# Legalize Drugs,  Why?



## PoliticalChic (Dec 1, 2010)

A first-ever drug analysis of drivers killed in car crashes found one in three tested positive for drugs in 2009, the Office of National Drug Control Policy reported Tuesday.

Gil Kerlikowske, director of the National Drug Control Policy, said the percentage was alarming and should serve as a wakeup call.

We have not paid very much attention to the drugged driving issue,  Kerlikowske, President Obamas so-called drug czar, told CNN. It is a significant problem.

Kerlikowske said he wanted to raise awareness not only of the dangers of driving under the influence of illegal drugs, but of getting behind the wheel while taking powerful prescription or over-the-counter medications.

As part of a Fatal Accident Reporting System, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration tests drivers killed in crashes for narcotics, stimulants, depressants, marijuana, hallucinogens, PCP, anabolic steroids and inhalants. These include illegal drugs, prescription drugs and over-the-counter medicines.

Drugs common in fatal car crashes  The Chart - CNN.com Blogs


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 1, 2010)

Umm did you notice this is happening while drugs are ILLEAGAL?


----------



## Article 15 (Dec 1, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> A first-ever drug analysis of drivers killed in car crashes found one in three tested positive for drugs in 2009, the Office of National Drug Control Policy reported Tuesday.
> 
> Gil Kerlikowske, director of the National Drug Control Policy, said the percentage was alarming and should serve as a wakeup call.
> 
> ...



Not sayin' it isn't dangerous to drive on drugs but most drugs are still detectable in your system days after you take them so I'm taking the 1 in 3 figure with a big grain of salt.


----------



## Article 15 (Dec 1, 2010)

Additionally, citing this study as an argument against legalizing drugs when the numbers include prescription drugs and over-the-counter drugs is whack.


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 1, 2010)

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/135532-the-results-of-legalizing-sin.html


----------



## Luissa (Dec 1, 2010)

So keeping them illegal is really getting the job done, I see.
God forbid we legalize them, and be able to regulate them.


----------



## rikules (Dec 1, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> A first-ever drug analysis of drivers killed in car crashes found one in three tested positive for drugs in 2009, the Office of National Drug Control Policy reported Tuesday.
> 
> Gil Kerlikowske, director of the National Drug Control Policy, said the percentage was alarming and should serve as a wakeup call.
> 
> ...




driving while under the influence of alcohol used to be (and perhaps still is) the most likely cause for vehicular accidents....

yet.....drinking alcohol is NOT illegal.

when it comes to alcohol the law makers were RATIONAL enough to make laws AGAINST DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE but NOT against DRINKING ALCOHOL

the same rational and logical laws should apply to drugs

your lack of rational reasoning skills (on SOME issues) is always a big disappointment to me.


----------



## BlindBoo (Dec 15, 2010)

FTA-The Office of National Drug Control Policy did not provide a breakdown of the drugs found in drivers who died in accidents....

Gee I wonder why?

I approve of legalizing all drugs for recreational use.  I do not approve of driving while under the influence of any drug.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 15, 2010)

> Legalize Drugs, Why?


Because the silly-assed and utterly failed "war" on (some) drugs is no more than a big welfare program for cops (federal state and local), do-gooder ONDCP bureaucrats and the prison-industrial complex...That's why.


----------



## eagleseven (Dec 15, 2010)

With drugs illegal, those who are illegally doping are also more likely to illegally drive intoxicated. Your article is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The majority of people who are wise enough to not drive drunk or doped, will not be regularly purchasing _illegal_ narcotics. Legalize drugs, and these people will still avoid driving drunk/doped...leaving the automobile fatality rate virtually unchanged.


----------



## Tom Clancy (Dec 15, 2010)

Driving high? 

Better than driving drunk.


----------



## sonialifedesign (Dec 27, 2010)

I think 'legalize drugs' is a great idea. The rate of fatal accidents and even taking illegal drugs can be reduced in this way, which is although a very necessary factor and the common welfare! Anyway, one has to change the norms in order to betterment the life.


