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.

 sebster wrote:

None of this is correct. I don't know the exact number, but a very large number of meth addicts are high functioning - they continue to work and function as part of society. I know of two people who revealed their meth addiction. One talked about it when he broke up from his long time girlfriend, the other when he started going to rehab. Both were working people, one of them continued to work while working their way off the drug. Obviously that's just anecdotal, but here's a stat for you - in Australia about 230,000 working people take ice, compared to about 50,000 unemployed people.

Nor do meth addicts refuse treatment any more than with any other addictive substance. As with all addictions the much greater hurdle is the shortage of decent treatment facilities.

I'm not in favour of legalising meth. It's a really dangerous drug. But that's all the more reason we should understand the drug as it really is, and how it really affects society, and not just rely on what's been presented in crude scare campaigns.

As as from what I've read, the 1980s are infamous for cocaine usage. The common stereotype that I've always seen was that it was the drug of the African-American community. But the truth is that probably close to the same ratio of people in your stat for Australian ice usage, the vast majority of people using in the 80s were actually white people. It was apparently very popular among the yuppie crowd in particular.


I guess yet another problem with the war on drugs, is the serious misinformation and poor understanding of the issues that goes on. Just as how the US government circulated anti-Latino papers in its campaign to make marijuana illegal (by extension, this campaign included African-American people as well), basically creating certain myths about both groups that I STILL see to this day.

Cartels are not driven by poverty. Cartels are driven by the vast wealth they receive. That wealth corrupts in every country including the US.

That wealth is based on many things, illegal drugs being a portion. To that include: human trafficking; mass racketeering and intimidation; and control/taxation through murder of the lime industry, and entire sections of Mexican territory now.

 Frazzled wrote:
Cartels are not driven by poverty. Cartels are driven by the vast wealth they receive. That wealth corrupts in every country including the US.

That wealth is based on many things, illegal drugs being a portion. To that include: human trafficking; mass racketeering and intimidation; and control/taxation through murder of the lime industry, and entire sections of Mexican territory now.

But poverty drives that. It happens in America too. Why work McD's for $8 an hour when you can make $1000+ selling rock? If it wasn't so profitable, why is it in every rap song? Look at Rick Ross. The guy started with a couple friends and $300 from stealing a car. By his prime, he was selling $2 to $3 million in crack a day. There's a reason this happens in poor communities, and that demand is what drives the cartels. The cartels bring it in, then guys like Rick Ross peddle it to their dealers, who sell it to the public.

http://www.biography.com/people/ricky-ross-481828

Thats not poverty. Thats extreme levels of cash.

You're also forgetting the lead part of the essential "silver or lead" transaction, and the fact that drugs are just a part of cartel criminal empires now.

Informant got wacked. A Christian feels sad at this. On the other hand as my Chicago wife would say: "snitches get stitches and songbirds get their necks broken."

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats not poverty. Thats extreme levels of cash.

You're also forgetting the lead part of the essential "silver or lead" transaction, and the fact that drugs are just a part of cartel criminal empires now.

Okay, if you can't see that relation, then I can't explain it to you. Whatever.

Informant got wacked. A Christian feels sad at this. On the other hand as my Chicago wife would say: "snitches get stitches and songbirds get their necks broken."

Really? Really? He was an 20 year old kid, not just an informant. Also, that's the stupidest motto I've ever heard. That's what kept crime and gangs running those areas for so many years. Such a fething stupid sentiment.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats not poverty. Thats extreme levels of cash.

You're also forgetting the lead part of the essential "silver or lead" transaction, and the fact that drugs are just a part of cartel criminal empires now.

Okay, if you can't see that relation, then I can't explain it to you. Whatever.

I see the relation, and we're not disagreeing. The money being offered is greater than profits from other employment opportunities. Outside of professional sports, the money is greater than what others are comparatively at every level.

Then the "lead" portion of the equation comes in.

Informant got wacked. A Christian feels sad at this. On the other hand as my Chicago wife would say: "snitches get stitches and songbirds get their necks broken."

