing weed in the form of the rise in the obesity rate. Surprised no one has mentioned it

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I thought of a good counter argument to legalizing weed in the form of the rise in the obesity rate. Surprised no one has mentioned it

Don't forget the possibility of a grim future where all of America is ruled by a conglormate of all the snack food companies. All hail the FLH! (frito-lay-hostess)

micahaphone wrote:Don't forget the possibility of a grim future where all of America is ruled by a conglormate of all the snack food companies. All hail the FLH! (frito-lay-hostess)

All hail BNL!

I don't understand how the war on drugs can fail. It has no win or loss state. It's never had clearly cited objectives. It's just an ongoing effort to enforce international drug trafficking laws and it's been relatively successful in the Americas (where its actually called the war on drugs).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

"Political leaders and public figures should have the courage to articulate publicly what many of them acknowledge privately: that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that repressive strategies will not solve the drug problem, and that the war on drugs has not, and cannot, be won," the report said.

Instead of punishing users who the report says "do no harm to others," the commission argues that governments should end criminalisation of drug use, experiment with legal models that would undermine organised crime syndicates and offer health and treatment services for drug-users.

It calls for drug policies based on methods empirically proven to reduce crime and promote economic and social development.

The commission is especially critical of the US, saying it must abandon anti-crime approaches to drug policy and adopt strategies rooted in healthcare and human rights.

"We hope this country (the US) at least starts to think there are alternatives," said former Colombian President Cesar Gaviria.

"We don't see the US evolving in a way that is compatible with our (countries') long-term interests."

Great you just traded some organized crime for a massive and dramatic influx of drug related crimes, deaths and health issues. Goody. Glad the health care system is capable of shouldering that burden, it's got so little else on it's shoulders.

hell, most of the drugs grown in conflict regions aren't even sold in the US or europe where the "war on drugs" is even a coined term, most of it just goes to Asia or Africa where enforcement is backwards and the state is often times the purveyor illicitly.

This entire article is based on a bum statistic that lead them to believe that because south east asian and african drug use rates (the actual drivers for those increased numbers) are on the rise that the western "war on drugs" is a failure. This is stupid. That article is stupid. most of the comments in this thread are ignorant in the extreme. Why do I keep coming back here.

Toastedandy wrote:

Melissia wrote:And for those anecdotal evidences, I have plenty of friends who haven't done anything "harder" than marijuana. Meh? Better proof would be research.

I dont understand
Research from me? or you?
and proof for what?

No, no, and proof of marijuana being a gateway drug.

You do realize that there have been studies on this issue, right?

schadenfreude wrote:

youbedead wrote:

halonachos wrote:

Karon wrote:This thread amuses me.

Adolescent psychology was the second most interesting class I've taken, being below Abnormal Psychology.

What exactly is 'abnormal psychology'

Abnormal psychology is a class college kids take for fun that usually involves a college professor who has never actually worked with the mentally ill teaching about various mental illnesses to college kids that will most likely never will work with the mentally ill except for the rare few who decide to get a job in a psych hospital or criminal justice that then find themselves woefully unprepared to deal with the mentally ill if they actually do end up working on a psych unit or in criminal justice.

Abnormal psychology is a class college kids take because they are minoring in psychology and sometimes involves a professor who has a doctorate in psychology or has been a psychiatrist and worked with the mentally ill. Its also a class taken by some members of the Sheriff's department due to their close proximity to inmates who may show signs of mental illness. Someone is sure angry at abnormal psychology classes, which is the second most ridiculous thing I've heard someone get angry about, the most ridiculous being the mention of the words 'frozen yogurt'.

All sarcasm and personal anecdotes aside, its a class that puts the spotlight on mental illness, the causes, possible treatment, and the DSM compared to just having mental illness as an aside in the chapter about glandular influence on thought.

There's also cognitive psychology, industrial psychology, organizational psychology, etc...