----------



## eots (Dec 27, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> A first-ever drug analysis of drivers killed in car crashes found one in three tested positive for drugs in 2009, the Office of National Drug Control Policy reported Tuesday.
> 
> Gil Kerlikowske, director of the National Drug Control Policy, said the percentage was alarming and should serve as a wakeup call.
> 
> ...



lol.. how stupid this list every source of drugs there are...so with your logic prescription and over the counter medication should be illegal


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 27, 2010)

Luissa said:


> So keeping them illegal is really getting the job done, I see.
> God forbid we legalize them, and be able to regulate them.



How would you regulate cocaine and crack?


----------



## Luissa (Dec 27, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > So keeping them illegal is really getting the job done, I see.
> ...



How do you regulate prescription pills?
First off, you can make sure some asshole dealer isn't cutting them with vet drugs. 
Second, you can put an age limit on their use. It was easier to buy pot in high school, that it was beer. My pot dealer never checked my ID.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 27, 2010)

Luissa said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



I can understand that maybe with weed but with crack? I don't know, I've never met a functional person who can hold down a job who smokes crack, everyone I know who smokes crack lives in abandoned houses and begs for change.


----------



## Luissa (Dec 27, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



If you legalize coccaine you probably can cut down on crack use.


----------



## Luissa (Dec 27, 2010)

Crack came about AFTER cocaine was made illegal.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 27, 2010)

Luissa said:


> Crack came about AFTER cocaine was made illegal.



Yeah I know, I just don't think all hard drugs like crack, heroin and meth should be legal though. Cocaine maybe because I have known people who could hold down a job doing it, the other drugs not so much.


----------



## Luissa (Dec 27, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Crack came about AFTER cocaine was made illegal.
> ...



Heroin is already legal, it is called Oxycotin.  It is legal for big pharma, but not the little guy. I had two friends become addicted to oxys, then start heroin because it was cheaper.
I think drug use should be decriminalized. The only thing the War on Drugs has accomplished, is wasting tax dollars, making drug lords wealthier, and creating more drug addicts.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 27, 2010)

Luissa said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



I agree that the war on drugs has caused street dealers to become wealthy and caused our crime rates to soar because of wars over drug turf, I just don't know if legalizing stuff like meth and heroin would be good because I have seen first hand the effects those drugs have on peoples lives. If someone is addicted to drugs and needs a fix he will still kill/steal/ to support that habit whether it is legal or not.


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 27, 2010)

Portugal..


----------



## MikeK (Dec 27, 2010)

BlindBoo said:


> FTA-The Office of National Drug Control Policy did not provide a breakdown of the drugs found in drivers who died in accidents....
> 
> Gee I wonder why?
> 
> [...]


Because this is one of those very few times the ONDCP tacitly acknowledges that *beverage alcohol is a drug.*  Notice that no mention is made of how many of those killed in vehicle accidents were DUI of alcohol.  Are we to assume there were none?

Now that pot legalization is a rising issue it is Kerlikowski's job to convey the impression that one out of three highway fatalities are the result of driving stoned -- even though that would be impossible to determine.  

The report is pure drug warrior propaganda.


----------



## Modbert (Dec 27, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Additionally, citing this study as an argument against legalizing drugs when the numbers include prescription drugs and over-the-counter drugs is whack.



Agreed. Plus, as we all know, possession of aspirin can get you 15-20.


----------



## MikeK (Dec 27, 2010)

Tom Clancy said:


> Driving high?
> 
> Better than driving drunk.


Certainly true.  

Stoners keep to the right and drive very slowly.


----------



## Modbert (Dec 27, 2010)

For those who actually want to read something that makes sense:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/26/AR2010122600610.html


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 27, 2010)

Modbert said:


> For those who actually want to read something that makes sense:
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/26/AR2010122600610.html





JBeukema said:


> Portugal..


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 27, 2010)

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/135532-the-results-of-legalizing-sin.html


----------



## Modbert (Dec 27, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Portugal..



Netherlands has a good system in place as well. Didn't see that post when I was reading through the thread the first time.


----------



## Bones (Dec 27, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> A first-ever drug analysis of drivers killed in car crashes found one in three tested positive for drugs in 2009, the Office of National Drug Control Policy reported Tuesday.
> 
> Gil Kerlikowske, director of the National Drug Control Policy, said the percentage was alarming and should serve as a wakeup call.
> 
> ...



Funny how they don't include alcohol which is one of the most lethal and most abused drugs of all.  

By the way, it's nobody's business what I put into my body as long as I do not maim another living thing in the process.


