PDA

View Full Version : Scarey drug: Crystal Meth



banquo's_bumble_puppy
2005-Dec-16, 05:38 PM
I was doing a google search on crystal meth and I came across before and after pictures. You can see the soul literally being sucked out of people over a period of time. Apparently 12 million Americans have tried this drug at least once. It is highly addictive and easy to make; hence it is widespread. It is sad how many lives this has ruined.

LurchGS
2005-Dec-16, 05:43 PM
it is, indeed.

then, consider what a drain on society these people are (all drug abusers) - a significan portion of our economy is devoted to keeping these people alive - police, EMS, hospitals, insurance, etc

the situation is sad, because so many of these poeple could actually be productive... or even outstanding at something.

For the people themselves, I have no sympathy. It's a voluntary decision they made, and they get to live with it. I DO feel for their families, though. Being (closely) related to a drug abuser (and I include alcohol here) has got to just suck

Candy
2005-Dec-16, 05:45 PM
I've never tried it. I don't like drugs (legal or not).
I rarely take pills to aid what ills.

I've seen news programs that discuss meth. The most recent was suburban housewives using it to lose weight. They get addicted, and then it's all downhill from there. :rolleyes:

LurchGS
2005-Dec-16, 05:54 PM
I agree with you, Candy. I rarely even take aspirin. When the doc prescribes something for me, I try to talk her out of it - looking for alternatives. No alternative, I take my meds like a good boy.

I admit to having tried a few drugs in my youth. I found, however, I really hated the feeling they gave me. I suppose, though, that if they'd ever come up with a drug that tasted like good scotch, I'd be in deep doo-doo.

Candy
2005-Dec-16, 05:59 PM
"all hopped-up on The Word Association game..."

I just noticed this! :lol:

banquo's_bumble_puppy
2005-Dec-16, 05:59 PM
actually there is a drug that tastes like good scotch....it's called good scotch....

LurchGS
2005-Dec-16, 06:04 PM
there is that- but I swore off that one years ago. I like the taste TOO much

banquo's_bumble_puppy
2005-Dec-16, 06:05 PM
sorry...know what you mean

Extravoice
2005-Dec-16, 06:58 PM
There have been several alcoholics in my extended family and my brother's life was dramatically shortened because "recreational" drug use.

My signature line sums up my approach with regards to the stuff.

Titana
2005-Dec-16, 07:05 PM
I am just about the same. I will think twice just to take a couple of aspirins.


I have heard a lot about that drug around here too. It is just totally terrible. What really makes me sad though, is that around here you see children 11, 12, 13, years old already addicted to that drug and just totally ruining thier lives. A friend i had back in school got addicted to that drug, i quess because of hanging around some bad influences. Well first the drug left him totally woo woo and afterwards he ended up commiting suicide.....:(



Titana.

farmerjumperdon
2005-Dec-16, 08:10 PM
It's definitely a damaging substance; but the 2 substances that cause the most damage in this country (financially or physically) are both legal - alcohol and nicotine.

LurchGS
2005-Dec-16, 08:14 PM
I won't argue about alcohol.. nicotine is iffy. Because it's legal, a lot of the infrastructure devoted to dealing with ILLEGAL drugs doesn't apply (when was the last time somebody was jailed for smoking? Boulder County, CO doesn't count - they'll arrest you for being too tall)

Gullible Jones
2005-Dec-16, 09:00 PM
Well, tobacco racks up enormous medical costs.

On methamphetamine... Yes, that is extremely nasty stuff, not in the least because long-term use can cause serious and irreparable brain damage. You wouldn't believe the difference between PET scans of normal brains and the brains of 5-year amphetamine abusers.

TheBlackCat
2005-Dec-16, 09:05 PM
You won't argue about alcohol being bad, but you think nicotine is iffy? Cigarettes are the only legal substance that if taken in moderation will significantly shorten your life span. Alcohol actually improves health if taken in moderation. Cigarettes do nothing but hurt you and those around you. I worked in a hospital a few summers ago, and had the good fortune of being able to shadow an emergency room doctor. I have seen first-hand what cigarettes do to people. We also have at least 2 labs in my department that are researching how to overcome lung damage due to smoking. Cigarettes are also far more addictive than alcohol, they are not even in the same ballpark in terms of addiction. You don't see a whole commercial industry whose sole purpose of existence is to help people overcome alcohol addiction, yet how many different companies are there that make products to help people quit smoking? Just about anything, if done in excess, is unhealthy. Alcohol, food, you can OD on coffee or even water if you take enough of it. But none of those things are dangerous if done in moderation. Cigarettes are extremely unhealthy when done in moderation, and gets far more dangerous if done in excess. And none of those things are anywhere near as addictive as cigarettes. Yet they are perfectly legal, and in fact you can buy them 3 years before you can buy alcohol. In the US an 18 year old cannot legally buy non-alcoholic beer, yet they can buy all the cigarettes they want.

Doodler
2005-Dec-16, 09:40 PM
Stupid people will always find new and amusing ways to slowly destroy themselves for a thrill. Crystal meth is nothing more than the latest fashion trend in lesser living through chemistry. Its stupid, its tragic, and quite frankly, after I don't know how many years of watching people find inventive ways to get dosed, I'm quite frankly sick of hearing about it. Drug addiction is not a disease, its suicide with a needle/pipe/powder/pill. Let them die in the pain they bring on themselves. I'm more concerned for the people who are actually worth caring about, the ones busting their butts trying to make something of themselves.

My only concern about cigarettes is that its not only dangerous to the user, but those around them.

LurchGS
2005-Dec-16, 10:50 PM
You won't argue about alcohol being bad, but you think nicotine is iffy? Cigarettes are the only legal substance that if taken in moderation will significantly shorten your life span.

I'm not disputing that cigarettes are bad for you - I'm an ex-smoker. What I was 'iffing' about was the cost to the economy. For one thing, keep in mind that for every 1 person who's health is affected by cigarette smoking, there are many more who are not.

Assuming there are nearly as many illegal drug abusers as smokers in this country (A valid assumption, I think, though admittedly hard to prove), their economic cost of is MUCH higher than the cost of smokers. There's the previoiusly mentioned infrastructure that spends an inordinate amount of time and energy on this issue, and there's secondary costs too - higher crime rates also mean that property values go down - costing property owners. Community infrastructure is less well maintained in high crime areas, further driving values down, closing businesses, etc.

Gullible Jones
2005-Dec-16, 10:51 PM
Alcohol actually improves health if taken in moderation.

Recent studies seem to refute that.

paulie jay
2005-Dec-17, 02:12 AM
In Australia Ice usually comes in from the Philppines and South East Asia. It's relatively cheap which is why its use is becoming more widespread, though the individual seizures we make at Sydney Airport are relatively small in size compared to those of cocaine, ecstacy or heroin.

Not that I want to say that there is glamour in any of these substances, Ice is a crappy, dirty, losers drug that is one step up from petrol sniffing in my opinion.

Candy
2005-Dec-17, 04:52 AM
In Australia Ice usually comes in from the Philppines and South East Asia.
I'm amazed at where these "illegal" drugs come from. I hope the drug lords are putting something back into the community like schools, businesses, etc... to help on a bigger scope for the world economy. I just figure if you are going to make a profit, then help those less fortunate around you. I have silly thoughts, sometimes.

TheBlackCat
2005-Dec-17, 05:04 AM
My friend from Colombia said that they do just that. He said the one of the big money laundering operations involved selling extremely cheap medicine to the local populace. He said that they never sell their products in their area, and the locals like them because of all the stuff they do for the local people. He said that one drug dealer offered to pay off Colombia's entire national debt and build a mass transit system in the capital if the government legalized cocaine. Of course helping local people by destroying the lives of foreigners like that hardly seems a worthy trade off, and my friend agreed with that, but it does help secure local support for the business. People can be remarkably callous about the lives and happiness of others as long their own well-being is preserved. It is pretty sad.

Hugh Jass
2005-Dec-17, 05:19 AM
snip...I just figure if you are going to make a profit, then help those less fortunate around you. I have silly thoughts, sometimes.

[Political statement about trickle down economics deleted]

Once again I'm reminded about how unique it is to grow up and live in northern California. Drugs being a big one. Meth has been a major problem here for a good 25 years or so. The effect on whole communities is mind numbing (pun intended). I don't have any real statistics at hand to back me up, BUT it seems that crime associated with Meth is way way way higher than any other drug. There are several somewhat obvious reasons.
A) Its cheap, therefore the users don't usually have much to start with, when they need more robbery is often enough the first choice, violent robbery at that.
B) The dirtbags that make the stuff are often enough criminals by other definitions as well.
C) The "high" that comes from this stuff, because of the random dangerous ways in which it is made, Meth is such a broad stroke of a term for a variety of dirty dangerous drugs, (wow i'm sidetracking myself as I type) the high is random, different people will react differently to the same stuff, and the same person will react differently to slightly differently created stuff from maybe the same dealer. Often enough someone who might be a bit rowdy as a drunk, but even on a straight tequila night not dangerous, can be frighteningly violent on meth.
I realize these are wide sweeping comments that many would attribute to any drug, let alone illegal ones, but from my experience with most other drugs these comments apply sporadically rather than as a rule, with meth it is odd when any of these statements doesn't apply.

Candy
2005-Dec-17, 05:28 AM
I understand Hugh Jass.

Trebuchet
2005-Dec-17, 02:52 PM
One interesting aspect of the meth epidemic is that it has taken hold in small towns and rural areas, unlike heroin and crack cocaine which were largely confined to cities. Dealing with the associated costs of crime and health care is straining the budget of the small town where we have our vacation home. The local paper recently ran some stories on it, including before and after pictures of a young woman user who appeared to have aged at least 30 years in just one. Very scary indeed.

sarongsong
2005-Dec-17, 03:02 PM
Same thing happened in Hawaii as a result of intense law-enforcement efforts against marijuana years ago; the 'ice' epidemic began and continues to take its toll there:
December 17, 2005 (http://starbulletin.com/2005/12/17/news/story05.html)
"..."Any time you have a lot of methamphetamine users, these things are going to happen," said Lt. Hank Nobriga, of the Honolulu Police Department's Auto Theft Detail..."

TheBlackCat
2005-Dec-17, 04:16 PM
The other problem with meth is that, unlike many other popular street drugs, it does not have to be harvested from a plant. It is synthesized in relatively unsophisticated labs. That means you do not have to import it, and you do not need too massive of an infrastructure to make it. This makes it hard to deal with, as I undestand it.