Industrial and organizational are the two with the most real world applications because they're the guys who come up with the interview questions and promotion testing. If you ever take an ASVAB test, thank and Industrial or Organizational psychologist.

Psychology: Damage to this part of the lobe causes hallucinations.

Abnormal Psychology: Hallucinations can be caused by damage to a lobe, or...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

Toastedandy wrote:

Melissia wrote:And for those anecdotal evidences, I have plenty of friends who haven't done anything "harder" than marijuana. Meh? Better proof would be research.

I dont understand
Research from me? or you?
and proof for what?

No, no, and proof of marijuana being a gateway drug.

You do realize that there have been studies on this issue, right?

Not necessarily a gateway drug unless the marijuana given was laced with something else by the dealer. Sometimes a dealer will lace marijuana with bits of cocaine to get the marijuana user hooked on cocaine and then start selling the higher profit cocaine.

Not necessarily a gateway drug unless the marijuana given was laced with something else by the dealer. Sometimes a dealer will lace marijuana with bits of cocaine to get the marijuana user hooked on cocaine and then start selling the higher profit cocaine.

Gateway drugs are low impact low value drugs like marijuana that increase your likelihood of encountering harder drugs. The theory is not based on codependant addictions developed because of nefarious drug dealers, it's a sociological idea that states that once you've started taking one drug you have an increased likelihood to take others due to the insular and mixed nature of drug scenes and the common human behavior of curiosity. It is a well researched and thoroughly vetted concept with parallels in many other fields (advertising uses similar concepts constantly).

I can't believe people still have this conversation with eachother. It's even worse then videogame violence link denial or global warmin denial.

The whole "well if I did this then might as well do this?" aspect?

But videogame violence can do good, there was a story about how a girl pulled one of her family members from an overturned car because she learned in Grand Theft Auto that overturned cars explode.

We also learned that violent actions are more likely to occur in the future if the child is exposed too early to violence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also interesting is the drop in murder rates after the release of the game Quake.

The whole "well if I did this then might as well do this?" aspect?

Among many other things, yes. The nature of the illicit drug industry and the general pairing and multifarious accounts of dealers means that someone exposed to a common and easily obtained street drug like pot is several orders of magnitude more likely to then be exposed to other, harder drugs. The issue isn't so much that they are more willing to try (though statistically they are), it's that they have a significantly higher risk of contact and thus a significantly higher % chance of trying as opposed to someone who never started.

But videogame violence can do good, there was a story about how a girl pulled one of her family members from an overturned car because she learned in Grand Theft Auto that overturned cars explode.

Wat

We also learned that violent actions are more likely to occur in the future if the child is exposed too early to violence.

Age increases frequency and severity of mimicking perceived or carrying out learned actions, but it effects people of all ages.

Also interesting is the drop in murder rates after the release of the game Quake.

No. It's really not. Blank observations without supporting research are useless and meaningless. I can just as easily say that murder rates go up because of solar eclipses when I look at a single case rate and do no research. That would make me a troll though.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Also interesting is the drop in murder rates after the release of the game Quake.

No. It's really not. Blank observations without supporting research are useless and meaningless. I can just as easily say that murder rates go up because of solar eclipses when I look at a single case rate and do no research. That would make me a troll though.

Holy gak! Quick, when's the next eclipse over Australia? Damn it, Professor Gorath we need answers and we need them now!


Check it again!

ShumaGorath wrote:The issue isn't so much that they are more willing to try (though statistically they are), it's that they have a significantly higher risk of contact and thus a significantly higher % chance of trying as opposed to someone who never started.

To illustrate. I did my undergrad at an expensive private school. I now do my doctoral work at a public school. At the expensive private school cocaine and oxy were common sights. At the public school I see none of this, and I'm a fairly big party guy. In fact, most of my friends at the current school have never done, or seen, any illicit drugs. The variable of access (in this case determined by money) absolutely controls the variable of use rates, though not necessarily addiction.