Really? Really? He was an 20 year old kid,

60 shootings in chicago over the weekend, 4 fatal.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/07/05/more-than-60-shot-chicago-over-july-4th-weekend/86707218/

Almost all is drug-related, gang violence. I read these crazy numbers in every Sunday paper. "What's the total for this weekend?" It's a sick fething game I play. I guess the number of shootings and deaths from the previous 2 nights. The nation should be outraged. We should all be sick of it.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 sebster wrote:

None of this is correct. I don't know the exact number, but a very large number of meth addicts are high functioning - they continue to work and function as part of society. I know of two people who revealed their meth addiction. One talked about it when he broke up from his long time girlfriend, the other when he started going to rehab. Both were working people, one of them continued to work while working their way off the drug. Obviously that's just anecdotal, but here's a stat for you - in Australia about 230,000 working people take ice, compared to about 50,000 unemployed people.

Nor do meth addicts refuse treatment any more than with any other addictive substance. As with all addictions the much greater hurdle is the shortage of decent treatment facilities.

I'm not in favour of legalising meth. It's a really dangerous drug. But that's all the more reason we should understand the drug as it really is, and how it really affects society, and not just rely on what's been presented in crude scare campaigns.

As as from what I've read, the 1980s are infamous for cocaine usage. The common stereotype that I've always seen was that it was the drug of the African-American community. But the truth is that probably close to the same ratio of people in your stat for Australian ice usage, the vast majority of people using in the 80s were actually white people. It was apparently very popular among the yuppie crowd in particular.

To clarify a bit, powder cocaine (for snorting) was the cocaine of choice for the upper classes, while crack cocaine (for smoking) was the cocaine of choice for the lower classes. Crack is smokeable and provides an easier, faster high, making each high cheaper to get compared to powder cocaine (as you need less of it). The stereotype you refer to exists because of the crack cocaine scare of the 80s, resulting in harsher penalties for crack (which, functionally, is no more or less dangerous than powder, but when have politicians ever really cared about facts when the rallying cry is "think of the children!") which impacted the African American community more. But that's another story in itself.

Thats not a kid. Thats an adult who could have been tried as an adult in most jurisdictions for six years. You seem to gloss over that in 99% of the world, thats an adult male with children.

An adult who can't drink. So he's old enough to be held responsible for crimes, but not old enough to drink alcohol. Guess what? I knew a guy who had a kid at 15. Does that make him an adult?

not just an informant.

I am sure to his family he was important. To everyone else he is a small time loser druggie informant. Got it. And? Its because he's a white boy right? Where are your posts on the dozens of same age or younger shot in Chicago this last weekend? How about Detroit, L.A.?

A "small time druggie informant" pushed into it by the police. Again, pulling the race card? Really? This isn't "whites are more important than blacks", this is "the criminilization of drugs as violent crimes is a bad tactic to fight drugs" which, guess what, involves blacks and latinos too! What a crazy concept.

Also, that's the stupidest motto I've ever heard. That's what kept crime and gangs running those areas for so many years. Such a fething stupid sentiment.

Is it stupid? He died for it. Evidently it wasn't stupid to him now was it, or else you wouldn't be foaming at the mouth. if you ran your mouth about a drug dealer would you think it was stupid when he blew your brains onto the concrete? Thats reality. Thats "the lead" of the equation. Thats why people don't testify.

It's a stupid motto because it keeps gangs in power through fear of retribution. Just because "that's the reality of it" doesn't make it right. Isn't that what America is supposed to fight for, justice, equality, etc? Or no, just roll over and don't snitch because you'll get your head shot off.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 sebster wrote:

None of this is correct. I don't know the exact number, but a very large number of meth addicts are high functioning - they continue to work and function as part of society. I know of two people who revealed their meth addiction. One talked about it when he broke up from his long time girlfriend, the other when he started going to rehab. Both were working people, one of them continued to work while working their way off the drug. Obviously that's just anecdotal, but here's a stat for you - in Australia about 230,000 working people take ice, compared to about 50,000 unemployed people.

Nor do meth addicts refuse treatment any more than with any other addictive substance. As with all addictions the much greater hurdle is the shortage of decent treatment facilities.

I'm not in favour of legalising meth. It's a really dangerous drug. But that's all the more reason we should understand the drug as it really is, and how it really affects society, and not just rely on what's been presented in crude scare campaigns.