Gillianren
2005-Dec-17, 11:10 PM
It's made in apartments up here in Olympia. (Actually, I had a roommate in college that we almost never saw; our joke was that she had a meth lab in the apartment complex across the street from the dorms.) I've also dealt with a lot of former meth addicts. See, it's just one more example of how to ruin your life to me. I'm too touchy on the subject of loss of control to ever consider doing mind-altering substances (other than my trusty Zoloft, which I'll hopefully be switching for something else, given how little the Zoloft seems to be altering my mind).

Jakenorrish
2005-Dec-19, 11:49 AM
I think the key here is to remember that the users are people. They are often ill educated and bow down to peer pressure. Just because someone has fallen into drug addiction, doesn't mean that they aren't a human being, or any less a person than you.

I'm for treatment and rehabilitation. We've had a lot of legislation to try and win a war on drugs. This approach has failed. It has failed as prohibition of alcohol did in the US in the twenties. The criminals, gangsters and thugs are running this black economy which is a disgrace. They are the real scum in this situation not the users. In the UK, they put the fines and the jail sentences up, and drug use rocketed as its seen by some people to be a form of rebelion.

We should educate people better about the pitfalls of drug use, and if someone is unfortunate enough to fall into this well, then we should help them get out of it. Sadly they instantly become criminals rather than getting help. This would be cheaper than putting them through the legal system, leaving them hooked then releasing them to commit more crime.

Doodler
2005-Dec-19, 04:18 PM
I think the key here is to remember that the users are people. They are often ill educated and bow down to peer pressure. Just because someone has fallen into drug addiction, doesn't mean that they aren't a human being, or any less a person than you.

I'm for treatment and rehabilitation. We've had a lot of legislation to try and win a war on drugs. This approach has failed. It has failed as prohibition of alcohol did in the US in the twenties. The criminals, gangsters and thugs are running this black economy which is a disgrace. They are the real scum in this situation not the users. In the UK, they put the fines and the jail sentences up, and drug use rocketed as its seen by some people to be a form of rebelion.

We should educate people better about the pitfalls of drug use, and if someone is unfortunate enough to fall into this well, then we should help them get out of it. Sadly they instantly become criminals rather than getting help. This would be cheaper than putting them through the legal system, leaving them hooked then releasing them to commit more crime.

I don't buy it, without demand, there's no need for supply. If you are not supposed to have it, then obtaining it IS a crime. The problem is, you have scum on both sides of the black economy. Lets cut the touchie feelie nonsense, its a frickin' illegal substance. By getting it, however you get it, you are committing a crime. Is there something I'm missing here?

If they see it as "rebelling" or the new "in" thing to do, then to heck with'em. They fail at life, game over. Drug addiction destroys a lot more than just the pinhead doing the use. Collateral damage to the families can be devastating, and sometimes dangerous, as the addict gets pulled further into their habit.

I had an aunt get into some crap so deep she embezzled over $20,000 dollars from her government job to pay for it. When she was convicted of it, she got herself pregnant expressly for the purposes of putting off her jail time, then she comes over to my place one afternoon to hide out and smoke up. The ONLY thing that kept me from pounding her into a greasy smear on my wall was the fact that she was still six months frickin' pregnant, and even then I had to be talked down out of a steaming rage by the dispatcher. Here I am, 19 years old, working my butt off trying to get my feet off the ground, and this cretin comes into my place dragging that crap in because she's afraid she'll get caught anywhere else.

You want to tell me what there is about that pathetic sack of manure I'm stuck with a genetic connection to is worth salvaging? Nothing.

I don't care how much you care about people who get involved in that crap, but once it takes hold, their mind isn't their own, and the person you cared about is dead. Their first, second, and only thoughts are on where they can get the money for another hit. Once that happens, they're slaves to the chemistry and deadweight on society.

Jakenorrish
2005-Dec-19, 04:42 PM
I am certainly not advocating drug use Doodler, merely pointing out that the over-reliance on the law to sort out societies problems in this area has not worked. Drug use in both our countries has spiralled out of control. It needs dealing with boldly and bravely, by understanding it, rather than critisising everyone involved and labelling them 'scum'.

Taking this approach isn't 'touchy feely', but recognising that we have not dealt with the drug issue. In fact as sentences have increased for users and pushers, so has supply, demand, use and arrests.

A friend of mine who just died from long term use was not 'scum.' He was a vulnerable individual who needed help, but couldn't get it. The reason? All the money (my money) is set aside on policing rather than actually doing something to solve this issue which is a terrible blight on both our societies.

Candy
2005-Dec-19, 05:31 PM
I hate to say this, but I can't feel sorry for people any longer. You chose to use and abuse, then you lose.

The Bad Astronomer
2005-Dec-19, 06:52 PM
Doodler, I sent you a PM two weeks ago telling you to calm down your harsh tone. I understand this topic is an emotional one, but the tone you have taken is inappropriate for this forum. If you post in this manner again your account will be suspended for one week.

Doodler
2005-Dec-19, 07:28 PM
Doodler, I sent you a PM two weeks ago telling you to calm down your harsh tone. I understand this topic is an emotional one, but the tone you have taken is inappropriate for this forum. If you post in this manner again your account will be suspended for one week.

Understood. This one's just a hard sell for me because I've been a victim of these so-called victims. I just wanted to firmly establish where I'm coming from.

R.A.F.
2005-Dec-19, 07:38 PM
This one's just a hard sell for me because I've been a victim of these so-called victims.

Understandable...I'd probably feel the same way if I were to be the victim of a drunk driver.

Candy
2005-Dec-19, 07:43 PM
Understood. This one's just a hard sell for me because I've been a victim of these so-called victims. I just wanted to firmly establish where I'm coming from.
I understand 100%, and I agree with you. I was a victim for many years, until I wised up and left the feeding grounds. :mad:

I think it is hard for some people to grasp - the rage against users - until you've been constantly around it.

Gillianren
2005-Dec-19, 09:46 PM
People make stupid mistakes. It just happens. Now, everyone ought to know that drugs are bad for them. However, putting users in prison doesn't solve the problem. Putting manufacturers and smugglers in prison helps much more. I, in fact, do feel a great deal of pity for those who are addicted, even when I am angry at their actions. However, I don't think pity is a positive emotion. It means that they are worse off than I, and that's pretty bad.

I think part of the problem actually goes back to that whole "it's hard to get mental health care in this country" thing. For example, I'm reasonably sure that Kurt Cobain's suicide came as a result of self-medicating depression with heroin. Certainly he could afford to get real care, but there's still such a stigma against it. I'd say that quite a lot of people who do use drugs are self-medicating--I know people who ahve--and that's wrong but understandable.

Yes, I am much more sympathetic in the abstract, but let's look at one more thing: we have, somewhere on this board, more than one thread about alcoholic beverages. We're all supposed to know that one should use alcohol in moderation, but alcohol is an addictive substance. Once you become addicted, you go from being "just like everyone else" to being an object of scorn and pity. We think (well, some people think!) movies about people getting high are funny, but we also spend huge amounts of tax dollars on preventing people from getting high. Society is sending out mixed messages; is it any wonder that teenagers (not all, gods know, but often teenagers are very susceptible to peer pressure) do stupid things and get addicted?

Candy
2005-Dec-19, 09:50 PM
Gawd, the mental health "issue" again. :rolleyes:

I better stop reading this thread. I may get mad.

Josh
2005-Dec-19, 10:03 PM
Assuming there are nearly as many illegal drug abusers as smokers in this country (A valid assumption, I think, though admittedly hard to prove)

I'm not sure where you are Lurch but here in Australia that isn't the case. Struck me as an odd assumption so I went to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (http://www.abs.gov.au) to look up some numbers. Apparently (and i'm giving rounded average numbers) about 25% of people over 18 are currently smokers. If you include people who are (long term) ex-smokers (and consequently still at risk of smoking related diseases) then that number goes up to almost 55% of people over 18.

In constrast ...

2. Results from the 2001 National Drug Strategy Household Survey indicate that an estimated 2.6 million Australians, or 16.9 % of people aged 14 years and over, had used illicit drugs in the previous 12 months. Cannabis was the most prevalent drug used (by 12.9% of total people in this age group), with the potentially more lethal illicit drugs being used by much smaller proportions of people. Amphetamines were used by 3.4% of people aged 14 years and over, ecstasy by 2.9% and heroin by less than 1%

The economic burden on society, then, due to smoking would have to be much greater than that of illicit drugs.

Tinaa
2005-Dec-19, 11:46 PM
This is probably not the most popular opinion but I think drugs ought to be legalized. Twenty years ago a certain percentage of people were doing drugs. Fast foward. After spending millions, perhaps billions, of dollars on law enforcement, educational programs, etc. the same percentage of the people do drugs. Even if drugs were legal most people still wouldn't do them. Those who would, will do them no matter what.

LurchGS
2005-Dec-20, 12:10 AM
I'm not sure where you are Lurch but here in Australia that isn't the case. Struck me as an odd assumption so I went to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (http://www.abs.gov.au) to look up some numbers. Apparently (and i'm giving rounded average numbers) about 25% of people over 18 are currently smokers. If you include people who are (long term) ex-smokers (and consequently still at risk of smoking related diseases) then that number goes up to almost 55% of people over 18.

In constrast ...


[/FONT]The economic burden on society, then, due to smoking would have to be much greater than that of illicit drugs.

Josh... I'm in the states. (yeah, bloody yank :) )
I consider all numbers on drug use very suspect and significantly understated - so many illegal drug users are not caught, or, at least not tallied that the numbers HAVE to be guesses.

part of the problem with illegal drugs is that, unlike cigarettes, there are proportianately far far fewer EX-users. The habit is far more expensive in the short term (pre-hospital), and at least as expensive per hospital user as cigarette related illnesses.

Further, while a significant percentage of smokers end up with problems (both long and short term), EVERY user of illicit drugs is a drag on the economy.

In short, I don't think you can look just at the numbers of users on either side of the fence (even though I do use them). you have to consider the effect each user has on the overall economy, as well.

wayneee
2005-Dec-20, 12:36 AM
I don't buy it, without demand, there's no need for supply. If you are not supposed to have it, then obtaining it IS a crime. The problem is, you have scum on both sides of the black economy. Lets cut the touchie feelie nonsense, its a frickin' illegal substance. By getting it, however you get it, you are committing a crime. Is there something I'm missing here?