I mean, if it didn't, there would be as many cocaine uses as drinkers.

halonachos wrote:
Not necessarily a gateway drug unless the marijuana given was laced with something else by the dealer. Sometimes a dealer will lace marijuana with bits of cocaine to get the marijuana user hooked on cocaine and then start selling the higher profit cocaine.

You don't actually believe this do you? Please tell me this is a joke


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chrysaor686 wrote:

Do you think it would lessen, at all, with legalisation?

Ever seen anybody suck dick for some alcohol?

My ex?

On a serious note Chrysaor686 I agree with what your saying and I think we should share a j over a game of 40k sometime.




Should drugs be legal? Yes. Should the drinking age in America be 18 like everything else? Yes. But I also realize that to do so now would have disastrous consequences. We've created a pandoras box and now we really cant open it. Shame really but thats the way it is.

Melissia wrote:

Toastedandy wrote:

Melissia wrote:And for those anecdotal evidences, I have plenty of friends who haven't done anything "harder" than marijuana. Meh? Better proof would be research.

I dont understand
Research from me? or you?
and proof for what?

No, no, and proof of marijuana being a gateway drug.

You do realize that there have been studies on this issue, right?

Probably is, Im speaking from personal experience. Aswell as the experience of about a dozen mates.

(by gateway I was meant it opened the glorious world of drug use to us)

Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:
Not necessarily a gateway drug unless the marijuana given was laced with something else by the dealer. Sometimes a dealer will lace marijuana with bits of cocaine to get the marijuana user hooked on cocaine and then start selling the higher profit cocaine.

Hahahaha seriously? You really believe this?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Not necessarily a gateway drug unless the marijuana given was laced with something else by the dealer. Sometimes a dealer will lace marijuana with bits of cocaine to get the marijuana user hooked on cocaine and then start selling the higher profit cocaine.

Gateway drugs are low impact low value drugs like marijuana that increase your likelihood of encountering harder drugs. The theory is not based on codependant addictions developed because of nefarious drug dealers, it's a sociological idea that states that once you've started taking one drug you have an increased likelihood to take others due to the insular and mixed nature of drug scenes and the common human behavior of curiosity. It is a well researched and thoroughly vetted concept with parallels in many other fields (advertising uses similar concepts constantly).

I can't believe people still have this conversation with eachother. It's even worse then videogame violence link denial or global warmin denial.

Lacing marijuana with cocaine does actually happen on occasion, but it is a total waste of cocaine because it's just not going to provide the same high as crack cocaine or even snorting a line of coke. I've worked with hundreds of coke addicts over the years and none of them ever said that smoking marijuana with cocaine resulted in their addiction to coke, and if anything was said on the topic of coke laced pot it's that doing so is a complete waste of perfectly good cocaine. I have however known a lot of people who have been given pot laced with PCP which is just plain rude. PCP is probably one of the most misunderstood drugs out there. It's pretty much just like LSD with less technocolor in the hallucinations, but with a powerful anesthetic quality because it was after all a failed experiment by big pharma and the military to develop an alternative to morphine. Don't know anybody who got addicted to PCP through laced pot because as I said earlier running into once of those laced joints is more of a rude surprise than a life changing experience.

Back on the gateway drug theory. The flaw with it is that the theory assumes healthy people we be driven to use harder and harder drugs by any drug experimentation, and it completely ignores the big reasons why normal healthy people who experiment with marijuana don't choose to escalate to a harder drugs. It only separates those who never smoke pot and those who do smoke pot into 2 groups of people, and it assumes all people who smoke pot are the same. It ignores the mental health flaws in future addicts that makes their future addiction a predictable tragedy before they even touch pot, and assumes all pot users are as mentally ill as future hard drug addicts. If you look deeper into pot users and find those with any of the following 3 traits there is a good chance the person in question is going to experiment with hard drugs, but if you don't find any of the traits the person probably isn't going to experiment with hard drugs.