As as from what I've read, the 1980s are infamous for cocaine usage. The common stereotype that I've always seen was that it was the drug of the African-American community. But the truth is that probably close to the same ratio of people in your stat for Australian ice usage, the vast majority of people using in the 80s were actually white people. It was apparently very popular among the yuppie crowd in particular.

To clarify a bit, powder cocaine (for snorting) was the cocaine of choice for the upper classes, while crack cocaine (for smoking) was the cocaine of choice for the lower classes. Crack is smokeable and provides an easier, faster high, making each high cheaper to get compared to powder cocaine (as you need less of it). The stereotype you refer to exists because of the crack cocaine scare of the 80s, resulting in harsher penalties for crack (which, functionally, is no more or less dangerous than powder, but when have politicians ever really cared about facts when the rallying cry is "think of the children!") which impacted the African American community more. But that's another story in itself.

Part of the cheapness and danger of crack cocaine comes with what you're able to cut it with, though. Cocaine is usually pure or at least to a certain level. Crack can be cut with all types of substances and basically watered down.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:
60 shootings in chicago over the weekend, 4 fatal.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/07/05/more-than-60-shot-chicago-over-july-4th-weekend/86707218/

Almost all is drug-related, gang violence. I read these crazy numbers in every Sunday paper. "What's the total for this weekend?" It's a sick fething game I play. I guess the number of shootings and deaths from the previous 2 nights. The nation should be outraged. We should all be sick of it.

And most people are sick of it. The problem is how do you combat rampant poverty, the for profit prisons, lack of community ties, and poor criminal rehabilitation?

 jreilly89 wrote:

Thats not a kid. Thats an adult who could have been tried as an adult in most jurisdictions for six years. You seem to gloss over that in 99% of the world, thats an adult male with children.

An adult who can't drink. So he's old enough to be held responsible for crimes, but not old enough to drink alcohol. Guess what? I knew a guy who had a kid at 15. Does that make him an adult?

He can vote.
He can drive a multimillion dollar attack helicopter and legally kill you with it.
He can drive a multimillion dollar tank and kill you with it.
He can navigate a ship.
He can vote.
He can run for elected office.
He’s old enough to be the cops that he was an informant to.

not just an informant.

I am sure to his family he was important. To everyone else he is a small time loser druggie informant. Got it. And? Its because he's a white boy right? Where are your posts on the dozens of same age or younger shot in Chicago this last weekend? How about Detroit, L.A.?

A "small time druggie informant" pushed into it by the police. Again, pulling the race card? Really? This isn't "whites are more important than blacks", this is "the criminilization of drugs as violent crimes is a bad tactic to fight drugs" which, guess what, involves blacks and latinos too! What a crazy concept.

How is it crazy. Where are your posts on the deaths that occurred in Chicago yesterday? Ever? Why not? Why a 20 year old white guy?

It's a stupid motto because it keeps gangs in power through fear of retribution.

Its not stupid. Its effective.

Just because "that's the reality of it" doesn't make it right. Isn't that what America is supposed to fight for, justice, equality, etc?

There is no justice. There is just us. Whether or not its right is not the issue.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

And most people are sick of it. The problem is how do you combat rampant poverty, the for profit prisons, lack of community ties, and poor criminal rehabilitation?

Soylent Green?

 Frazzled wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

Thats not a kid. Thats an adult who could have been tried as an adult in most jurisdictions for six years. You seem to gloss over that in 99% of the world, thats an adult male with children.

An adult who can't drink. So he's old enough to be held responsible for crimes, but not old enough to drink alcohol. Guess what? I knew a guy who had a kid at 15. Does that make him an adult?

He can vote.
He can drive a multimillion dollar attack helicopter and legally kill you with it.
He can drive a multimillion dollar tank and kill you with it.
He can navigate a ship.
He can vote.
He can run for elected office.
He’s old enough to be the cops that he was an informant to.

So, once you're 18 (hell, 17 for some crimes) you're immediately responsible for any/all actions, even mistakes? Good to know the world's so kind. Effective immediately, all laws are now punishable by death.

A "small time druggie informant" pushed into it by the police. Again, pulling the race card? Really? This isn't "whites are more important than blacks", this is "the criminilization of drugs as violent crimes is a bad tactic to fight drugs" which, guess what, involves blacks and latinos too! What a crazy concept.