Well that is the exact attitude our goverment has had concerning the 'War on Drugs' That is why that something like 70 percent of all inmates in Jail are drug offenders. We have had this no tolerance attitude since the 80's, and it has not worked . There is no sign of Drug use deminishing. For all the people you write off to die there is another to take his place. Its not working ,it has never worked , and it wont work in the future. You can say that it does not effect you , and you dont care about self abuse of your fellow citizens , but this is short sighted. Drug use in this country effects you daily.
What is my solution(terrible liberal) Legalization.
Yes, Im in favor of legalization! I admit it .
Just like we did with Alchohol.
You know I expierimented with drugs back in my early 20's
You know I think I would like to have some pot once in a while
LSD was very interesting, and I feel i learned alot about myself
didnt like cocaine

LurchGS
2005-Dec-20, 12:45 AM
I'm not sure where you are Lurch but here in Australia that isn't the case. Struck me as an odd assumption so I went to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (http://www.abs.gov.au) to look up some numbers. Apparently (and i'm giving rounded average numbers) about 25% of people over 18 are currently smokers. If you include people who are (long term) ex-smokers (and consequently still at risk of smoking related diseases) then that number goes up to almost 55% of people over 18.

In constrast ...


[/FONT]The economic burden on society, then, due to smoking would have to be much greater than that of illicit drugs.

Josh... I'm in the states. (yeah, bloody yank :) )
I consider all numbers on drug use very suspect and significantly understated - so many illegal drug users are not caught, or, at least not tallied that the numbers HAVE to be guesses.

part of the problem with illegal drugs is that, unlike cigarettes, there are proportianately far, far fewer EX-users. The habit is far more expensive in the short term (pre-hospital), and at least as expensive per hospital user as cigarette related illnesses.

Further, while a significant percentage of smokers end up with problems (both long and short term), EVERY user of illicit drugs is a drag on the economy.

In short, I don't think you can look just at the numbers of users on either side of the fence (even though I do use them). you have to consider the effect each user has on the overall economy, as well.

Doodler - I agree with you, and I agree further that you are fully justified in your anger at your aunt. (but BA is right too - we strive for calmness here :) ). I, too, have no use for users/abusers - though I do think it's possible to break any drug habbit.

Personally, I see drug use as a sign of depression - the user feels a lack of control in his life, and retreats to drugs to make themselves feel better. I include alcohol as part of this, as well. The problem is, initial use is generally peer pressure, and they don't realise that the reason they feel out of control is the effect drugs are having on their lives.

Tobacco, on the other hand, I see as largely peer pressure. It SEEMS to be regionally related here in the states. There are plenty of smokers in every venue - but some at least appear to have many more. Example: I live in Denver.. looking at the street outside my office, maybe one in 15 is smoking. When I was recently down in Louisiana, it appeared that one in 10 or more was a smoker - and many of THOSE were chain smokers.
Yeah, it's unscientific...based solely on my own observations of people around me. But the attitude is what struck me - it seemed normal.

ok, I'm babbling.

back to the subject. I tend to think legalizing is a better idea (not a good idea, just less bad/more effective than what's currently being tried. Prohibition NEVER works). If legalized, the quality can be controlled, so you'd have far fewer poisonings (cut the coke with drano!). You'd also be able to control the dosages, so you'd see far fewer overdoses. Further, you could control the price, so crime rate SHOULD go down. Even with a substantial markup, the provider (i.e. government) would make a substantial profit - which could be used to fund rehabilitation centers and drug replacement research (i.e. methadone vs morphene)

Legalizing also has the advantage that it puts ALL the current infrastructure out of business in one fell swoop.

Josh
2005-Dec-20, 01:58 AM
Lurch,

Do you think it'd be a similarly safe assumption to say that most drug users would smoke? but a lot of smokers would not also be drug users?

Gullible Jones
2005-Dec-20, 02:01 AM
Legalizing drugs? Depends on the drug... You wouldn't want to legalize cocain or methamphetamine or heroine, because they're just so ridiculously addictive - abusers waste away their lives in a high or an opiate stupor, waste all their money on the drug and do anything to get more. PCP? People under its influence can get psychotic and violent. Ketamine? Everyone would have to drink from a private hip flask!

Jakenorrish
2005-Dec-20, 09:08 AM
Legalizing drugs? Depends on the drug... You wouldn't want to legalize cocain or methamphetamine or heroine, because they're just so ridiculously addictive - abusers waste away their lives in a high or an opiate stupor, waste all their money on the drug and do anything to get more. PCP? People under its influence can get psychotic and violent. Ketamine? Everyone would have to drink from a private hip flask!

I'm pretty sure that nobody here would want to see Heroin, Methamphetamine or Crack Cocaine on sale in stores! Legalising drugs doesn't mean that we have to sell them to people, but maybe anyone who is addicted could be prescribed their drug through the health service here in the UK? (Sorry, I can't speak for another country)

This approach would work out cheaper for the taxpayer, you'd know where all the addicts live, so their actions would be easier to track, a lot of the dealers would go out of business over night (which could only be a good thing). They'd stop robbing people to fund their habits. Our prisons are full to overflowing with drug addicts here whilst the dealers continue to get away with it. What's worse is that the prisons themselves have drugs being taken in. All it takes is one corrupt prison officer. Someone can get sent to prison clean and comes out with a smack habit!

Look, I'm not for a minute saying that I have the definite answer to this problem - it needs a well thought out debate. I do know that the solutions which the UK has in place are wholly inadequate. A new approach is needed as they've tried everything else. I see a programme of education and rehabilitation for users is the only solution left.

I'm fed up with stories in the press about young people dying in agony and misery because they don't know enough about heroin to realise they can't beat it. I'm also fed up with the crime wave that our prohibition has created. Let's take control of this black market away from the gangsters, like they did all those decades ago when prohibition of alcohol ended in the States.

paulie jay
2005-Dec-20, 10:37 AM
Another reason ice is so pouplar amongst users of a lower income is that there is no wastage when it is used. They smoke off what they need for their hit, then the goo solidifies back into crystal for the next usage. It's a very "economic" drug in that sense.

sts60
2005-Dec-20, 06:09 PM
Legalizing drugs? Depends on the drug... You wouldn't want to legalize cocain or methamphetamine or heroine, because they're just so ridiculously addictive - abusers waste away their lives in a high or an opiate stupor, waste all their money on the drug and do anything to get more. PCP? People under its influence can get psychotic and violent...
Uh, yeah. A half dozen cops to subdue one PCP user is about right. And it's really fun to run a 350-lb guy on some combination of { crack | meth | PCP } to the hospital. Dude was handcuffed, and got rowdy again, and the cops used up the batteries on their Tasers (he already looked like a pincushion), plus a direct-contact stun gun, plus a drum solo with an Asp, in getting him to settle down. Fortunately, that many police officers make lifting a 350-lb dead load onto the cot a lot easier...

Taks
2005-Dec-20, 06:23 PM
I consider all numbers on drug use very suspect and significantly understated - so many illegal drug users are not caught, or, at least not tallied that the numbers HAVE to be guesses.but your assumptions are equally unfounded.


part of the problem with illegal drugs is that, unlike cigarettes, there are proportianately far far fewer EX-users. The habit is far more expensive in the short term (pre-hospital), and at least as expensive per hospital user as cigarette related illnesses.based on what? more assumptions? marijuana is actually less damaging than cigarettes, and by far the most widely used illicit drug. while the impact of things like heroin, cocaine, meth and other "hard" drugs is certainly much higher, the number of such users is orders of magnitude below that of marijuana users.


Further, while a significant percentage of smokers end up with problems (both long and short term), EVERY user of illicit drugs is a drag on the economy.again, based on what? just because you think drugs are bad (in principal, i agree) does not mean that a) everyone that uses is an addict, b) everyone that uses impacts the economy or c) everyone that uses ends up in the hospital.


In short, I don't think you can look just at the numbers of users on either side of the fence (even though I do use them). you have to consider the effect each user has on the overall economy, as well.you're not even looking at numbers, you're guessing, and incorrectly at that.

while overall it is true that illicit drugs are a drag on the economy, making such sweeping generalizations that apply to everybody is using faulty logic.

taks

Taks
2005-Dec-20, 06:26 PM
Do you think it'd be a similarly safe assumption to say that most drug users would smoke? but a lot of smokers would not also be drug users?most of the users i've met in my life did smoke, at least a much higher percentage than the general population. however, i can't say the reverse is true. i have also known many non-smoking users...

taks

Titana
2005-Dec-20, 06:46 PM
marijuana is actually less damaging than cigarettes,

I dont think i would agree with that. I think no matter what both are very damaging to the lungs and in someways i think that marijuana would be a little worse. I have seen people (when i was back in school) who would actually hold that smoke in until they were almost blue...:sick:


The author's basic hypothesis is that marijuana smoke, like tobacco smoke, is harmful to the lungs, and that exposure of the lungs to both marijuana and tobacco smoke is even worse. Their findings in this and subsequent studies provide no reason to reject this hypothesis. The public wants to know if marijuana smoking is more or less dangerous for the lungs than tobacco smoking. If one were to insist on a simple answer, that answer would be this: any smoke is damaging to the lungs, and continued exposure to smoke will likely cause lung cancer. However if the public insists on using tobacco smoke as a reference, Tashkin's research demonstrates that describing marijuana smoke in reference to tobacco smoke is complicated. On a simple numerical scale, in some areas marijuana produces higher indices of risk than tobacco, and in other areas, a lower indication of risk. The conclusion of this 1987 study is as follows.

http://www.drugscience.org/Petition/C2B.htm


Titana.

Doodler
2005-Dec-20, 06:50 PM
marijuana is actually less damaging than cigarettes...

And your point is? Its still a damaging drug, regardless of where it falls in the grand scheme of destruction.

A .22 will hurt you just as assuredly as a .44 will.

Hugh Jass
2005-Dec-20, 07:15 PM
Further, while a significant percentage of smokers end up with problems (both long and short term), EVERY user of illicit drugs is a drag on the economy.

...SNIP...
while overall it is true that illicit drugs are a drag on the economy, making such sweeping generalizations that apply to everybody is using faulty logic.
taks

This is why meth is so bad, so much worse. Of course there are varying degrees of bad, and while I agree with Taks on warning to be careful of wide sweeping generalities when it comes to drug use, meth falls a lot closer to ringing true to Lurch's statements than most others. That was the original point of the thread right? Meth is crazy bad! With no other reference point, or with other legal and illegal drugs in comparison, meth is very bad.

When you start discussing what drug is “bad” where do you start where do you end? From my experience and of course if you spend time I don’t want to spend you can go find “studies” concluding either side of the arguments for and against several drugs. I don’t think you will find many touting ANY positive aspects of meth.