Lack of self preservation: The user just doesn't care if the live or die, or becomes an addict. The person could be depressed, or on a downswing of BiPolar. Maybe the person hates them self, thinks they deserve the worse in life, and/or passive aggressively wants there parents to feel like a failure by self destructing in front of their parents. Really depressed people make illogical decisions like suicide attempts or experimenting with hard drugs.

Lack of common sense: I have noticed a lack of common drag more addicts down than anything else, it's the top reason in my book. The drug user just doesn't connect cause with effect. The connection between a cause and effect in an event is just not there, and they just don't have the basic level of insight to see dropout of high school=unemployed or smoke crack=become a crack addict. You really do see a lot of this with BiPolars, conduct disorder, and cluster B personality disorders. It's so bad it's almost like the poor bastards never stood a chance in life.

Unfounded belief of invulnerability: This is almost never seen with out a lack of common sense, but when you combine the 2 a person doesn't really stand a chance in life. I'm not just talking about the crappy sense of invulnerability that you see in almost all teenagers where the world revolves around them, they are the protagonist in life's story, and thus crappy events like a car crash or getting killed in war happens to other people and not them. I'm talking about that crappy sense of invulnerability on steroids with some cluster B sprinkles on top. Charlie Sheen is the new poster child for explaining this sense of invulnerability. Being addicted to hard drugs is for loosers, and almost nothing with convince a narcissistic donkey-cave that they have a drug problem. If someone is thinking like that before they touch drugs what chance does society have of preventing them from experimenting with hard drugs?

Anyhow if you separate pot users with those traits from those without you will for the most part separate the future hard drug addicts from the pot users. When you only look at the future drug addicts and not every pot user you'll start to see a pattern where the future hard drug users are just going to continue to escalate their drug abuse no matter what. If pot wasn't around they would end up jumping straight from alcohol to hard drugs, if hard drugs did not exist they would just become alcoholics, and the only reason that we didn't have as many hard drug users in the past is technology. Technology has improved man's ability to manufacture and distribute drugs, and once that genie is out of the bottle you can't put it back in. Just look at how badly alcohol prohibition failed, and can anybody tell me that drug prohibition has not failed on the same epic scale as alcohol prohibition has failed?

Back on the gateway drug theory. The flaw with it is that the theory assumes healthy people we be driven to use harder and harder drugs by any drug experimentation, and it completely ignores the big reasons why normal healthy people who experiment with marijuana don't choose to escalate to a harder drugs. It only separates those who never smoke pot and those who do smoke pot into 2 groups of people, and it assumes all people who smoke pot are the same. It ignores the mental health flaws in future addicts that makes their future addiction a predictable tragedy before they even touch pot, and assumes all pot users are as mentally ill as future hard drug addicts.

No, thats the strawman construct gateway drug theory that pro legalization advocates pull out to beat with sticks. Not the actual one. The actual one isn't that deep or conspiracy ridden. It's just a statistical analysis of contact rates. Anything beyond that is something someone with an agenda added.

If you look deeper into pot users and find those with any of the following 3 traits there is a good chance the person in question is going to experiment with hard drugs, but if you don't find any of the traits the person probably isn't going to experiment with hard drugs.

Yes. There are a lot of variables. Far more then anyone could ever write about. Gateway isn't about prediction, it's just a visible trend.

Just look at how badly alcohol prohibition failed, and can anybody tell me that drug prohibition has not failed on the same epic scale as alcohol prohibition has failed?

Anyone who has looked into drug use rates in the 19th century and cocaine use pre banning can. Or hey, anyone who just looked at the rates in depressed regions of the globe where enforcement is lax or non existent. Those people are the educated ones you should listen to, not the ones that spew whatever gak they heard on the subway or from their high roomate while be was playing a bass.

I hate this conversation specifically because all of the information is readily available and logically simple. People just don't like what they hear so they ignore it and make up wild conspiracies and bs psychology so that they get to pretend that people are somehow mature enough to handle legalized drugs, despite the fact that historically that has never been the case in any region of the world. Thats not going to change now.