----------



## MikeK (Dec 27, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Crack came about AFTER cocaine was made illegal.
> ...


While crack and methamphetamine are biologically and psychologically damaging drugs it is possible to lead a relatively normal life while maintaining a regulated heroin addiction --  provided one is not employed as a driver, machine operator, etc., and is able to obtain pure, accurately measured dosages.  

The problems presently associated with heroin addiction derive from that drug's illegal status which leaves the addict at the mercy of criminal suppliers.  They never know the potency or purity of the drug they purchase on the street.  

Switzerland's experiment with making heroin available to addicts has been relatively successful thus far.  While it has not reduced the number of addicts it has eliminated the crime and overdose rate associated with illegal heroin and the rate of HIV infection has been significantly reduced.  

The Netherlands recently adopted a similar program which has been similarly successful.  

Portugal recently legalize all drugs and so far the result has been totally positive.


----------



## Big Black Dog (Dec 27, 2010)

Go to Amsterdam and have a walk around.  Take in all the sights.  After you see that cesspool, and you still want to legalize drugs, you are worse off than I suspected.


----------



## Modbert (Dec 27, 2010)

Big Black Dog said:


> Go to Amsterdam and have a walk around.  Take in all the sights.  After you see that cesspool, and you still want to legalize drugs, you are worse off than I suspected.



Ah yes, what a "cesspool".

nrc.nl - International - Netherlands to close prisons for lack of criminals



> The Dutch justice ministry has announced it will close eight prisons and cut 1,200 jobs in the prison system. A decline in crime has left many cells empty. During the 1990s the Netherlands faced a shortage of prison cells, but a decline in crime has since led to overcapacity in the prison system. The country now has capacity for 14,000 prisoners but only 12,000 detainees.



12,000 prisoners in a population of over 16.5 million. What a terrible country!


----------



## MikeK (Dec 27, 2010)

Luissa said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...


I've been using Oxy(codone) on a daily basis for the past fifteen months to control the pain from spinal stenosis.  I take half of a 5mg tablet twice a day and thus far I've not experienced any symptom of addiction (craving, nervousness) during those days when I can get by without taking any.  

I don't experience any pleasure from the drug.  It just acts to transform the gnawing pain into tolerable pressure.  So far I haven't built up a tolerance which would require increased dosage, which is where the danger of addiction resides.


----------



## Bones (Dec 27, 2010)

Big Black Dog said:


> Go to Amsterdam and have a walk around.  Take in all the sights.  After you see that cesspool, and you still want to legalize drugs, you are worse off than I suspected.


I suggest you tour a prison or two.  One that's filled with non-violent criminals who were busted with a little pot or a few pills and get back to me on how you feel about legalization.  

Remember.  The United States is five percent of the world's population and twenty-five percent of the world's prison population.  So, why are these drug addicts in jail rather than in rehab?  Why is someone in jail for possessing a drug?  How about we jail a person for what they do rather than for what they inject into themselves.


----------



## MikeK (Dec 28, 2010)

Big Black Dog said:


> Go to Amsterdam and have a walk around.  Take in all the sights.  After you see that cesspool, and you still want to legalize drugs, you are worse off than I suspected.


I've been to Amsterdam, which is a beautiful little city.  Where did you hang out -- in the rear of the ver Brugge district?


----------



## westwall (Dec 28, 2010)

Drugs should have never been criminalized in the first place.  Prohibition was only useful for the creation of organised crime.  The current drug war is no more than a war on our civil liberties.  The last time I looked the Declaration of Independance said we are free to seek life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  If somebodys idea of happiness is to get high who are any of us to tell they can't or shouldn't.

Penalize teh criminal misuse of drugs for sure.  Drive drunk or high and the penalties should be severe.  But growing pot in your backyard?  C'mon, take a violent criminal off the street.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 28, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> A first-ever drug analysis of drivers killed in car crashes found one in three tested positive for drugs in 2009, the Office of National Drug Control Policy reported Tuesday.
> 
> Gil Kerlikowske, director of the National Drug Control Policy, said the percentage was alarming and should serve as a wakeup call.
> 
> ...



What an amazing statistic. What does this have to do with the issues of drugs being legal or not? How does the fact that 1/3 of drivers who managed to get killed had some sort of drug in their system, which includes both legal and prescription drugs, as well as illegal drugs, prove anything other than the fact that Americans take drugs? Should people taking anti depressants be prohibited from driving? Those who take Aspirin?