“Don't do drugs kids. There is a time and place for everything. It's called college.” -Chef

Dragon Star
2005-Dec-20, 07:30 PM
This is probably not the most popular opinion but I think drugs ought to be legalized. Twenty years ago a certain percentage of people were doing drugs. Fast foward. After spending millions, perhaps billions, of dollars on law enforcement, educational programs, etc. the same percentage of the people do drugs. Even if drugs were legal most people still wouldn't do them. Those who would, will do them no matter what.

Ok, I admit I somewhat agree, but strict age limits must be used with this.Can kids still get the stuff? sure, but it makes it look like it is for their own protection, and it is, and that does influence their actions. I myself have never used drugs, my reason is that I know I am the type of person that would easily become addicted. I know my limits, and whether or not it is illegal would not make a difference to me. I see drugs every day, all day long, and I see the effects they have, and often people who do drugs get off before it ruins their lives, most will argue, but often today this is the case (with youth mind you)

I think the day of the mass drug use is going to end, people will eventually get the point that their is no point for destroying your life for a few minutes of getting high. In my school there is a large support group for ending drugs, and it is growing. Will people always do drugs? probably, but we can do something about the masses of people who do them, just by showing support.

HenrikOlsen
2005-Dec-20, 08:40 PM
marijuana is actually less damaging than cigarettes, and by far the most widely used illicit drug.
A recent study in Denmark has shown a significant correlation between majihuana use and admission to psychiatric ER's with acute psycosis in young women.

Van Rijn
2005-Dec-20, 09:06 PM
A recent study in Denmark has shown a significant correlation between majihuana use and admission to psychiatric ER's with acute psycosis in young women.

Interesting, but is the psychosis due to marijauna use or is marijauna use more likely among those with psychiatric difficulties?

Josh
2005-Dec-20, 09:35 PM
Interesting, but is the psychosis due to marijauna use or is marijauna use more likely among those with psychiatric difficulties?

I have a close friend who used to smoke marijuana (a lot). He, nor anyone in his family, had never had any sort of psych issues. He was diagnosed with Marijuana Induced Psychosis after smoking pretty much every (a lot) for 2 years. He stopped smoking two years ago now and is only now what i would call "better". His subsequent research on the matter revealed that hydroponically grown marijuana has a much higher instance of causing psychosis problems.


just because you think drugs are bad (in principal, i agree) does not mean that a) everyone that uses is an addict, b) everyone that uses impacts the economy or c) everyone that uses ends up in the hospital.

I was going to mention this earlier but i managed to push some random order of keys and lost the post. I definitely agree with this. This isn't a binary issue. You are not either a non-user or addict. there is a lot of grey matter. Is going out on a weekend and taking ecstacy a burden on the economy? Occassionally, in very rare cases, it may be, but generally I wouldn't think so. And while all drugs (including alcomohol and cigarettes) are bad, you can't paint a beer or even a range of other drugs mentioned in this thread (ecstacy, marijuana, ketamine) with the same brush you use for heroin (in particular) or similar.

Taks
2005-Dec-20, 09:55 PM
I dont think i would agree with that. I think no matter what both are very damaging to the lungs and in someways i think that marijuana would be a little worse. I have seen people (when i was back in school) who would actually hold that smoke in until they were almost blue...:sick:but that doesn't make it more damaging as a chemical. marijuana does not have near the contaminants as tobacco, in particular, nicotene.

taks

Taks
2005-Dec-20, 10:00 PM
And your point is?my point was quite clear, particularly given that i replied directly to a statement by lurchgs
The habit is far more expensive in the short term (pre-hospital)i passed no value judgement on drug use per se, i simply noted that his comment about cost is short-sighted. again, the point was clear.


Its still a damaging drug, regardless of where it falls in the grand scheme of destruction.show me where i ever said it wasn't.


A .22 will hurt you just as assuredly as a .44 will.false analogy. both are small, dense masses moving at near or greater than the speed of sound with an immediate chance to kill. not quite the same thing as a drug.

this is an alarmist statement meant to flare emotion, not based on anything factual, or relevant.

taks

Taks
2005-Dec-20, 10:04 PM
meth falls a lot closer to ringing true to Lurch's statements than most others.but still not quite as far as lurchgs pushed it. the point that is lost is that while meth seems to be the drug dujour, there really aren't that many users in the world compared to marijuana or alcohol or cigarettes.



When you start discussing what drug is “bad” where do you start where do you end?ANY drug, or ANY substance for that matter is bad in excess. some drugs/substances, like heroin or meth, are bad even in small quantities (both can cause addiction in addictive personalities within a few uses... that's why i don't touch!) cyanide is bad in just about any dose.

taks

Taks
2005-Dec-20, 10:13 PM
A recent study in Denmark has shown a significant correlation between majihuana use and admission to psychiatric ER's with acute psycosis in young women.as noted, correlation != causation. i would not be surprised at all if it were the cause, or at least part of it. often times there are contributing factors that are not taken into consideration - pre-dispostion, for example... why could george burns smoke a half dozen cigars a day for over 100 years without any apparent health effects yet men in my family smoke similar amounts and die of a variety of smoking related issues in their 60s?

again, i've never said any drug wasn't bad, just some aren't as bad as others. i know first hand that the addictive nature of marijuana is not that great. it was easy to give up, yet i've battled alcohol and tobacco addiction for 20 years now (in control, but barely).

taks

Hugh Jass
2005-Dec-20, 10:24 PM
as noted, correlation != causation.

You mean like this?

Dragon Star
2005-Dec-20, 10:31 PM
You mean like this?


:clap: Nice....

Hugh Jass
2005-Dec-20, 10:41 PM
I prefer when news accounts site a “link” rather than a “Correlation”, making it the four letter word it deserves to be.

paulie jay
2005-Dec-20, 10:43 PM
I have a close friend who used to smoke marijuana (a lot). He, nor anyone in his family, had never had any sort of psych issues. He was diagnosed with Marijuana Induced Psychosis after smoking pretty much every (a lot) for 2 years. He stopped smoking two years ago now and is only now what i would call "better". His subsequent research on the matter revealed that hydroponically grown marijuana has a much higher instance of causing psychosis problems.

There is a school of thought amongst the LSD users that psychotic episodes aren't caused by the drug, rather it's a case of latent psychosis brought to the surface. I have no opinion as to the validity of a statement like that, but I wonder if the marijuana crowd also use a similar logic in the case of your friend?

Josh
2005-Dec-20, 11:05 PM
There is a school of thought amongst the LSD users that psychotic episodes aren't caused by the drug, rather it's a case of latent psychosis brought to the surface. I have no opinion as to the validity of a statement like that, but I wonder if the marijuana crowd also use a similar logic in the case of your friend?

Possible I guess, but still a driect result of the drug use. In any case, he had no problems before using, developed problems whilst using (and clearly so to the people around him), and those problems subsided after he stopped using. We probably all have the potential for some sort of psychosis. If some thing or event brings it out in us then that is the problem. isn't it?

sarongsong
2005-Dec-21, 12:07 AM
July 15, 2005 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4685693.stm)
"Cocaine traces have been found at the European Parliament in an inquiry by one of Germany's main broadcasters..."
Not exactly a scientific inquiry (suspect buildings are open to the public, etc.), I've often wondered what the results of drug-testing elected officials would reveal.

Gillianren
2005-Dec-21, 12:08 AM
why could george burns smoke a half dozen cigars a day for over 100 years without any apparent health effects yet men in my family smoke similar amounts and die of a variety of smoking related issues in their 60s?

This is only true if he started very, very young indeed.

Cigarettes are unsafe even in moderation. I tend to assume that anything involving "inhaling things other than air into your lungs" is as well.

Gullible Jones
2005-Dec-21, 02:27 AM
I was going to mention this earlier but i managed to push some random order of keys and lost the post. I definitely agree with this. This isn't a binary issue. You are not either a non-user or addict. there is a lot of grey matter. Is going out on a weekend and taking ecstacy a burden on the economy? Occassionally, in very rare cases, it may be, but generally I wouldn't think so. And while all drugs (including alcomohol and cigarettes) are bad, you can't paint a beer or even a range of other drugs mentioned in this thread (ecstacy, marijuana, ketamine) with the same brush you use for heroin (in particular) or similar.

No, I think we can tar ketamine with a much nastier brush. Date-rape drug, remember? Legalize it and crime rates *soar*. Want to rape someone? Want to steal the shirt off their back? Ketamine can incapacitate a person completely. Want to kill someone silently? An overdose will do that too. Ketamine, in the hands of anyone with ill intent, isn't a recreational drug; it's a bloody weapon.

I might also add that ecstasy is indeed a burden on the economy. Overdoses can screw people up pretty bad, and long-term use has been corelated with mental illness.

Marijauna is not phsyically addictive IIRC, though I'm sure psychological dependence on it is not uncommon among long-term users. The long-term effects (respiratory problems, depression, utter loss of motivation, etc.) do warrant high taxation (as with tobacco) if it's legalized, though.

LurchGS
2005-Dec-21, 02:29 AM
Lurch,

Do you think it'd be a similarly safe assumption to say that most drug users would smoke? but a lot of smokers would not also be drug users?

That seems... reasonable, I think

LurchGS
2005-Dec-21, 02:34 AM
Uh, yeah. A half dozen cops to subdue one PCP user is about right. And it's really fun to run a 350-lb guy on some combination of { crack | meth | PCP } to the hospital. Dude was handcuffed, and got rowdy again, and the cops used up the batteries on their Tasers (he already looked like a pincushion), plus a direct-contact stun gun, plus a drum solo with an Asp, in getting him to settle down. Fortunately, that many police officers make lifting a 350-lb dead load onto the cot a lot easier...

he wasn't strapped down? Even quiet un-drugged (so far as we know) psych patients are strapped for transport here.

LurchGS
2005-Dec-21, 03:10 AM
but your assumptions are equally unfounded.

I disagree. - I base my assumptions on experience as a LEO, and as husband of a paramedic.



based on what? more assumptions? marijuana is actually less damaging than cigarettes, and by far the most widely used illicit drug. while the impact of things like heroin, cocaine, meth and other "hard" drugs is certainly much higher, the number of such users is orders of magnitude below that of marijuana users.


