Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

captain.gordino wrote:Are you saying you wouldn't want to end the war on drugs? I'm not sure of your point...

I think the point is that their opinions don't matter because they don't vote. Given envy appears to be referencing some kind of hippie/beatnik/pothead amalgam that's rarely seen outside of MAD magazine, I'd guess he's right. Creations of pure fiction rarely vote.

no i would not end the war on drugs (i would actualy try and bam it up a notch)... that would be taking a "well, we cant beat em. so lets join em" approach. i have seen to meny a life ruined by drug addictions.

Envy89 wrote:no i would not end the war on drugs (i would actualy try and bam it up a notch)... that would be taking a "well, we cant beat em. so lets join em" approach. i have seen to meny a life ruined by drug addictions.

Not really. Legalizing some of the softer drugs is more of a "We can't beat 'em this way, so let's try it this way" approach. The main reason drug cartels can generate profit is for the simple fact that their product is illegal; artificially inflating prices while leaving cost relatively constant. Legalize it, regulate it, and that entire issue falls by the wayside.

I'd have every drug legalised. Bye bye massive amounts of funding for organised crime, huge amounts of drug-based crimes and the criminalisation of otherwise law abiding people who smoke a bit of pot. I also think everyone should have the right to mess themselves up in whatever fashion they like.

Envy89 wrote:that would be taking a "well, we cant beat em. so lets join em" approach.

I feel that it would be taking a "we realize that we have no reason to want to beat them even if we could, which is impossible, and we accept that it's none of our business" approach. Just because you legalize it doesn't mean you have to do it yourself, so you're not joining them.

i have seen to meny a life ruined by drug addictions.

I agree, but that doesn't mean that I think that those poor people should be punished further, when they're already in a bad situation. Hard drugs are enough punishment by themselves, and the mild ones like weed don't ruin lives.

And see my grammar guide while you're here, it will make people take your infinitely valid opinions be taken more seriously.

Envy89 wrote:no i would not end the war on drugs (i would actualy try and bam it up a notch)... that would be taking a "well, we cant beat em. so lets join em" approach. i have seen to meny a life ruined by drug addictions.

The focus shouldn’t be on beating something. Drugs are bad because they ruin people’s lives, but somewhere along the way people got fixated on beating the drugs and forgot that it’s really all about stopping those lives being ruined. When a kid gets busted for having pot in his car, it isn’t the pot that’s threatening to ruin his life, it’s the criminal charge.

Abandoning the war on drugs isn’t giving up and joining them, it’s about moving away from supply fixated polices (stopping production and importation of drugs) and moving towards demand based policies (stopping people from wanting to take drugs).

captain.gordino wrote:

Envy89 wrote:that would be taking a "well, we cant beat em. so lets join em" approach.

I feel that it would be taking a "we realize that we have no reason to want to beat them even if we could, which is impossible, and we accept that it's none of our business" approach. Just because you legalize it doesn't mean you have to do it yourself, so you're not joining them.

i have seen to meny a life ruined by drug addictions.

I agree, but that doesn't mean that I think that those poor people should be punished further, when they're already in a bad situation. Hard drugs are enough punishment by themselves, and the mild ones like weed don't ruin lives.

And see my grammar guide while you're here, it will make people take your infinitely valid opinions be taken more seriously.

I completely agree.

There is a theory that people turn to drugs because their lives are already damaged in some way.

For example, long-term unemployed.

Kilkrazy wrote:There is a theory that people turn to drugs because their lives are already damaged in some way.

For example, long-term unemployed.

humm yes... and when you go to get a job, but cant because drugs showed up on your drug test.... ahhh the circle of stupidity.

Ok. We have established the fact that drugs are bad for you. They harm your body.
We have also established that it is expensive
And that you become addicted
AND you can go to jail.

Where exactly in the process of rational, right minded, common sense thinking dose all of that sound like a GOOD idea



O ya... right there

I am so stealing that.

Envy89 wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:There is a theory that people turn to drugs because their lives are already damaged in some way.

For example, long-term unemployed.

humm yes... and when you go to get a job, but cant because drugs showed up on your drug test.... ahhh the circle of stupidity.

Ok. We have established the fact that drugs are bad for you. They harm your body.
We have also established that it is expensive
And that you become addicted
AND you can go to jail.

Where exactly in the process of rational, right minded, common sense thinking dose all of that sound like a GOOD idea



O ya... right there

The point about people with damaged lives is they probably aren't thinking rationally. That doesn't mean the way to fix them is to ignore the cause of their problems and attack the symptom.

And of course, everyone who ever goes near a controlled subsance instantly becomes addicted and steals their mother's purse to fund their rapidly degenerating problem...

If alchohol was discovered today it'd be a class A drug. I assume not everyone here who's ever had a beer is an alchoholic?

Envy89 wrote:
humm yes... and when you go to get a job, but cant because drugs showed up on your drug test.... ahhh the circle of stupidity.

Ok. We have established the fact that drugs are bad for you. They harm your body.
We have also established that it is expensive
And that you become addicted
AND you can go to jail.