You really need to find better arguments that drugs should be illegal that a study that shows people take drugs.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 28, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



My bet is you have met one or two in your life.


----------



## BlindBoo (Dec 29, 2010)

Luissa said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...





By the same logic if you legalized Maijuana you could cut down on Hash use too. 

Freebase, aka Crack, is a smokeable form of cocaine.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 29, 2010)

MikeK said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



So if heroin was legal here in the US, and your son or daughter wanted to go and try it, you would be ok with that?


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 29, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



LMAO you know less than zero, in Baltimore there are plenty of crack heads arounds, not everywhere is nice like your lily white suburbia clown.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 29, 2010)

I have a question for all of you who support legalizing drugs, if your own children wanted to go into a store and buy legalized heroine, cocaine, or crystal meth, would you be ok with that? or is this like those people who say they have no problems with black people but would throw a shit fit if their son or daughter brought one home?


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 29, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> I have a question for all of you who support legalizing drugs, if your own children wanted to go into a store and buy legalized heroine, cocaine, or crystal meth, would you be ok with that?


I wouldn't necessarily want my child buying porn, a copy of Mein Kampf, or dog meat, but that doesn't mean I support making it illegal for those who've no problem with it.

Some of us don't see a need to use the State to force own own ethics and morals on others.


----------



## westwall (Dec 29, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...







No, I wouldn't, but then I wouldn't be comfortable with them smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol either.  Narcotics are bad, there's no denying it.  However, how many totally innocent people have to die from drug gang wars over territory, how many innocent people have to be sent to the poor house by avaricious drug agents looking for the next seizure to pad their resume?  

At some point you have to figure out that innocent lives are worth more than the lives lost due to addiction.  Decriminalization would make drugs cost drop to nearly nothing.  Thus no need to burglerise the neighborhoods.  Hell the governement could give the addicts there drugs and just let them camp out in their rooms till they kick off.  I would much rather do that and keep non violent folks out of jail.

That way the overall cost of incarceration would drop precipitously because only the violent ones would be in prison dropping the overall prison population.


----------



## westwall (Dec 29, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> I have a question for all of you who support legalizing drugs, if your own children wanted to go into a store and buy legalized heroine, cocaine, or crystal meth, would you be ok with that? or is this like those people who say they have no problems with black people but would throw a shit fit if their son or daughter brought one home?






The crap has been illegal for decades.  Show me where the drug laws have worked?  The prison population climbs ever upwards.  Did prohibition work?  Then why do you think these laws are working?


----------



## mdn2000 (Dec 29, 2010)

Legalizing drugs would be like privatization of government.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> I have a question for all of you who support legalizing drugs, if your own children wanted to go into a store and buy legalized heroine, cocaine, or crystal meth, would you be ok with that?



So does that mean you'd let your kids have booze, porn, cigars, a car or a gun?


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> I have a question for all of you who support legalizing drugs, if your own children wanted to go into a store and buy legalized heroine, cocaine, or crystal meth, would you be ok with that? or is this like those people who say they have no problems with black people but would throw a shit fit if their son or daughter brought one home?



I have to imagine that most people who support drug legalization also support age limits.  So, this question is mostly moot; your children would only be going into a store to buy the drugs legally once they are of age and you can no longer dictate their behavior anyway.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

You guys are really comparing heroin to porn, booze and smokes?


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > MikeK said:
> ...



I don't like the way things are going now, but I don't think just creating an open drug market where there are stores that openly sell crack, heroin and meth is a good idea either.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

Montrovant said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > I have a question for all of you who support legalizing drugs, if your own children wanted to go into a store and buy legalized heroine, cocaine, or crystal meth, would you be ok with that? or is this like those people who say they have no problems with black people but would throw a shit fit if their son or daughter brought one home?
> ...




No that is not true, kids get a hold of alcohol now because they get it from other kids who have access to it or other adults who supply it for them, legalizing these drugs will just make it easier for kids to get their hands on it.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

Father Time said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > I have a question for all of you who support legalizing drugs, if your own children wanted to go into a store and buy legalized heroine, cocaine, or crystal meth, would you be ok with that?
> ...