I think I'd be willing to accept AN order of magnatude. Cocaine is VERY common.



again, based on what? just because you think drugs are bad (in principal, i agree) does not mean that a) everyone that uses is an addict, b) everyone that uses impacts the economy or c) everyone that uses ends up in the hospital.


a) true, but even a weekly user is an addict. Just a lower level
b) yes it does. Absolutely. Without exception.
c) also true. I don't recall saying anything different

and I didn't say 'drugs are bad'. I was careful to allways say 'illicit drugs'. Morphene is frequently found on the street... but it's frequently prescribed for pain. The same circumstances can be found surrounding many (if not all) other narcotics.



you're not even looking at numbers, you're guessing, and incorrectly at that.


no, I'm taking published numbers and extropolating based on personal experience. I may be incorrect, but I doubt I'm wildly off base.



while overall it is true that illicit drugs are a drag on the economy, making such sweeping generalizations that apply to everybody is using faulty logic.

taks

I didnt' apply my generalizations to everybody. I applied them to illicit drug users with references to tobacco and alcohol users

Josh
2005-Dec-21, 03:34 AM
No, I think we can tar ketamine with a much nastier brush. Date-rape drug, remember? Legalize it and crime rates *soar*. Want to rape someone? Want to steal the shirt off their back? Ketamine can incapacitate a person completely. Want to kill someone silently? An overdose will do that too. Ketamine, in the hands of anyone with ill intent, isn't a recreational drug; it's a bloody weapon.

That is a completely different kettle of fish to what i was talking about. I only meant in terms of self-administration. It's a good point though.


I might also add that ecstasy is indeed a burden on the economy. Overdoses can screw people up pretty bad, and long-term use has been corelated with mental illness.

What sort of burden on the economy? The number of overdoses due to ecstacy is extremely low (not low enough of course ... ie zero).

What do we mean when we say burden on the economy?

The Mangler
2005-Dec-21, 03:58 AM
I've been reading this thread for a couple days, and it seems like nobody here has ever done any of the drugs being talked about (don't really believe that). I have tried most of the drugs you are talking about at least once (don't worry, I haven't done any of them in at least 5 years). I never considered myself an addict, I could always quit (and did) whenever I wanted to. I always paid my bills (I didn't let it interfere with any responsibilities I had). There are some drugs (pot, LSD, mushrooms, about it I guess...) that I don't see any problem with. I don't believe that they cause any harm to the person using them. I do not believe that pot is a "gateway" drug. That idea is just crazy. Other drugs, like cocaine & meth, I agree that they are detrimental to society and have no positive uses. Maybe some people just don't have the will power to quit. To me, that's the main factor - will power.

Sorry if I'm rambling on... If you want the opinion of someone who may have actually done some of this stuff at one time, just ask. lol

LurchGS
2005-Dec-21, 04:10 AM
Mangler -

well, I disagree with some of that. Pot as definately been shown to cause damage to the user. LSD.. 'shrooms.. I don't know.

I agree that callling Pot a 'gateway' drug is silly. Many pot smokers never go beyond that. Of course, many others DO - but I don't think pot has any significant role in the advancement.

(and yes, I've used - and quit. Only had to quit once. )

I don't think the main factor is will power. It's desire. You have to WANT to quit.

Josh
2005-Dec-21, 04:13 AM
I was listenig to a radio program a few weeks ago about Mushrooms. There are documented cases of people going on bad trips for a week. there are also documented cases of people lapsing back into trips every now and again. That's gotta be bad.

The Mangler
2005-Dec-21, 04:16 AM
I don't think the main factor is will power. It's desire. You have to WANT to quit.
Good point, but some people can't kick it after they realize that they need to stop.

The Mangler
2005-Dec-21, 04:22 AM
I was listenig to a radio program a few weeks ago about Mushrooms. There are documented cases of people going on bad trips for a week. there are also documented cases of people lapsing back into trips every now and again. That's gotta be bad.
I don't know how true the whole 'flashback' thing is. Any hallucinagen (sp?) definately does change you though. Sometime non-reversible changes (not always a bad thing).
I'm not advocating drug use, but to be honest, tripping is what got me interested in astronomy.

TheBlackCat
2005-Dec-21, 04:59 AM
I don't think the main factor is will power. It's desire. You have to WANT to quit.
That depends on the drug in question. There are two types of addictions, physical and psychological. In a psychological addiction, like you get from marijuana or non-drug addictions like gambling, the person gets hooked on the pleasure derived from the drug. There it is probably a combination of willpower, desire, and the personality of the person. Other drugs like nicotine, heroine, and coke are physically addicting. Your brain chemistry becomes dependent on the drug, and if someone tries to quit they literally get physically sick until they take more. This is especially notorious with heroine, where it is practically impossible to quit without anti-withdrawl medication, but it is still the case with such things as nicotine where it is extremely difficult to go cold turkey, many if not most people need to ween yourself off of it slowly and even that is very difficult.

My 4th-grade science teacher was telling us about her father. He smoked for years. She and her brother would always ask him to stop, and he would say he could quit whenever he wanted to. So one day the brother said "prove it". The father agreed, and never touched another cigarette for the rest of his life. She went on to say this is almost unheard-of, and that she could pretty much guarantee that if any of us start smoking it would not be that easy for us to quit. She tried to get her hands on one of those machines that smokes cigarettes and blow the smoke into a glass box so you can see what you are putting into your lungs, but ultimately couldn't find anyone who would lend her one.

Taks
2005-Dec-21, 05:58 AM
This is only true if he started very, very young indeed.

Cigarettes are unsafe even in moderation. I tend to assume that anything involving "inhaling things other than air into your lungs" is as well.oops, TILL he was over 100 years old... my bad. he did start young, however.

oh, and cigars are bad, too. mouth and throat cancer are much more prevalent with cigar smokers, as i recall. either way, the point was that some folks are genetically geared for some things to be not bad, others aren't. smoking does not kill everyone, nor does it shorten everyone's life. on average it does both, but that's a different story.

taks

Taks
2005-Dec-21, 05:59 AM
You mean like this?
well, i must admit the case for pirate causation is pretty darned high. but until they can bottle up a bunch of pirates in a double blind test to show the causation, i'll stick to my guns.

taks

Taks
2005-Dec-21, 06:09 AM
I disagree. - I base my assumptions on experience as a LEO, and as husband of a paramedic.WHAT!!!??? your experience as a LEO? uh, as in the lion? you're joking, right? or am i misunderstanding?

either way, anecdotal at best... still unfounded.




I think I'd be willing to accept AN order of magnatude. Cocaine is VERY common.maybe in your circles, but not really very common on average. when i was "involved" with that type of crowd, i saw it all the time, but not now.


a) true, but even a weekly user is an addict. Just a lower level
b) yes it does. Absolutely. Without exception.
c) also true. I don't recall saying anything different
sorry, but that's not true, not even by the definition of addiction. it absolutely MUST control your life in some fashion to be considered an addiction. again, not every user is an addict, and you saying so does not make it so. nor does everyone end up in a hospital because they've used... not sure where you get off saying this last bit.


and I didn't say 'drugs are bad'. I was careful to allways say 'illicit drugs'. Morphene is frequently found on the street... but it's frequently prescribed for pain. The same circumstances can be found surrounding many (if not all) other narcotics.i think it's quite clear that we're not referring to prescribed medicines when we say "drugs"...


no, I'm taking published numbers and extropolating based on personal experience. I may be incorrect, but I doubt I'm wildly off base.in other words, you don't know, but you're going to guess anyway? you're taking published numbers that said one thing, and then you added a couple orders of magnitude to enhance the argument... you aren't "extrapolating" you're making it up at best.


I didnt' apply my generalizations to everybody. I applied them to illicit drug users with references to tobacco and alcohol usersno, you said ALL USERS are a drain on the economy, which is a sweeping generalization. a logical fallacy. sorry, it is simply not true.

i mean, heck, think how much our music would suffer were it not for drugs. ;)

taks

Taks
2005-Dec-21, 06:16 AM
No, I think we can tar ketamine with a much nastier brush. Date-rape drug, remember? Legalize it and crime rates *soar*. Want to rape someone? Want to steal the shirt off their back? Ketamine can incapacitate a person completely. Want to kill someone silently? An overdose will do that too. Ketamine, in the hands of anyone with ill intent, isn't a recreational drug; it's a bloody weapon.i can think of something else that is totally legal if handled in a controlled fashion that shares many of these same characteristics...

fire.

the drug itself isn't a killer, or a rapist, it is the person using it in such a fashion. those that wish to use such drugs in such a manner are not too concerned about a drug rap. it sort of pales in comparison to what they're already into.


I might also add that ecstasy is indeed a burden on the economy. Overdoses can screw people up pretty bad, and long-term use has been corelated with mental illness.in general, all drugs are a burden. you just can't point to people and say they are a burden on society simply because they partake in casual drug use from time to time.


Marijauna is not phsyically addictive IIRC, though I'm sure psychological dependence on it is not uncommon among long-term users. The long-term effects (respiratory problems, depression, utter loss of motivation, etc.) do warrant high taxation (as with tobacco) if it's legalized, though.mary jane is an oddity. physically less addictive than aspirin and probably safer. mentally it does create a bit of desire for more, but it is easy to kick. a lethal dosage from smoking is impossible to achieve. i've seen plenty of studies that show the damage of long-term use, but i've never actually witnessed any real damage in those that i know have been using long-term. anecdotal, sure, but at least evidence enough that the scare scenario is not an absolute.

taks

Taks
2005-Dec-21, 06:19 AM
Your brain chemistry becomes dependent on the drug, and if someone tries to quit they literally get physically sick until they take more.it has been shown that the same effects occur in mental addictions, such as gambling. though i'd suppose they're psychosomatic. they just feel real. kinda like that rush you get on a roller coaster. oh wait, that is physical illness.... gurf. :)

taks

Gillianren
2005-Dec-21, 07:15 AM
i mean, heck, think how much our music would suffer were it not for drugs. ;)

Okay, this right here is the argument I hate the most. Honestly. I mean, heck, Tchaikovsky was a manic depressive--you can hear it in the music!--but no one's going to argue that manic depression's a good thing.

What's more, my boyfriend was watching The Soup, on E!, and they were going on about how many drugs C. S. Lewis must've been on to've come up with Narnia. As if people can't have imaginations unless they've been drugged. If you can't, perhaps you've done something damaging to your brain . . . .

HenrikOlsen
2005-Dec-21, 08:24 AM
well, i must admit the case for pirate causation is pretty darned high. but until they can bottle up a bunch of pirates in a double blind test to show the causation, i'll stick to my guns.

taks
Actually the case for pirate causation fails a simple test, the data are wrong in the number of pirates mentioned for recent years.
Piracy is still a significant problem several places and is something freight companies have to be aware of (http://www.icc-ccs.org/prc/piracyreport.php).