How is it crazy. Where are your posts on the deaths that occurred in Chicago yesterday? Ever? Why not? Why a 20 year old white guy?

Oh feth right off. So because I don't adress every drug related death, I'm automatically a racist? Also, guess what?!? It's not just him, it's happened to lots of other kids at other colleges

It's a stupid motto because it keeps gangs in power through fear of retribution.

Its not stupid. Its effective.

So was the Holocaust. Does that make what Hitler did okay? He was very effective at keeping people in fear.

Just because "that's the reality of it" doesn't make it right. Isn't that what America is supposed to fight for, justice, equality, etc?

There is no justice. There is just us. Whether or not its right is not the issue.

Okay, that's the most asinine argument I've ever heard. I assume you're trolling, because there's no way you can insinuate that America is now the Wild Wild West.

So, once you're 18 (hell, 17 for some crimes) you're immediately responsible for any/all actions, even mistakes? Good to know the world's so kind. Effective immediately, all laws are now punishable by death.

Yes. This is news to you?

Oh feth right off.

You don’t say it nearly as well as the wife. She has a complete “FU dance” for just this occasion. It’s the kicks that really sell it.

So because I don't adress every drug related death, I'm automatically a racist? Also, guess what?!? It's not just him, it's happened to lots of other kids at other colleges

Don’t worry, wealthy judges usually agree with you and give substantially less time to the wealthy.

So was the Holocaust. Does that make what Hitler did okay? He was very effective at keeping people in fear.

Don’t change the subject. You said it was stupid. Its anything BUT stupid.

There is no justice. There is just us. Whether or not its right is not the issue.

Okay, that's the most asinine argument I've ever heard. I assume you're trolling, because there's no way you can insinuate that America is now the Wild Wild West.

“There is no justice, just us” is an old saying from the Chicago PD actually. I believe you’re attempting to argue morals, but the subject was a drug dealer-who by nature had no morals. Sounds like karma. Maybe the best morality is don’t be a criminal in the first place.

 Frazzled wrote:

Okay, that's the most asinine argument I've ever heard. I assume you're trolling, because there's no way you can insinuate that America is now the Wild Wild West.

“There is no justice, just us” is an old saying from the Chicago PD actually. I believe you’re attempting to argue morals, but the subject was a drug dealer-who by nature had no morals. Sounds like karma. Maybe the best morality is don’t be a criminal in the first place.

Yep, this about sums about what I've been arguing with you. I refuse to argue further with you, as I think you're literally killing my brain cells, so I'll leave you with this: Things aren't that black and white. Yeah, it'd be great if people didn't commit crimes, but they do. There's a reason some crimes are misdemeanors and some are felonies.

Yall need to watch the movie traffic. Splendid performance from Benicio Del toro.

The best scene - sadly no Del Toro.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxSwZhcl7SY

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Okay, that's the most asinine argument I've ever heard. I assume you're trolling, because there's no way you can insinuate that America is now the Wild Wild West.

“There is no justice, just us” is an old saying from the Chicago PD actually. I believe you’re attempting to argue morals, but the subject was a drug dealer-who by nature had no morals. Sounds like karma. Maybe the best morality is don’t be a criminal in the first place.

Yep, this about sums about what I've been arguing with you. I refuse to argue further with you, as I think you're literally killing my brain cells, so I'll leave you with this: Things aren't that black and white. Yeah, it'd be great if people didn't commit crimes, but they do. There's a reason some crimes are misdemeanors and some are felonies.

You're the one arguing black and white concepts like justice, not I.
He was a drug dealer and got turned by the police, correct? Other drug dealers found out correct? Thats murder and they should be prosecuted for such if they can be found. But, despite it "being stupid" odds are they won't be because there aren't any witnesses.

Its ok though. The drug dealers were likely younger than 20 and as such impressionable youths who should be shown leniency due to their tender years. I mean you can't consider someone under 30 an adult and responsible for their actions now can you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Yall need to watch the movie traffic. Splendid performance from Benicio Del toro.

The best scene - sadly no Del Toro.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxSwZhcl7SY

Del Toro appears from tunnel
"Who are you?"
"Medellinnn..."

Oy!