Where exactly in the process of rational, right minded, common sense thinking dose all of that sound like a GOOD idea

Oh, so all people that can't find work are drug addicted? It all makes perfect sense now! That's the problem with the economy! Too much marijuana! Actually, no, that doesn't go far enough. Clearly the issue is that there is too much fun to be had in the world. Physically harmful fun. And fun doesn't matter at all in the pursuit of happiness. Which isn't the sole reason for human existence. And isn't lionized in the Declaration of Independence.

There's a point there though. Long term ilegal drug use negatively impacts your ability to acquire or maintain a job. Long term legal drug use does the same. To follow your example:

*Not all unemployed people take drugs. But those that regularly take drugs have a higher chance of ending up unemployed. Unless your drug is chocolate cake of course...mmmmmmm....cake....

*Interesting side note. Its has been proven scientifically that it is substantially harder to quit smoking than quit heroin, including anecdotally from heroin users themelves.

It's partially the chemical grab that nicotine has on the brain, and partially the fact that heroin use is stigmatized while nicotine use is part of everyday life.

Frazzled wrote:There's a point there though. Long term ilegal drug use negatively impacts your ability to acquire or maintain a job. Long term legal drug use does the same. To follow your example:

*Not all unemployed people take drugs. But those that regularly take drugs have a higher chance of ending up unemployed. Unless your drug is chocolate cake of course...mmmmmmm....cake....

... .

I doubt there's any proof for those assertions, if only because the research methods make it difficult to uncover the data. For instance it's hard to get drug users to come forwards voluntarily.

Of course if people get drug tested at work and are fired when testing positive, obviously that makes they lose their jobs as an effect of drugs. But that is a social construct.

Many service people took drugs therapeutically during wars. In fact I believe the US Air Force still issues speed to pilots. We also have examples of many children on Ritalin to let them stay in school, depressives on various kinds of uppers and downers. These are obviously prescribed drugs though they may be identical to illegal unsubscribed drugs.

Legal drugs may have deleterious side effects and may be addictive.

Are you asserting that an addiction to chocolate cake increases your chances of being unemployed Killkrazy? thats just crazy talk...


I should clarify. I'm referring to more of a hard user of drugs. Hard users of drugs, legal and illegal, generally have a harder time of it. Are you disputing that? Have we not all watched the inevitable Christmas movie where the rocker/singer/music dude rises to the top, but is nearly destroyed by his drug use? Has Walk Hard not shown us all the path of darkness...

Frazzled wrote:There's a point there though. Long term ilegal drug use negatively impacts your ability to acquire or maintain a job. Long term legal drug use does the same. To follow your example:

*Not all unemployed people take drugs. But those that regularly take drugs have a higher chance of ending up unemployed.

Correlation does not imply causation. Does the drug use cause the unemployment, or is it the unemployment which causes the drug use?

So, er do you know any serious drug or alcohol users outside fo Hollywood that are gainfully employed? Last I saw, smoking crack is not exactly the gateway to success.

Frazzled wrote:So, er do you know any serious drug or alcohol users outside fo Hollywood that are gainfully employed? Last I saw, smoking crack is not exactly the gateway to success.

Yeah, actually. I know plenty of fairly well-off tradesmen who are very heavy drinkers. Drugs may not serve to help people become successful, but that doesn't mean they are the actual cause of their problems. People use drugs because they are pleasurable, but they turn to them for that pleasure because they can not find it elsewhere in their lives.

Frazzled wrote:Are you asserting that an addiction to chocolate cake increases your chances of being unemployed Killkrazy? thats just crazy talk...


I should clarify. I'm referring to more of a hard user of drugs. Hard users of drugs, legal and illegal, generally have a harder time of it. Are you disputing that? Have we not all watched the inevitable Christmas movie where the rocker/singer/music dude rises to the top, but is nearly destroyed by his drug use? Has Walk Hard not shown us all the path of darkness...

By hard drug user do you mean someone who uses hard drugs such as heroin and cocaine, or someone who uses drugs a lot, like smoking huge amounts of cannabis.

The history of drug use shows many examples of people holding down jobs while being addicted for years to heroin or cocaine.

Drug consumption does not inevitably increase with time in a user. Many health problems associated with drugs are associated with dirty, illegal drugs. Many mental problems are associated with people in pre-existing disorders, who then take drugs to ameliorate their situation.

I'm not saying drugs are totally free of all dangers and problems. OTOH all drugs are not an instant ticket to an inevitable spiral of despair and degradation. What matters is to separate drug related problems caused by social issues from those caused by illegal drugs and from those caused by legal drugs.

BTW in this sizeist age, addiction to chocolate cake probably does harm your employment prospects.

Well we could have had a resonable conversation about drugs, illegal, and legal, but you just had to the radioactive halflife of awesome that is chocolate. Shame on you...

I think we're looking at different time frames. I've not known hard users who could keep it together. They eventually would begin to deteriorate or, well, die.

Envy89 wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:There is a theory that people turn to drugs because their lives are already damaged in some way.