ShumaGorath wrote:No, thats the strawman construct gateway drug theory that pro legalization advocates pull out to beat with sticks. Not the actual one. The actual one isn't that deep or conspiracy ridden. It's just a statistical analysis of contact rates. Anything beyond that is something someone with an agenda added.

Statistical analysis? You mean "people who have drug hookups are infinitely more likely to use drugs of any sort than people who don't, in that they are able to in the first place"? That's like saying that people who have access to a car are infinitely more likely to drive one than people who don't.

Anyone who has looked into drug use rates in the 19th century and cocaine use pre banning can. Or hey, anyone who just looked at the rates in depressed regions of the globe where enforcement is lax or non existent. Those people are the educated ones you should listen to, not the ones that spew whatever gak they heard on the subway or from their high roomate while be was playing a bass.

I hate this conversation specifically because all of the information is readily available and logically simple. People just don't like what they hear so they ignore it and make up wild conspiracies and bs psychology so that they get to pretend that people are somehow mature enough to handle legalized drugs, despite the fact that historically that has never been the case in any region of the world. Thats not going to change now.

So your theory is that it's not that "depressed regions" are impoverished, corrupt cesspools that are behind anything you see there, but that drug enforcement in particular is lax is responsible? And you don't recognize how backwards that is? The fact that law enforcement is toothless or corrupt enough that organized criminals can run the show has infinitely more to do with anything than the fact that drugs are readily available. Criminalization only provides an extremely lucrative revenue source for organized crime.

I have pondered the thought that with decriminalization, the prices would tumble and the major cartels would see their revenue stream slow to a trickle in the face of more institutionalized narcotic production. They would panic and try their best (by causing massive amounts of chaos on the border unseen since the early 1900's) to make people cry out for the drugs to be re-criminalized and boost their profits back up.

Just a thought.

Statistical analysis? You mean "people who have drug hookups are infinitely more likely to use drugs of any sort than people who don't, in that they are able to in the first place"? That's like saying that people who have access to a car are infinitely more likely to drive one than people who don't.

Yes. I know. Statistics aren't usually hard to understand. Thats exactly why it fething floors me that people don't understand or do and can somehow still argue against the gateway drug theory.

Statistical analysis? You mean "people who have drug hookups are infinitely more likely to use drugs of any sort than people who don't, in that they are able to in the first place"? That's like saying that people who have access to a car are infinitely more likely to drive one than people who don't.

They are inextricably linked, impoverished areas do not have the funds for enforcement and the economically depressed are significantly more likely to turn to drugs. I would hardly consider cocaine crazy america pre banning to be an impoverished cesspit however. But then now I know your color. It's the color of ideologue troll.

And you don't recognize how backwards that is?

I'm not sure you're able to look at such situations objectively if you're coming to such conclusions based on what I said.

The fact that law enforcement is toothless or corrupt enough that organized criminals can run the show has infinitely more to do with anything than the fact that drugs are readily available.

Oh looky, "law enforcement is toothless and corrupt". Wonderful. This is the gak I was avoiding by not posting on this forum. Care to site an example? Which law enforcement agency? What region? What law are they enforcing? Or is this just hyperbolic bs because you have no knowledge concerning the conversation at hand but you have a very strong opinion regardless? Which is it?

Criminalization only provides an extremely lucrative revenue source for organized crime.

Yes, and legalization results in use rates orders of magnitude higher then exist under banning when enforcement is effective. I know you're probably just going to slap your face on the keyboard with"itsn ot effcv (face typings hard)" but without giving specific situations wherein it is or is not effective we are only left with historical reality and logical conclusions.

Historically (opium laden china, 19th century coked up america, modern day mideast) population centers with legal and easy access to effective drugs use them. A lot. Logically enforcing legal banning of such items reduce their prevalence among populations (post war china, 20th century america, modern day japan).