Eric Vaxxine
2005-Dec-21, 10:43 AM
There was a programme on Discovery that uncovered nicotine and cocaine traces in mummified Egyptians.

What I understand about drugs is ... if you put a pile of crystal meth on a table in your front room......nothing would happen....it's the humans with the problem.

There was an experiment with drugs and car driving.
They fed a test subject alcohol. Their driving became dangerously erratic.
They fed a test subject marijuana. They drove very cautiously, but suffered slow reactions.
They fed a test subject LSD. Their driving was also very cautious and they became pre-occupied with lights, motion, sounds etc.
They fed a test subject cocaine. Their driving became very confident, but too fast.
They fed a test subject ecstacy. The driver wasn't interested in driving at all and just wanted to hug the occupant of the vehicle.

wayneee
2005-Dec-21, 04:06 PM
And your point is? Its still a damaging drug, regardless of where it falls in the grand scheme of destruction.

A .22 will hurt you just as assuredly as a .44 will.
for shame , Pot makes you mellow and want to eat. I think about some Comic who said that Americans take more drugs now than they did in the 60's, the only difference is that the drugs we take now dont do anything.:eh:

wayneee
2005-Dec-21, 04:10 PM
There was a programme on Discovery that uncovered nicotine and cocaine traces in mummified Egyptians.

What I understand about drugs is ... if you put a pile of crystal meth on a table in your front room......nothing would happen....it's the humans with the problem.

There was an experiment with drugs and car driving.
They fed a test subject alcohol. Their driving became dangerously erratic.
They fed a test subject marijuana. They drove very cautiously, but suffered slow reactions.
They fed a test subject LSD. Their driving was also very cautious and they became pre-occupied with lights, motion, sounds etc.
They fed a test subject cocaine. Their driving became very confident, but too fast.
They fed a test subject ecstacy. The driver wasn't interested in driving at all and just wanted to hug the occupant of the vehicle.

The moral is ,dont .... and drive
Study should have included Coffee, Sex,chidren,cell phones,dogs,lice, and Hayfever, as well as insects. A friend of mine's Wife flipped off the road because a Dragonfly landed on her Steeringwheel:doh:

Doodler
2005-Dec-21, 04:35 PM
for shame , Pot makes you mellow and want to eat. I think about some Comic who said that Americans take more drugs now than they did in the 60's, the only difference is that the drugs we take now dont do anything.:eh:

Probably George Carlin.

Gillianren
2005-Dec-21, 07:53 PM
There was a programme on Discovery that uncovered nicotine and cocaine traces in mummified Egyptians.

That's odd. I should find that unlikely, given that both tobacco and coca are New World plants.

sts60
2005-Dec-21, 09:12 PM
he wasn't strapped down? Even quiet un-drugged (so far as we know) psych patients are strapped for transport here.Once he was quieted down, we lifted him onto the cot (backwards, but I didn't care) and rolled on outta there. What with handcuffs, cot straps, and PD riding along, I wasn't too concerned. Plus, I'm 240 myself, and in the last resort there's always oxygen therapy (as in judicious application of a D-tank to the temporal lobe) ;)

Josh
2005-Dec-21, 09:50 PM
There was an experiment with drugs and car driving.
They fed a test subject alcohol. Their driving became dangerously erratic.
They fed a test subject marijuana. They drove very cautiously, but suffered slow reactions.
They fed a test subject LSD. Their driving was also very cautious and they became pre-occupied with lights, motion, sounds etc.
They fed a test subject cocaine. Their driving became very confident, but too fast.
They fed a test subject ecstacy. The driver wasn't interested in driving at all and just wanted to hug the occupant of the vehicle.

Perhaps, then, as part of our daily routine in starting up the car we should check the mirror, adjust the seat and do a line of speed? Speed will enhance your reaction time and quicken your reflexes, and you're more alert and aware of your surroundings.

wayneee
2005-Dec-21, 11:01 PM
AS for Mushrooms , I can tell you it is nothing but a giggle fest, very embassasing, impossible to be addicted to.

The Mangler
2005-Dec-21, 11:19 PM
AS for Mushrooms , I can tell you it is nothing but a giggle fest, very embassasing, impossible to be addicted to.
I wouldn't say 'giggle fest'. If you're drinking while you take them, maybe. If you're sober it is very different. More like LSD, but not as intense. I guess it also depends on what kind of mushrooms they are. :shifty: All of the mushrooms I've had were very potent. Sometimes almost too strong. It can get scary if you are alone. I would advise against taking any hallucenagenic (sp?) drugs by yourself. Of course, you shouldn't do any drugs at all though. ;)

The Mangler
2005-Dec-21, 11:21 PM
Perhaps, then, as part of our daily routine in starting up the car we should check the mirror, adjust the seat and do a line of speed? Speed will enhance your reaction time and quicken your reflexes, and you're more alert and aware of your surroundings.
Don't forget to buckle up. It may save your life. :)

sarongsong
2005-Dec-21, 11:29 PM
Perhaps, then, as part of our daily routine in starting up the car we should check the mirror, adjust the seat and do a line of speed?Or go to war, where this nightmare began.

paulie jay
2005-Dec-22, 07:27 AM
I might also add that ecstasy is indeed a burden on the economy. Overdoses can screw people up pretty bad, and long-term use has been corelated with mental illness. I'm sort of surprised at that. Not that I'm being argumentive, it's just that long term use usually renders most users tolerant to ecstacy and they move onto something else. This is why newer things like GHB are getting more popular.




I've been reading this thread for a couple days, and it seems like nobody here has ever done any of the drugs being talked about (don't really believe that). - snip
Actually I've have done most of the drugs mentioned in this thread (no, not an addict, but regular use) in years gone by and I find that that experience helps me enormously in my work at Customs. I have a much bigger understanding of how people behave when they are using, and I can recognise substances with greater confidence than a lot of my colleagues.

Eric Vaxxine
2005-Dec-22, 09:24 AM
Actually I've have done most of the drugs mentioned in this thread (no, not an addict, but regular use) in years gone by and I find that that experience helps me enormously in my work at Customs. I have a much bigger understanding of how people behave when they are using, and I can recognise substances with greater confidence than a lot of my colleagues.

It really does annoy me when politicians (especially) make statements about what the individual drugs do to a person, when they actually have never tried it themselves. People who smoke marijuana generally don't fight, for instance. People on alcohol DO fight.
My mom used to think that all drugs did the same thing to you, from acid to mandrax etc. She should have been a politician.

Eric Vaxxine
2005-Dec-22, 09:26 AM
Perhaps, then, as part of our daily routine in starting up the car we should check the mirror, adjust the seat and do a line of speed? Speed will enhance your reaction time and quicken your reflexes, and you're more alert and aware of your surroundings.

Absolutely. But, how far do you have to drive in the morning? You'll be alert for quite some time!
On the flip side, marijuana will combat road rage !

Jakenorrish
2005-Dec-22, 11:56 AM
It annoys me when people talk about cannibis being a 'gateway' drug. You're very unlikely to try anything else when you're stoned. But when you're drunk, you're far more likely to try stuff out!

Eric Vaxxine
2005-Dec-22, 01:33 PM
It annoys me when people talk about cannibis being a 'gateway' drug. You're very unlikely to try anything else when you're stoned. But when you're drunk, you're far more likely to try stuff out!

I kind of agree. It's not a case of 'ooohhhh....cannibis isn't strong enough anymore, I'll do speed instead'. Not at all. LSD and speed and cannibis are THREE different experiences!
Alcohol produces one desired effect be it Beer or Sherry or Poteen.

five_distinct
2005-Dec-22, 04:04 PM
A couple of my good friends were big into meth and over the past couple years have pretty much gotten over it (Mostly by separating themselves from the rave scene...one lives in the middle of nowhere now, and the other used to go with me and I've since stopped going for the most part)

They're not quite the same as they used to be..I wouldn't say it's a huge or adverse difference, but they're definitely not the same...one moreso than the other.

I'm not completely innocent of drug use...but I don't have an addictive personality so I'm able to control myself and spread out usage so I only do it once a month or less (usually less).

TheBlackCat
2005-Dec-22, 04:21 PM
Absolutely. But, how far do you have to drive in the morning? You'll be alert for quite some time!
On the flip side, marijuana will combat road rage !
Now I have very little problem with marijuana in general, it is not physically addictive and you cannot OD on it. But it is a depressent, like alcohol, and stoned driving is every bit as dangerous as drunk driving (as I understand it).

paulie jay
2005-Dec-23, 04:29 AM
It annoys me when people talk about cannibis being a 'gateway' drug. You're very unlikely to try anything else when you're stoned. But when you're drunk, you're far more likely to try stuff out!
When people are saying it's a "gateway" drug they aren't implying that people try new drugs while they are stoned on pot.

What is meant by the term is that once a person has become comfortable with using pot, they then see other drugs as being less scary. I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with this or not, but this is what is meant by "gateway" or "stepping stone". Due to the nature of marijuana (it looks organic, it seems natural, it doesn't seem to be the same thing as shoving a bunch of chemicals up your nose) it is much more appealing to those who are nervous about drugs. It is statistically the most common illicit drug for first time users, and a big reason for this is that it doesn't seem as risky as narcotics like heroin. (By the way folks, "heroine" is a female hero, not a drug :)). That's the theory, anyway.

LurchGS
2005-Dec-23, 05:07 AM
one of my favorites.. what else is a Paramedic for? Any EMT can handle Curlex

Eric Vaxxine
2005-Dec-23, 10:52 AM
Now I have very little problem with marijuana in general, it is not physically addictive and you cannot OD on it. But it is a depressent, like alcohol, and stoned driving is every bit as dangerous as drunk driving (as I understand it).

Yeah, reaction time is .........er.......slowed.
But it works in traffic jams....because ...well, you're just too chilled to get annoyed.

Jakenorrish
2005-Dec-23, 10:56 AM
What is meant by the term is that once a person has become comfortable with using pot, they then see other drugs as being less scary.


Well, even this is I think highly unlikely. I smoke Cannibis, and am even less likely to try heroin or crack as a consequence.

Eric Vaxxine
2005-Dec-23, 12:21 PM
But if you were 14 and the leader of you 'peer gang' had speed, for example, and all you gangmates were trying it, you'd be inclined / persuaded / bullied into trying it. You might not do it again because it wasn't for you personally, but for some it will suit. So possibly, it then becomes smoking week days, go speedclubbing on the weekend.