For example, long-term unemployed.

humm yes... and when you go to get a job, but cant because drugs showed up on your drug test.... ahhh the circle of stupidity.

Ok. We have established the fact that drugs are bad for you. They harm your body.
We have also established that it is expensive
And that you become addicted
AND you can go to jail.

Where exactly in the process of rational, right minded, common sense thinking dose all of that sound like a GOOD idea

I didn't say it is. Doesn't mean we should punish people for it though. Half the people who get into this stuff in the first place do it for the thrill of doing something illegal anyway.

Frazzled wrote:So, er do you know any serious drug or alcohol users outside fo Hollywood that are gainfully employed? Last I saw, smoking crack is not exactly the gateway to success.

It all depends on your definitions. I know people that use coke, meth or speed most weekends, and manage to turn up for work on Monday. A couple of them earn a lot more money than I do. I know a lot of potheads, I don't know if I'd call them super successful, but they're getting by.

It's not a lifestyle I'd advise anyone anywhere taking, but it isn't all like Trainspotting.

Frazzled wrote:Well we could have had a resonable conversation about drugs, illegal, and legal, but you just had to the radioactive halflife of awesome that is chocolate. Shame on you...

I think we're looking at different time frames. I've not known hard users who could keep it together. They eventually would begin to deteriorate or, well, die.

Taking any kind of medication for years on end usually has some bad side effects whether legal or illegal.

The drug situation in the UK today is split between a smaller number of hardcore addicts and a substantial number of recreational drug users.

The hardcore are usually addicted to heroin, crack, etc. and cause a lot of crime. They are also usually the people with crappy or no jobs, bad employment prospects and weak social networks. This does not mean that drugs cause these ill effects, since there are many reasons why people have crappy jobs and so on, connected with their social background.

The recreational users are people like lots of the young staff in the company where I work. They do ecstasy, cocaine, cannabis, maybe some Ketamine, speed, etc. I doubt they are on Heroin or crack. The use of these drugs is mostly limited to weekends hence the designation of recreational user.

We don't often see recreational users descending an inevitable spiral of degradation. For one thing, they have got social support systems and decent jobs and can pay for their habits. The effect of this is partly to normalise drug use and criminality among recreational users and partly to make a mockery of government publicity campaigns, as users learn from their own experience that they are lies.

In short, the question of drug use and abuse is a complex one and the current policy of dealing with it exclusively through criminal law may not be the best approach.

True on all counts KK

fraz made my point before i could.

not all unemployed are drug users. but having pot show up on a drug test sure dosent help you get a job.



all of the "recreational" drug users that i knew in high school are still either unemployed, or flipping burgers (dose that really count as "Employed" if you are out of high school?)... some of them went on to try other more hardcore drugs, and ended up in prision.


we just need to get all these drug addicts addicted to plastic crack.... that would solve a lot of problems eh?

40K... My anti drug.

Envy89 wrote:fraz made my point before i could.

not all unemployed are drug users. but having pot show up on a drug test sure dosent help you get a job.



all of the "recreational" drug users that i knew in high school are still either unemployed, or flipping burgers (dose that really count as "Employed" if you are out of high school?)... some of them went on to try other more hardcore drugs, and ended up in prision.

Inevitably this still doesn't answer the question of why these people turned to drugs. Narcotics are a manifestation of a problem, not a problem in and of themselves.

Thats your supposition, without a factual basis of support.

Frazzled wrote:Thats your supposition, without a factual basis of support.

As opposed to your position, which is that "drugs prevent you from getting a job." How is that factually supported? By correlation? Please tell me it isn't by correlation Frazz. Because that wouldn't be a real argument.

My point wasn't that I'm right, it was that you might be wrong. There are other ways to interpret the face of reality. Especially given that your's hasn't been grounded in statistical data either. But hey, I'll start us off.

Here you go.

In 2006, according to federal data, drug-related arrests climbed to 1.89 million, up from 1.85 million in 2005 and 581,000 in 1980.

In the time that drug enforcement has gotten more strict the number of drug convictions has climbed, not fallen. Why might that be?

More than four in five of the arrests were for possession of banned substances, rather than for their sale or manufacture.

It certainly isn't because drugs have become more prolifically available, this little piece of data attests to that.

Apart from crowding prisons, one result is a devastating impact on the lives of black men: they are nearly 12 times as likely to be imprisoned for drug convictions as adult white men, according to the Human Rights Watch report.

Hmmm...don't black people have a greater tendency towards poverty than white people? Yes they do.

So despite the assumption that drug use causes poverty, and the aggressive preventative pursuit of it as a casual force, poverty remains ubiquitous amongst a very concentrated, and easily identifiable, group of people. Who also happen to be the primary subject of drug arrests. As attested by:

Her report cites federal data from 2003, the most recent available on this aspect, indicating that blacks constituted 53.5 percent of all who entered prison for a drug conviction.

Even if drugs do cause poverty, and in some limited cases they might, our approach to the issue has hardly been productive. Maybe its about time we changed that approach.