It follows that when you are punished for holding or using a substance that you are less likely to use it, and moreso when not. Pretending otherwise is asinine. Stating that banning something creates crime relating to the banning is absolutely insane. Of course it does. You know what happens when you make murder illegal? You get illegal murder. Drugs illegal? Illegal drugs. Insider trading illegal? Well howdy do, now theres an underground system of insider trading that circumvents the law. It's as if thats what happens to every single that that becomes illegal because once its illegal its no longer legal.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stormrider wrote:I have pondered the thought that with decriminalization, the prices would tumble and the major cartels would see their revenue stream slow to a trickle in the face of more institutionalized narcotic production. They would panic and try their best (by causing massive amounts of chaos on the border unseen since the early 1900's) to make people cry out for the drugs to be re-criminalized and boost their profits back up.

Just a thought.

No. They would probably just sell to africa or china instead. We're not the worlds biggest drug market and I have no idea how the hell a Columbian drug lord is going to cruise through zeta territory to harass our borders.

ShumaGorath wrote:Yes. I know. Statistics aren't usually hard to understand. Thats exactly why it fething floors me that people don't understand or do and can somehow still argue against the gateway drug theory.

The fact that having access to a drug hookup is a requirement to be able to acquire any in the first place does exactly nothing to vindicate the gateway theory. You may as well try to correlate not starving to death as a child with drug use later in life.

They are inextricably linked, impoverished areas do not have the funds for enforcement and the economically depressed are significantly more likely to turn to drugs.

They are only linked in that their general state causes their drug problems, most of which are made possible or at the least greatly exacerbated by criminalization elsewhere, as it means organized crime is established as a black market supplier and smuggler, and so can easily move its business in.

I would hardly consider cocaine crazy america pre banning to be an impoverished cesspit however. But then now I know your color. It's the color of ideologue troll.

First, you're imagining that there was indeed a tangible problem where there was only a moral panic fueled by racism and yellow journalism, and second you're talking about an era before the FDA or the New Deal, "impoverished", "corrupt", and "cesspit" describe it perfectly.

I'm not sure you're able to look at such situations objectively if you're coming to such conclusions based on what I said.

It is literally backwards, in that you describing the effect as the cause and the cause as the effect.

Criminalization only provides an extremely lucrative revenue source for organized crime.

Yes, and legalization results in use rates orders of magnitude higher then exist under banning when enforcement is effective. I know you're probably just going to slap your face on the keyboard with"itsn ot effcv (face typings hard)" but without giving specific situations wherein it is or is not effective we are only left with historical reality and logical conclusions.

Historically (opium laden china, 19th century coked up america, modern day mideast) population centers with legal and easy access to effective drugs use them. A lot. Logically enforcing legal banning of such items reduce their prevalence among populations (post war china, 20th century america, modern day japan).

It follows that when you are punished for holding or using a substance that you are less likely to use it, and moreso when not. Pretending otherwise is asinine. Stating that banning something creates crime relating to the banning is absolutely insane. Of course it does. You know what happens when you make murder illegal? You get illegal murder. Drugs illegal? Illegal drugs. Insider trading illegal? Well howdy do, now theres an underground system of insider trading that circumvents the law. It's as if thats what happens to every single that that becomes illegal because once its illegal its no longer legal.

This is specifically an issue wherein every problem is only exacerbated by criminalization. By blacklisting substances completely you remove them from the purview of regulation and oversight, and inextricably link them to criminals already dealing in smuggling and black market goods, who produce dangerous, low quality product, which is sold for exorbitant prices, and whose business interests are protected via illegal, violent means. Due to the lack of quality controls, the product is far more damaging to the user; due to the prices, the user is driven to crime if addicted and impoverished; and due to the criminal nature of the dealer the user is shielded from exposure to rehabilitation programs.