This is about the reason I loose respect for the youth of today and the people that support them. They demand the respect and privileges of adulthood, yet when the downsides hit, they demand the kid-gloves because of their youth.

I work with someone that I get along with, we just have totally opposite political views. While we debate the topics it never turns hostile. I asked her about this topic. She agrees that a person of 20 is too young to decide to be an informant.

My rebuttal: Then why do you think someone that's 14 is old enough to get an abortion without parental consent, as they are old enough to know what they want? Why can a child that is grade school unilaterally decide they are transgender? Why can no one question you when you want to get married at 18? The only real response was "but that's different".

A 20 year old can fly a drone that drops the missile that takes out 20 people in a building...

WWII was won by 19 and 20 year olds.

 Frazzled wrote:
A 20 year old can fly a drone that drops the missile that takes out 20 people in a building...

WWII was won by 19 and 20 year olds.

And America never made mistakes, right? Right, Vietnam?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
This is about the reason I loose respect for the youth of today and the people that support them. They demand the respect and privileges of adulthood, yet when the downsides hit, they demand the kid-gloves because of their youth.

I work with someone that I get along with, we just have totally opposite political views. While we debate the topics it never turns hostile. I asked her about this topic. She agrees that a person of 20 is too young to decide to be an informant.

My rebuttal: Then why do you think someone that's 14 is old enough to get an abortion without parental consent, as they are old enough to know what they want? Why can a child that is grade school unilaterally decide they are transgender? Why can no one question you when you want to get married at 18? The only real response was "but that's different".

In that case: I think anyone not born after 1989 should be locked up for being a crotchety old fart. Aren't generalizations fun?

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
A 20 year old can fly a drone that drops the missile that takes out 20 people in a building...

WWII was won by 19 and 20 year olds.

And America never made mistakes, right? Right, Vietnam?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
This is about the reason I loose respect for the youth of today and the people that support them. They demand the respect and privileges of adulthood, yet when the downsides hit, they demand the kid-gloves because of their youth.

I work with someone that I get along with, we just have totally opposite political views. While we debate the topics it never turns hostile. I asked her about this topic. She agrees that a person of 20 is too young to decide to be an informant.

My rebuttal: Then why do you think someone that's 14 is old enough to get an abortion without parental consent, as they are old enough to know what they want? Why can a child that is grade school unilaterally decide they are transgender? Why can no one question you when you want to get married at 18? The only real response was "but that's different".

In that case: I think anyone not born after 1989 should be locked up for being a crotchety old fart. Aren't generalizations fun?

I'm not calling out all youth. You have to admit that many of them want this rather unique double standard. So, what do you honestly think? Is someone "mature" enough at 7 to be transgender and decide to have an abortion at 12? If they are, why are they not mature enough to be an informant at 20?

 kronk wrote:
60 shootings in chicago over the weekend, 4 fatal.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/07/05/more-than-60-shot-chicago-over-july-4th-weekend/86707218/

Almost all is drug-related, gang violence. I read these crazy numbers in every Sunday paper. "What's the total for this weekend?" It's a sick fething game I play. I guess the number of shootings and deaths from the previous 2 nights. The nation should be outraged. We should all be sick of it.

I am sick of it!

So, how do you change that sickness into action? That is something we all should be asking.

 Frazzled wrote:
A 20 year old can fly a drone that drops the missile that takes out 20 people in a building...

What's your point? A ten year old can kill you with a car/knife/gun, intentional or accidentally. Just because somebody can talk a life they suddenly are a responsible person? Or is their capacity to be responsible somehow bound to them being able to enter the military and get the legal right to kill people (under special circumstances)? Military recruiters literary prey on the stupidity of young people to get their signature. Or impulsiveness, patriotism, or financial problems, anything really. This has been one of the longest wars for the US and they need more people to keep this running. If all these young people were as responsible as you want them to be the US military would be lacking in qualified personnel for both wars since about 2007. Even laxer recruitment standards were introduced to combat the low numbers. "Somebody is of military age" seems like a really bad justification for anything.

I read articles about young drone pilots and the the process a lot of them go through: From initial video gamey feelings and abstractions that help to masquerade the reality of it, to the realization that real lives are lost on the other side of that screen (and questioning of the usefulness of their orders, jobs, and lax requirements), to alcoholism, PTSD, and depression (and then getting out of the military once it becomes unbearable). The idea of them being able to do this and it being a good (or useful) criterion for responsibility baffles me.