If my kids were of legal age, I would rather they have all of that booze, porn, smokes and a gun instead of heroin.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > I have a question for all of you who support legalizing drugs, if your own children wanted to go into a store and buy legalized heroine, cocaine, or crystal meth, would you be ok with that? or is this like those people who say they have no problems with black people but would throw a shit fit if their son or daughter brought one home?
> ...



I never said the current laws were working.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

MikeK said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



But, the Swiss offer heroin to addicts only right? or can anyone show up and get a fix? I know Iran also has a big needle exchange program now as well, but that doesn't mean anyone can show up and get free heroin.


----------



## editec (Dec 30, 2010)

Big Black Dog said:


> Go to Amsterdam and have a walk around. Take in all the sights. After you see that cesspool, and you still want to legalize drugs, you are worse off than I suspected.


 
Cesspool?

Clearly you have never been there.


----------



## westwall (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...






Why not exactly?  Right now the drugs are everywhere.  Anyone can buy them who wants to, the only rub is they're pricey because they are illegal.  Then when someone gets hooked and they finally wish to get off the drugs they are allready pretty much screwed.  They allmost invariably have a criminal record, oftentimes peppered with non-violent felonies, but felonies non the less.  

So even after they get clean they can't get a good job.  Given the nature of the people involved (addictive personality disorder) they will invariably crack under the pressure of not being able to be productive and make a good living because of the stigma.

This system is so clearly not working that to blindly follow on with it is an example of insanity.  Something else must be attempted.  Just carrying on because you can't think of anything better is foolish.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



But, how does making drugs legal do anything to help the addictions that addicts have? if heroin is legal doesn't that give the addicts less of a reason to try and get straight?


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > A first-ever drug analysis of drivers killed in car crashes found one in three tested positive for drugs in 2009, the Office of National Drug Control Policy reported Tuesday.
> ...



That is the larger problem and one of the potential issues with legalizing MJ.  To my knowledge, there is no quantitative test to see if someone is acutely intoxicated with MJ.  

As MJ is fat soluble, any use will be detected in the system for 2-4 weeks (unless someone is very lean and is a first time user.  It's probably closer to a week).  Cocaine/Meth is detected in the system for 3-4 days.  The point is, an autopsy can't tell if someone was impaired with drugs during their fatal accident.  It can just tell if they had remote use.  Given that substance abuse begets more substance abuse, I am not at all surprised at this statistic.


----------



## westwall (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...






The first thing it does is remove the stigma of being a felon once they get clean.  That removes a significant factor in why most addicts fail in their recoveries.  You doom the vast majority of them to fail.  If drugs are decriminalized the price drops out of the market so there is little need for the addicts to commit crimes in the first place to feed their habit.  Cocaine obtained legally from teh governement (yes it is very possible) costs pennies instead of hundreds of dollars.  Drugs are cheap for the most part.  Their cost is in the diseases the users get from inferior drug making methods and of course the legal issues involved.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> But, how does making drugs legal do anything to help the addictions that addicts have? if heroin is legal doesn't that give the addicts less of a reason to try and get straight?



Look at what happened with methadone.  That's the best argument against legalizing opiates/opiods. 

I think MJ should be legal.  I would never support legalizing any opiate, cocaine, methamphetamine, or LSD.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You make very good points you may very well be right, its just from my experiences of seeing people I know get hooked on these drugs just makes me shudder when I think about them being sold legally and cheap for everyone to buy.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > But, how does making drugs legal do anything to help the addictions that addicts have? if heroin is legal doesn't that give the addicts less of a reason to try and get straight?
> ...



I agree, I'm just thinking if these things are legal instead of seeing college kids party and drink it up, we will be seeing them party and smoke up some crack or crystal meth instead. You can't tell me these things are the same.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



They aren't.  For one thing, meth and cocaine are addictive and carry the potential of an acute overdose.  MJ doesn't do that.


----------



## westwall (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...






I agree it's a dangerous consideration and there probably will be individuals who get addicted who probably never would have.  However, I think the complete elimination of innocent deaths will more than make up the difference.  I hate hearing about children laying in their beds being killed by gang bangers shooting up some neighborhood.  Decriminalize drugs and that shit stops!