The fact that having access to a drug hookup is a requirement to be able to acquire any in the first place does exactly nothing to vindicate the gateway theory. You may as well try to correlate not starving to death as a child with drug use later in life.

Very good! That is a direct correlation. Congratulations, you're starting to understand very basic logic. Someday we might be able to have this conversation without it hurting me inside.

They are only linked in that their general state causes their drug problems, most of which are made possible or at the least greatly exacerbated by criminalization elsewhere, as it means organized crime is established as a black market supplier and smuggler, and so can easily move its business in.

Why exactly does the illegality make it easier for them to obtain drugs? That doesn't make any fething sense. If it's legal then they will have legal access to the same commodity. Legality doesn't make something hard to get. It's not like legality makes things illegal.

First, you're imagining that there was indeed a tangible problem where there was only a moral panic fueled by racism and yellow journalism,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars#Growth_of_opium_trade

and second you're talking about an era before the FDA or the New Deal, "impoverished", "corrupt", and "cesspit" describe it perfectly.

Cocaine wasn't a controlled substance in America until 1970. You don't know what you're talking about and it's painful to read.

It is literally backwards, in that you describing the effect as the cause and the cause as the effect.

Do they do drugs because they're poor? Are they poor because they're doing drugs? Is the enforcement lax because it's corrupt or is it corrupt because it's lax? This gak isn't causative, causation does not equal correlation unless you can observe that it does. Drug use hits poor communities hard because they both can not be legalistically protected effectively and because they are economically depressed. They can not be legalistically protected because they are economically depressed and they can not rise economically because of severe drug issues. This is chicken and egg bs, don't tell me that one causes the other.

This is specifically an issue wherein every problem is only exacerbated by criminalization.

This is mind blowingly wrong to the point that you're not worth talking too. It's bad enough that you don't know the history, but you're unable to interface with simple logic.

By blacklisting substances completely you remove them from the purview of regulation and oversight, and inextricably link them to criminals already dealing in smuggling and black market goods, who produce dangerous, low quality product, which is sold for exorbitant prices, and whose business interests are protected via illegal, violent means.

Yes, because the alternative is legality. If a substance or act is detrimental to a person or society enough to be labeled illegal then it follows that legalizing it would be bad. The creation of black markets is one of many run on effects of a functioning legal system. Welcome to ethics 101.

Due to the lack of quality controls, the product is far more damaging to the user; due to the prices, the user is driven to crime if addicted and impoverished; and due to the criminal nature of the dealer the user is shielded from exposure to rehabilitation programs.

You're right about the first part. it's as if we DON'T WANT PEOPLE USING. You're right about the second part though to a much lesser degree since individual crimes due to poverty and addiction don't really get negated with lowered prices. People shoot each other for playstation games and those are legal. Massively increasing usage rates will fundamentally increase the pool of users who could be impoverished and will thus logically increase the chances of overall drug related crime rising. People stab eachother for booze money every day. This is all ignoring the runon effects of an increased user pool on drugs with severe psychological effects like heroin or cocaine. You're last bit is just plainly wrong. Look at european drug treatment programs, specifically around germany. Thats a legal thing and differs by country.

You're painful to talk to and you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm done responding to you.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
The fact that having access to a drug hookup is a requirement to be able to acquire any in the first place does exactly nothing to vindicate the gateway theory. You may as well try to correlate not starving to death as a child with drug use later in life.

Actually, those are correlates. Very few dead people use drugs.

I honestly do not trust people with any cannibis.
Not to mention cannabis can be a gateway drug
Other addictive substances can be mixed with cannabis. If I was a drug dealer, I would make the highest demand product (cannabis)
addictive by adding traces of more expensive drugs, to get a amount of reliable costumers, then take the addictive stuff (possibly crack cocaine) out of the cannabis. This would eventaly lead them to diffrent types of harder drugs. Whilst cannabis is not addictive in it's self, I am not trusting a drug dealer word, thats just me.