 Easy E wrote:

 kronk wrote:
60 shootings in chicago over the weekend, 4 fatal.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/07/05/more-than-60-shot-chicago-over-july-4th-weekend/86707218/

Almost all is drug-related, gang violence. I read these crazy numbers in every Sunday paper. "What's the total for this weekend?" It's a sick fething game I play. I guess the number of shootings and deaths from the previous 2 nights. The nation should be outraged. We should all be sick of it.

I am sick of it!

So, how do you change that sickness into action? That is something we all should be asking.

I think on of the best things that ever brought crime rates down was focusing on where and who the problems are. Unfortunately, this often makes it look like the police are racially profiling people and neighborhoods. Regardless of how it looks, it WAS and IS effective.

 jreilly89 wrote:

Relapse wrote:

yellowfever wrote:
Ya i was going to respond to the poster that blamed Americans for Mexico's problems. I mean it's not like "white kids" are holding guns to they're heads and making them cartel members. But I'll just leave it alone too.

It's also not like violence is isolated to just those within the cartels. The drug users here in this country, through buying the cartels product, have given them the money they need to turn Mexico into a hell hole. Not that the drug users give a damn about it, or the tens of thousands of lives lost per year down there, of course.g

As far as your statement about White kids not holding guns to people's heads goes, people in Mexico and other countries south are murdered in large numbers by the cartels if they refuse to work for them.


http://www.nbcnews.com/id/38867434/ns/world_news-americas/t/migrants-killed-refusing-be-assassins-teen-says/#.V3z7xZBOKrU

Gee, like I said, it's almost like there's some sort of rampant police corruption and poverty that fund these cartels. Again, this is not "white people vs. brown people", this is "the war on drugs is failing".

It's more like drug users up here, White, Black or any color in between, don't care who down there gets killed as long as they get their drugs.

So, I've heard this from a number of political talking heads. They have stated that we can't blame the Mexicans for our drug problems, as it is our demand that is fueling their supply.



So why is it when they demand guns, for some reason Americans are to blame? Isn't their demand fueling our supply?

 sebster wrote:
Thanks to the OP for sharing that first story. It's a pretty powerful story about what is wrong with treating very minor drugs like marijuana as criminal offences.

 Breotan wrote:
Please tell me what problems will be solved by making Meth legal. Meth addicts don't want treatment, they want more meth. Meth addicts can't hold jobs so they turn to crime to fund their addiction. You rarely find meth addicts in treatment except for when treatment is imposed on them as part of the criminal justice process and even then recidivism is very high.

None of this is correct. I don't know the exact number, but a very large number of meth addicts are high functioning - they continue to work and function as part of society. I know of two people who revealed their meth addiction. One talked about it when he broke up from his long time girlfriend, the other when he started going to rehab. Both were working people, one of them continued to work while working their way off the drug. Obviously that's just anecdotal, but here's a stat for you - in Australia about 230,000 working people take ice, compared to about 50,000 unemployed people.

Nor do meth addicts refuse treatment any more than with any other addictive substance. As with all addictions the much greater hurdle is the shortage of decent treatment facilities.

I'm not in favour of legalising meth. It's a really dangerous drug. But that's all the more reason we should understand the drug as it really is, and how it really affects society, and not just rely on what's been presented in crude scare campaigns.

I think the problem is US policy has led to people believing outright lies about drugs. Most heroin users aren't addicts, like between 75-90% aren't addicts, they're casual users. Now compare that statistic with what people think about heroin. The reality doesn't match the perception. Not even touching the fact we give amphetamines to children and stronger opiates than diacetylmorphine to anyone.

Most drug users are just that, users. Abusers are a small subset of the population, much like most people that drink aren't alcoholics. People know that, but yet still conflate drug use with drug abuse.

Couple that with all the outright lies from the government and mass media about all sorts of drugs from ketamine being a date-rape drug, to LSD causing to genetic defects, MDMA putting holes in your brain, MDPV causing people to eat people, etc. and the average member of the public is woefully misinformed about drugs. Then when you find out cannabis is harmless but you can buy liquid death at any corner store, its no wonder people are more willing to try substances that may not be right with them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

yellowfever wrote:
Ya i was going to respond to the poster that blamed Americans for Mexico's problems. I mean it's not like "white kids" are holding guns to they're heads and making them cartel members. But I'll just leave it alone too.