Then possibly, when you get back to a mates house speeding but frayed, someone offers you....H. to chill you.

Slippery slope

This is all hypothetical of course. I just made it up. It has no bearing on real life.

Monique
2005-Dec-23, 04:39 PM
Now I have very little problem with marijuana in general, it is not physically addictive and you cannot OD on it. But it is a depressent, like alcohol, and stoned driving is every bit as dangerous as drunk driving (as I understand it).
I agree I do not understand why some drugs illegal but others legal. Why is alright to drink, but not smoke marijuana.

Dragon Star
2005-Dec-23, 04:45 PM
Absolutely. But, how far do you have to drive in the morning? You'll be alert for quite some time!
On the flip side, marijuana will combat road rage !


Yea and when the speed wears off you turn into a baked potato....:lol:


Not that I know...:shifty:

Hugh Jass
2005-Dec-23, 05:38 PM
It is statistically the most common illicit drug for first time users, and a big reason for this is that it doesn't seem as risky as narcotics like heroin. (By the way folks, "heroine" is a female hero, not a drug :)). That's the theory, anyway.

Statistics again… pirates and global warming. I’ve had such an issue with the term gateway drug, for probably longer than I can really remember. Of course pot is the first illicit drug tried, it is more available and generally cheaper than other drugs. Did smoking pot make me try other drugs? No, at that point in my life I was going to be trying them anyway, it was my maturity level (lack of), the social environment I was in, the dirt bags I called friends. All these things added up. Had acid or heroin been as readily available they could have easily been the first tried. That and I still know loads of people that have never tried other drugs besides pot, or others who have only tried others once or twice and then never again. I know quite a few people who don’t drink alcohol or caffeine but smoke pot.

"Okay, smoking is bad; you shouldn't smoke. And alcohol is bad; you shouldn't drink alcohol. And as for drugs, well, drugs are bad; you shouldn't do drugs. That's about wraps it up. M’kay" - Mr. Mackey

Monique
2005-Dec-23, 05:44 PM
Statistics again… pirates and global warming. I’ve had such an issue with the term gateway drug, for probably longer than I can really remember. Of course pot is the first illicit drug tried, it is more available and generally cheaper than other drugs. Did smoking pot make me try other drugs? No, at that point in my life I was going to be trying them anyway, it was my maturity level (lack of), the social environment I was in, the dirt bags I called friends. All these things added up. Had acid or heroin been as readily available they could have easily been the first tried. That and I still know loads of people that have never tried other drugs besides pot, or others who have only tried others once or twice and then never again. I know quite a few people who don’t drink alcohol or caffeine but smoke pot.

"Okay, smoking is bad; you shouldn't smoke. And alcohol is bad; you shouldn't drink alcohol. And as for drugs, well, drugs are bad; you shouldn't do drugs. That's about wraps it up. M’kay" - Mr. Mackey
I agree. Birth gateway experience for drugs. 100% correlation. No person not experience birth ever do drugs. Many drugs available for long time in American and Europe. War on drugs recent event. I do not understand why is necessary.

Hugh Jass
2005-Dec-23, 06:30 PM
No person not experience birth ever do drugs.

Actually there is a big problem with fetal death and drug abuse. What mom does baby does.

But I do understand your point.;)

Monique
2005-Dec-23, 07:11 PM
No person not experience birth ever do drugs.


Actually there is a big problem with fetal death and drug abuse. What mom does baby does.

But I do understand your point.;)
Bold is mine.
Has always be so. War on drugs not change.

Gillianren
2005-Dec-23, 08:00 PM
I agree I do not understand why some drugs illegal but others legal. Why is alright to drink, but not smoke marijuana.

Oh, that's a big, huge chunk of the weirdness of politics, at least in the US. I can't speak for anywhere else. (Granted, I myself don't imbibe--I do drink, so as to avoid dying of dehydration--but this hardly seems the point.)

Thomas(believer)
2005-Dec-23, 08:11 PM
A little history of our drinking habits

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4455912.stm

Monique
2005-Dec-23, 08:19 PM
Oh, that's a big, huge chunk of the weirdness of politics, at least in the US. I can't speak for anywhere else. (Granted, I myself don't imbibe--I do drink, so as to avoid dying of dehydration--but this hardly seems the point.)
I believe should be personal choice. Humanity manage before "War on Drugs", I do not see point. Some people take drugs, some do not.

LurchGS
2005-Dec-23, 09:03 PM
I agree. Birth gateway experience for drugs. 100% correlation. No person not experience birth ever do drugs. Many drugs available for long time in American and Europe. War on drugs recent event. I do not understand why is necessary.

cut and dried, down to the lowest possible denominator? Economics. The government can't tax illicit drugs.

They can get away with taxing tobacco and alcohol because they go through processing choke points (though they can't tax the beer you brew at home for home use)

Any doofus with a closet and some lights can grow MJ - anywhere in the world. Any moron with a few glass bottles can brew up Meth - anywhere in the world.
the cocoa plant doesn't grow in the US, so the product has to be shipped in. No taxes cuz it's smuggled (I would think that if it were legal, most of it would be claimed, taxes paid, etc. Large quantities would still be smuggled, but far less)

Additionally - Tobacco and Alcohol have been part of our mainstream culture now for centuries. Other drugs (opium, etc) have always been culturally hidden - back rooms, etc. This is an extention of that attitude.

Personally, I think it's also an extension of the attitude that closed down the brothels all over the US during WWII

Monique
2005-Dec-23, 09:11 PM
LurchGS -- has not always been so. Coca Cola has name because use to have small amount of Cocaine in it, medicine in 1800's in America and Europe have cocaine and morphine.

War on Drugs is great foolishness.

wayneee
2005-Dec-23, 09:13 PM
heroine was developed by BAyer Corp , as a cough syrup to stop whooping cough epidemec

Zachary
2005-Dec-23, 09:29 PM
<snip>

Nice pic, but if the x-axis has a proper scale then the correlation is slightly blown :p. But I get your point, inferring that two things are correlated does not mean one variable is dependant on the other (or something along those lines)

Gillianren
2005-Dec-23, 10:22 PM
the cocoa plant doesn't grow in the US, so the product has to be shipped in. No taxes cuz it's smuggled (I would think that if it were legal, most of it would be claimed, taxes paid, etc. Large quantities would still be smuggled, but far less)

You mean coca, but it's a valid point nonetheless.

I'm not for a blanket legalizing of drugs, simply because there are some drugs that the general public should not have easy access to, but I do think that legalizing and taxing large numbers of drugs (and prostitution, come to that) would be intelligent. In theory, any idiot in the right climate can grow tobacco. In theory, any idiot can homebrew. (Though exploding beer bottles are quite likely for the idiot brewer.) However, most people go for convenience, which is after all what the food service industry relies on as well.

Monique
2005-Dec-23, 10:30 PM
You mean coca, but it's a valid point nonetheless.

I'm not for a blanket legalizing of drugs, simply because there are some drugs that the general public should not have easy access to, but I do think that legalizing and taxing large numbers of drugs (and prostitution, come to that) would be intelligent. In theory, any idiot in the right climate can grow tobacco. In theory, any idiot can homebrew. (Though exploding beer bottles are quite likely for the idiot brewer.) However, most people go for convenience, which is after all what the food service industry relies on as well.
I agree. I believe drugs get smuggle because are expensive if illegal. If legal, price people do not do risk to smuggle.

sarongsong
2005-Dec-23, 10:40 PM
heroine was developed by BAyer Corp , as a cough syrup to stop whooping cough epidemec"...the drug that Bayer launched under the trademark Heroin in 1898 was not an original discovery. Diacetylmorphine, a white, odourless, bitter, crystalline powder deriving from morphine, had been invented in 1874 by an English chemist, C R Wright.
But Dreser was the first to see its commercial potential. Scientists had been looking for some time for a non-addictive substitute for morphine, then widely used as a painkiller and in the treatment of respiratory diseases...Diacetylmorphine was first synthesised in the Bayer laboratory in 1897...The work seems to have been initiated by Dreser, who was by then aware of Wright's discovery, even though he subsequently implied that heroin was an original Bayer invention..."
http://opioids.com/heroin/heroinhistory.html

paulie jay
2005-Dec-24, 05:29 AM
Originally Posted by paulie jay
What is meant by the term is that once a person has become comfortable with using pot, they then see other drugs as being less scary.



Well, even this is I think highly unlikely. I smoke Cannibis, and am even less likely to try heroin or crack as a consequence.



Statistics again… pirates and global warming. I’ve had such an issue with the term gateway drug, for probably longer than I can really remember. Of course pot is the first illicit drug tried, it is more available and generally cheaper than other drugs. Did smoking pot make me try other drugs? No, at that point in my life I was going to be trying them anyway, it was my maturity level (lack of), the social environment I was in, the dirt bags I called friends. All these things added up. Had acid or heroin been as readily available they could have easily been the first tried. That and I still know loads of people that have never tried other drugs besides pot, or others who have only tried others once or twice and then never again. I know quite a few people who don’t drink alcohol or caffeine but smoke pot.


I think both of you missed the part where I said that I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the assertion. I was merely clarifying the term "gateway" as it was obvious that it had been misunderstood. I should ask that although both of your individual experiences may correlate, does that ring true for the majority? "My uncle smoked 2 packs a day and lived to be 103..."

Hugh Jass
2005-Dec-24, 09:06 AM
As I posted I knew it was going to seem to be a direct response to you. I didn't miss you posting your personal feelings, I meant my post as just a general issue I have with the term, pointed towards no one in particular.

I would still say the majority of the drug users I know, or knew, granted it's been several years that I’ve been around most of them, they were either going to try various drugs or not, there was not some progression from pot on down the road. The order in which they were tried was purely based on the people around, the interest, and the availability. The correlation to pot appearing as a gateway drug was availability, like I said growing up in northern California marijuana is often more easily accessible to teens than alcohol.

Monique
2005-Dec-24, 11:17 PM
As I posted I knew it was going to seem to be a direct response to you. I didn't miss you posting your personal feelings, I meant my post as just a general issue I have with the term, pointed towards no one in particular.

I would still say the majority of the drug users I know, or knew, granted it's been several years that I’ve been around most of them, they were either going to try various drugs or not, there was not some progression from pot on down the road. The order in which they were tried was purely based on the people around, the interest, and the availability. The correlation to pot appearing as a gateway drug was availability, like I said growing up in northern California marijuana is often more easily accessible to teens than alcohol.
Is problem? Has been so for long time,no? Why war on drugs now?