I think that decrimilizing cannabis and made it heavily tracked and resricted by the goverment would be a good idea (along with tougher regulations on booze and tabaco). Maybe track it all be fingerprints, which can be added to police databases. And if the goverment having your fingerprints on standby scares you... well, no pot for you.

In short, I do not believe in totaly banning it (saying you can't do something makes you want to do things even more). But legalizing it and having it lose doesn't work. Thier needs to be a middle ground.

About alchohol, Their needs to be actual punishment, or a metric buttload of community service on underage drinkers, and raise the price of alchohol. Impose a sin tax, like they do in Canada, and put that tax money to raise awareness.

The individual is smart, the mass is stupid. I do not trust the mass, and i actually trust my government (even if it is a Conservitive majority)
Stiff regulations is the awnser.

ShumaGorath wrote:

First, you're imagining that there was indeed a tangible problem where there was only a moral panic fueled by racism and yellow journalism,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars#Growth_of_opium_trade

1) I was referring to the late nineteenth century US, not China.
2) That says exactly nothing to establish that opium was indeed a problem in China, and not merely something their government didn't like because of its connections to English Imperialism.

Cocaine wasn't a controlled substance in America until 1970. You don't know what you're talking about and it's painful to read.

Its use dried up around/just after the full swing of the Temperance movement, and didn't start again until the 1980s, fueled by the fact that its illegality made it a profitable black market venture.

Do they do drugs because they're poor? Are they poor because they're doing drugs? Is the enforcement lax because it's corrupt or is it corrupt because it's lax? This gak isn't causative, causation does not equal correlation unless you can observe that it does. Drug use hits poor communities hard because they both can not be legalistically protected effectively and because they are economically depressed. They can not be legalistically protected because they are economically depressed and they can not rise economically because of severe drug issues. This is chicken and egg bs, don't tell me that one causes the other.

It is the criminal structure associated with their black market trade which hits poor areas hard, not the existence of the drugs themselves; even more hazardous, addictive substances are more widely used in semi-affluent communities, with none of the related problems aside from individual health, which would be just as impacted by alcoholism, and less impacted by pot.

Yes, because the alternative is legality. If a substance or act is detrimental to a person or society enough to be labeled illegal then it follows that legalizing it would be bad. The creation of black markets is one of many run on effects of a functioning legal system. Welcome to ethics 101.

You're right about the first part. it's as if we DON'T WANT PEOPLE USING. You're right about the second part though to a much lesser degree since individual crimes due to poverty and addiction don't really get negated with lowered prices. People shoot each other for playstation games and those are legal. Massively increasing usage rates will fundamentally increase the pool of users who could be impoverished and will thus logically increase the chances of overall drug related crime rising. People stab eachother for booze money every day. This is all ignoring the runon effects of an increased user pool on drugs with severe psychological effects like heroin or cocaine. You're last bit is just plainly wrong. Look at european drug treatment programs, specifically around germany. Thats a legal thing and differs by country.

You're painful to talk to and you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm done responding to you.

You're pretending that there was in fact a valid reason behind the bans in the first place, which in the cases of the most proscribed substances we can see there was not, while the more detrimental, hazardous chemicals are used available with a prescription. The most "reasonable" prohibitionist movements were fueled by "it's most frequently used by people we don't like, let's ban it so we have an excuse to arrest them!", while the rest were fueled by even more unhinged puritanical sentiments opposing any psychoactive chemical, regardless of what it actually does (which can be seen firsthand today in the banning of synthetic cannabinoids and salvia).

dogma wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
The fact that having access to a drug hookup is a requirement to be able to acquire any in the first place does exactly nothing to vindicate the gateway theory. You may as well try to correlate not starving to death as a child with drug use later in life.

Actually, those are correlates. Very few dead people use drugs.

Very good! That is a direct correlation. Congratulations, you're starting to understand very basic logic. Someday we might be able to have this conversation without it hurting me inside.

The point was that it was a meaningless correlation.