It's also not like violence is isolated to just those within the cartels. The drug users here in this country, through buying the cartels product, have given them the money they need to turn Mexico into a hell hole. Not that the drug users give a damn about it, or the tens of thousands of lives lost per year down there, of course.g

As far as your statement about White kids not holding guns to people's heads goes, people in Mexico and other countries south are murdered in large numbers by the cartels if they refuse to work for them.


http://www.nbcnews.com/id/38867434/ns/world_news-americas/t/migrants-killed-refusing-be-assassins-teen-says/#.V3z7xZBOKrU

Americans don't care because its another country, not because they're brown. Strong anti-drug measures are often in the purview of the American Right, no? That same group that doesn't care about tens of thousands of dead Muslims because "collateral damage"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Cartels are not driven by poverty. Cartels are driven by the vast wealth they receive. That wealth corrupts in every country including the US.

That wealth is based on many things, illegal drugs being a portion. To that include: human trafficking; mass racketeering and intimidation; and control/taxation through murder of the lime industry, and entire sections of Mexican territory now.

But poverty drives that. It happens in America too. Why work McD's for $8 an hour when you can make $1000+ selling rock? If it wasn't so profitable, why is it in every rap song? Look at Rick Ross. The guy started with a couple friends and $300 from stealing a car. By his prime, he was selling $2 to $3 million in crack a day. There's a reason this happens in poor communities, and that demand is what drives the cartels. The cartels bring it in, then guys like Rick Ross peddle it to their dealers, who sell it to the public.

http://www.biography.com/people/ricky-ross-481828

And then you get into the Regan Administrations direct involvement in getting Freeway his cocaine and the War on Drugs just looks even more of a farce.

DutchWinsAll wrote:
[Couple that with all the outright lies from the government and mass media about all sorts of drugs from ketamine being a date-rape drug, to LSD causing to genetic defects, MDMA putting holes in your brain, MDPV causing people to eat people, etc. and the average member of the public is woefully misinformed about drugs. Then when you find out cannabis is harmless but you can buy liquid death at any corner store, its no wonder people are more willing to try substances that may not be right with them.

.

Technically, all illegal drug users are drug abusers. Unless you are following the legally prescribed administration of the drugs it is abuse, by definition.

Also, pot isn't exactly harmless. There are new links that show that exposure to it before the age of 25 can lead to mental impairment regarding enthusiasm, motivation, and short term memory. Another study shows that pot can cause inheritable genetic corruption. A user won't notice anything to themselves, but their children could have increased chances of genetic abnormalities (anemia, heart murmur, early-onset cataracts, spina bifoda, cleft pallet, club foot). Also these genetic disruptions can increase with each successive generation if each generation is exposed.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I think on of the best things that ever brought crime rates down was focusing on where and who the problems are. Unfortunately, this often makes it look like the police are racially profiling people and neighborhoods. Regardless of how it looks, it WAS and IS effective.

Was it? US police tactics of that nature peaked in the 70s, and it didn't stop the rising crime wave. In fact the crime wave decrease in the 90s coincided with a general scaling back of "where and who" street policing (assuming of course that you and I are thinking of the same kinds of police tactics mind you). I think reducing crime is infinitely more complex than anything the police can/should do. Even now, why crime in the US started to rise in the late 60s and started to drop in the 90s is not understood. There's dozens of credible arguments (and dozens of uncredible ones) posting why it happened. Police are a last line in law and order. Not the beginning. Their presence makes us feel safer, and it certain gratifies us when we see them perp walking the accused, and heavily patrolling crime heavy neighborhoods etc etc. But I think that over the past century, there's no real evidence that the police are as effective at reducing crime as we liked to think.