The Mangler
2005-Dec-25, 12:20 AM
Is problem? Has been so for long time,no? Why war on drugs now?
Since the beginning of man, there have been drugs. There will always be drugs. I think the 'war on drugs' is just a money making sceme (don't ask for referances, I don't have them. This is just my personal feeling about it). There is no way it will eradicate all drugs from this world.

Monique
2005-Dec-25, 12:50 AM
Since the beginning of man, there have been drugs. There will always be drugs. I think the 'war on drugs' is just a money making sceme (don't ask for referances, I don't have them. This is just my personal feeling about it). There is no way it will eradicate all drugs from this world.
War on Drugs make for good price support. :whistle:

Hugh Jass
2005-Dec-25, 12:54 AM
The "war on drugs" as it is, is really more of a political movement than anything. Yes I do believe some drugs should be illegal, but the way in which the "war" is being/has been fought is just a silly waste of money. It has been ineffective and costly, but it has been great to polarize a population politically and given individuals great talking points around election time.

Monique
2005-Dec-25, 12:59 AM
The "war on drugs" as it is, is really more of a political movement than anything. Yes I do believe some drugs should be illegal, but the way in which the "war" is being/has been fought is just a silly waste of money. It has been ineffective and costly, but it has been great to polarize a population politically and given individuals great talking points around election time.
I am curious. Why you must determine drugs other use?

Hugh Jass
2005-Dec-25, 01:03 AM
Not sure I understand the question, there maybe some language barrier on this one.
If I understand your question, I'm not saying drugs are political, the "war on drugs" is. A response to some real issues surrounding certain drugs and parts of society, then reacting with broad sweeping generalities on drugs and drug users.

Monique
2005-Dec-25, 01:08 AM
<snip>
Yes I do believe some drugs should be illegal, but the way in which the "war" is being/has been fought is just a silly waste of money.
<snip>

I ask about statement, my bold. Why do you choose for others? Alcohol do much damage, but is legal. Other drugs similar, but illegal. Seem arbitrary (correct word?) to me.


Edit to add:

I like av. I have sweet place for distinguish man with grey face hair. ;)

LurchGS
2005-Dec-25, 01:11 AM
the 'war on drugs' does have a benefit, and it may be what it's really all about... but the organizations tasked with the front line (coast guard, INS, DEA) need funding to carry out their other missions - if you hand them a couble billion (or less - I think the Coast Guard's budget is in the millions) and say "go hunt druggies, and as an aside, tend these other thigs.." it's a lot easier for budget-consciouis public to accept than "here's a few million, go enforce fisheries treaties and keep aids to navitagion up to snoff", since that only affects those who use navigable waterways, and not Joe Footbalfan in east LA

Gullible Jones
2005-Dec-25, 01:48 AM
I ask about statement, my bold. Why do you choose for others? Alcohol do much damage, but is legal. Other drugs similar, but illegal. Seem arbitrary (correct word?) to me.


Probably because it is possible to use alcohol with some degree of safety. That obviously is not the case with some drugs, e.g. heroin.

(And yes, I know about heroin's origin and history. The fact remains that, if take it in the doses required to get high, you're taking it in an addictive dosage. Some drugs simply cannot be used for recreational purposes with any degree of safety.)

Monique
2005-Dec-25, 01:51 AM
Probably because it is possible to use alcohol with some degree of safety. That obviously is not the case with some drugs, e.g. heroin.

(And yes, I know about heroin's origin and history. The fact remains that, if take it in the doses required to get high, you're taking it in an addictive dosage. Some drugs simply cannot be used for recreational purposes with any degree of safety.) Tobacco addictive, is legal. For many alcolhol addictive, is legal. What change for last hundred years to require such laws?

Thomas(believer)
2005-Dec-25, 02:05 AM
Bautforum very addictive and legal.
Politicians always need a war against something. Strange people.
But I am even more strange, I always vote for them.

Monique
2005-Dec-25, 02:36 AM
I am silly fool!! I live for love!! :)

LurchGS
2005-Dec-25, 02:38 AM
not me! I live for sex!

I'll die tomorrow.

Gillianren
2005-Dec-25, 03:37 AM
Tobacco addictive, is legal. For many alcolhol addictive, is legal. What change for last hundred years to require such laws?

There is no safe dose of tobacco. This, to my mind, makes it worse than alcohol, which may be beneficial in moderation. (I've seen studies going both ways, and since I don't drink alcohol at all for other reasons, I don't worry much about it.) What's more, alcohol is substantially less likely to kill someone outright and takes a larger dose to do so than, say, heroin. (It still happens far too often, of course.)

Certain drugs, it is my understanding, were criminalized for racist reasons--at least, that's what the History Channel told me. (Generally, this would mean that a certain ethnic group--say, the Chinese--used a certain drug--say, opium--in greater frequency than the WASP mainstream, so it was yet another attempt to persecute said ethnic group--the original California state constitution forbid "convicts, idiots, and Chinese" the right to vote.)

I don't want just anybody getting their hands on PCP. I don't want just anybody getting their hands on rohypnol. (Which I've probably just spelled incorrectly.) Frankly, I'm not really thrilled at some of the idiots I know who can get their hands on alcohol, but oh, well. No matter whether the drugs are legal or not, there will always be a certain percentage of idiots who can get their hands on 'em.

I think part of the reason behind drug laws actually stems from advances in science. Remember, 100 years ago, they put opium in children's cough syrup. I don't think any of us would dispute that being a bad thing; I don't think any of us would like the kind of rampant quackery permitted before science could say, "This thing has this effect, and this is bad." Heck, 100 years (actually a little less) ago, irradiated water was sold as a pick-me-up. Once drugs started being regulated for medicinal use, it didn't make sense for them to be free as the breeze for recreational use, given that the drugs were regulated for medical use because they could be very bad for people indeed.

LurchGS
2005-Dec-25, 04:18 AM
heh... reminded me of irradiated milk (which was perfectly safe to drink.

CocaCola used to have cocaine in it, too, I'm told. Cocaine was replaced with a much less dangerous, but hardly less habit forming caffeine.

My personal thought: Any individual is welcome to take any drug he wants. So long as he stays in the privacy of his own home. And so do any effects.

----

I am not my brother's keeper

Monique
2005-Dec-25, 04:52 AM
Gillianren, LurchGS, I agree with both. I do not believe is good to not regulate drugs, let them in softdrink. I do not think is good for perhaps PCP and other dangerous drugs. However, I believe if government regulate, is better. Is reason not to allow PCP. I do not see reason to say people cannot have alcohol, tobacco, some cocaine, marijuana, amphetamine, and other in private home.

Gillian -- tobacco bad for people, alcohol bad for people, caffeine bad for people. I believe is good to let people make choices.

paulie jay
2005-Dec-25, 05:12 AM
Tobacco addictive, is legal. For many alcolhol addictive, is legal. What change for last hundred years to require such laws?

None really. Opium has been a massive problem throughout Asia for centuries. In fact opium users have been routinely rounded up and executed. The kinds of problems generated by large sections a society addicted to opium are far greater than a society addicted to alcohol or cigarettes.

In many countries the governments are shifting towards a non-smoking stance. It may still be legal, but in these countries the price of cigarettes incurs a large proportion of tax. Cigarette advertising is outlawed in many countries. Smoking in public places is becoming more and more tightly controlled. Smoking in government workplaces is completely banned. While it may be a legal product, there is a definite undercurrent of discouragement.

Chocolate is addictive and unhealthy - we can extend the argument to the ridiculous but is there any point?

Monique
2005-Dec-25, 05:17 AM
Chocolate is addictive and unhealthy - we can extend the argument to the ridiculous but is there any point?
Is my point. Such choices for individual. Regulation work better...

To gambel is illness for some, but legal in may places in America. I believe each make own decision.

paulie jay
2005-Dec-25, 05:30 AM
But surely when an addiction impacts on a society to the extent that opium does in China, why should individual choice have any bearing on the matter?

LurchGS
2005-Dec-25, 05:36 AM
the problem here is that it's NOT just in the privacy of the home.. it's become a public issue. Kinda like Ron White's 'drunk in pubLIK' line.

Once it becomes a public problem, for the safety of ourselves we have to do something..But,as I said, if the user can keep the drugs and their effects inside his home, he can paint himself blue and do unmentionable things to the furniture, for all I care.

sarongsong
2005-Dec-25, 06:16 AM
Since the beginning of man, there have been drugs. There will always be drugs. I think the 'war on drugs' is just a money making sceme (don't ask for referances, I don't have them...That's OK, these guys (http://www.narconews.com/en.html) are on it, and have been for quite some time. (Note the site's language options.)

Hugh Jass
2005-Dec-25, 07:02 AM
Wow, I was only gone for a couple hours and y'all went nuts. Basically I agree with lots of what has been said here. Gillian summed up my thoughts pretty nicely. The OP was about meth, I think meth, PCP, crack a few others just don't belong out there. With some drugs any use is abuse, and irresponsible. Many others, may be harmful in small amounts, but "responsible" use is possible, and are able to be mostly kept in controlled environments and are not immediately a danger to the general public.

HenrikOlsen
2005-Dec-25, 12:14 PM
Since the beginning of man, there have been drugs. There will always be drugs. I think the 'war on drugs' is just a money making sceme (don't ask for referances, I don't have them. This is just my personal feeling about it). There is no way it will eradicate all drugs from this world.
<political rant>If the politicians would stop subsidies for agricultural products in the rich countries, there would be far less drug production in the poor countries as they'd be able to make a living producing real crops.</political rant>
That would save money on subsidies AND on the war on drugs.

paulie jay
2005-Dec-25, 11:50 PM
An interesting byproduct of the war in Afghanistan, a heroin producing country.
When the Taliban was controling the country, heroin production had ceased to a trickle and there was a great drain on the world's supply of heroin. Since Afghanistan has been "liberated from it oppressive regime", heroin production has soared back to previous levels - around 3/4 of the entire world's supply. I'm not saying it's a conspiracy, but it is a tragic price to pay.

These figures are from official dispatches that I've read as a Customs officer.

sarongsong
2007-May-10, 06:43 AM
Pathetic marketing 'breakthrough' now showing up in San Diego, too:
May 2, 2007
'Strawberry Quick' meth latest worry..."It's really a bitter substance...so if you're going to try to make it more consumable for the masses, then you're going to want to try to take that edge off whichever way you can," said Chris Harrison, chief illicit laboratory chemist at the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory...
Arizona Republic (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0502flavoredmeth0502.html?&wired)