Some people think modern society too easily damns police for making judgement cal;s. Some people think the police have too little accountability. Maybe we should all consider that we've been putting to much onto law enforcement officers, and its reached a point where no human being could ever live up to the expectations we've built up in our collective mind.

 cuda1179 wrote:

DutchWinsAll wrote:
[Couple that with all the outright lies from the government and mass media about all sorts of drugs from ketamine being a date-rape drug, to LSD causing to genetic defects, MDMA putting holes in your brain, MDPV causing people to eat people, etc. and the average member of the public is woefully misinformed about drugs. Then when you find out cannabis is harmless but you can buy liquid death at any corner store, its no wonder people are more willing to try substances that may not be right with them.

.

Technically, all illegal drug users are drug abusers. Unless you are following the legally prescribed administration of the drugs it is abuse, by definition.

Also, pot isn't exactly harmless. There are new links that show that exposure to it before the age of 25 can lead to mental impairment regarding enthusiasm, motivation, and short term memory. Another study shows that pot can cause inheritable genetic corruption. A user won't notice anything to themselves, but their children could have increased chances of genetic abnormalities (anemia, heart murmur, early-onset cataracts, spina bifoda, cleft pallet, club foot). Also these genetic disruptions can increase with each successive generation if each generation is exposed.

No. A substance being illegal does not make someone using it suddenly abusing it. Drug abuse is using it to deleterious effects to your health or life. Use is simply that, use. Drinking a few beers on a Friday night is use. Drinking 12 beers everyday is abuse. Taking 100ug of LSD is 3-4 times a year is use. Taking heroic doses several times a week is abuse.

And I'll have to see some really hard data that cannabis increases genetic "corruption". That reeks of the pseudo-science BS peddled by the media on myriad topics to gain hits. Just like some cannabis users claim it cures cancer, it doesn't; nor does it cause "genetic corruption. One study is not gonna change my mind about that. And when compared to alcohol, tobacco, motorsports, swimming, sex, etc. its harmless. The only reason its still illegal is decades old racism, lazy law enforcement that like stealing from easy targets and the inability of governments around the world to admit that they were wrong, and therefore opening a whole can of worms about other drugs.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
As as from what I've read, the 1980s are infamous for cocaine usage. The common stereotype that I've always seen was that it was the drug of the African-American community. But the truth is that probably close to the same ratio of people in your stat for Australian ice usage, the vast majority of people using in the 80s were actually white people. It was apparently very popular among the yuppie crowd in particular.

Coke was largely seen as a white people drug while crack cocaine was largely seen as a black people drug. And so despite being less potent, penalties for crack cocaine were much higher than penalties for similar amounts of cocaine.

I guess yet another problem with the war on drugs, is the serious misinformation and poor understanding of the issues that goes on. Just as how the US government circulated anti-Latino papers in its campaign to make marijuana illegal (by extension, this campaign included African-American people as well), basically creating certain myths about both groups that I STILL see to this day.

Remember how terrified we were about the crack babies that were going to destroy society? That was the combining the racist myth that the higher birth rate among blacks is going to overwhelm society, combining it with the racist myth that only black people take crack, and putting the two together to make one massive super-racist myth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Cartels are not driven by poverty. Cartels are driven by the vast wealth they receive. That wealth corrupts in every country including the US.

If purely wealth drove the issue then the criminal groups in the US would just cut out the middle man and produce in the US. Or other developed countries would start up their own drug creation industries.

But that doesn't happen for the simple reason that in wealthy countries it's fairly straight forward to get a job that pays an okay wage, and so a lot less people are willing to accept the risk of prison and death by working in illegal narcotics.

There's also lots of other factors, of course, police corruption and non-police areas are major ones. But those are also driven by the wealth of the country.

 cuda1179 wrote:

DutchWinsAll wrote:
[Couple that with all the outright lies from the government and mass media about all sorts of drugs from ketamine being a date-rape drug, to LSD causing to genetic defects, MDMA putting holes in your brain, MDPV causing people to eat people, etc. and the average member of the public is woefully misinformed about drugs. Then when you find out cannabis is harmless but you can buy liquid death at any corner store, its no wonder people are more willing to try substances that may not be right with them.

.

Technically, all illegal drug users are drug abusers. Unless you are following the legally prescribed administration of the drugs it is abuse, by definition.

Does that mean all cigarette smokers are drug abusers because the surgeon general suggests not to smoke?

I don't mean not to smoke sometimes, it is suggested to never smoke cigarettes. Ever.