----------



## westwall (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...






No, they're not but the kids do it anyway.  Now when they get caught it is a criminal matter and they're screwed.  Treat it as a medical problem instead.  They get the treatment they need and instead of paying for 20 cops to go out and do useless buy/bust operations that don't accomplish a damn thing, that money can be directed at prevention and treatment which does do some good.


----------



## westwall (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...






Alcohol does too.  Every year we have reports of some poor college kid dying of acute alcohol poisoning.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Alot of that is because college kids abuse alcohol and don't know their limits, these idiots guzzle Four Lokos through a beer bong when that has a 14-15% alcohol content, I think classes need to be in these schools on alcohol awareness and training.


----------



## westwall (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...






Sounds like every other drug that has been listed doesn't it?


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



But, how do you educate someone on the proper amount of heroin or crystal meth to take?


----------



## Oddball (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...


Apples and submarines.

In fact, decrim/legalization favors the weaker substance over the stronger, for a whole host of reasons....This is why the sales in liquor stores is overwhelmingly in the areas of beer and wine, with hard liquor sales bringing up the rear by quite a distance.


----------



## kwc57 (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Not true.  Kids already have easy access to any drug they want, just like alcohol.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

Oddball said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



That plus the good hard liquors are more expensive, a good bottle of Hennessy now is over $30 a bottle.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

kwc57 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Yes but if these drugs are legalized the price will go down, which makes the drugs even easier to get, they can find a willing adult to walk into a store and buy them heroin instead of purchasing it on the street for a more expensive price.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 30, 2010)

$30 a bottle isn't expensive...Try pricing out some of the single malt scotches.

In any case, you've swerved into another point...That being those who do go for the stronger stuff have a large constituency, who do so for reasons other than the buzz.

Pointing to crack and tar heroin as what would be the "norm" under a decrim/legalization scenario simply doesn't hold up in reality.


----------



## kwc57 (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Alcohol is relatively cheap and easy to buy.  I don't drink the stuff.  Well, I drink in one year what some people drink in one evening.  Alcohol just isn't part of my life.  That was the way I was raised.  Simply because it is available.......isn't a temptation for me to buy it and use it.  Drugs are the same way.  For some reason, people think that if drugs were legalized, there would be a stampede on the stores, everyone would get high and there would be orgies in the street.  Why?  Why do you think legal availability will increase use?  If that were true, it would be true with any and all legal products, be it pot, beer or french fries.  Do we have a french fry epidemic?


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

Oddball said:


> $30 a bottle isn't expensive...Try pricing out some of the single malt scotches.
> 
> In any case, you've swerved into another point...That being those who do go for the stronger stuff have a large constituency, who do so for reasons other than the buzz.
> 
> *Pointing to crack and tar heroin as what would be the "norm" under a decrim/legalization scenario simply doesn't hold up in reality.*



I agree but several posters have said they should go ahead and legalize all of it, meth, heroin, hash, meth, the whole package.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

kwc57 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Funny that you mention it lol, have you seen all the fat kids lately? I think we DO have a french fry epidemic!


----------



## kwc57 (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Really?  Would you buy it for them?  I wouldn't.  I'd venture that the vast majority in this thread wouldn't either.  How many adults do you think they would have to ask....provided they actually had the balls to ask....before they find one willing?


----------



## HUGGY (Dec 30, 2010)

*Legalize Drugs, Why?*

Removing the paranoia would make them more fun to take.

More in line with that whole "pursuit of happiness" thingy.


----------



## kwc57 (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Yes we do, and look at all the heat Michelle Obama is taking for suggesting limiting what schools can feed kids.  Why do we want people to have liberty and freedom in food and alcohol, but not drugs.  Misused, they can all kill us.  The true conservative response is liberty and personal responsibility.  Tain't the gubmints bidness!


----------



## kwc57 (Dec 30, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> *Legalize Drugs, Why?*
> 
> Removing the paranoia would make them more fun to take.



hmmmmm.....some of them cause paranoia, so I'm not sure we can totally eliminate that factor.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

kwc57 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



Kids have no problem finding ways to get alcohol now, and find willing adults to go into the store and buy it for them. I wouldn't do it, but if drugs were legalized how would that be any different? adults would take the moral high ground all of a sudden and not supply kids with drugs?


----------



## HUGGY (Dec 30, 2010)

kwc57 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > *Legalize Drugs, Why?*
> ...



I think the fact that one's life is pretty much ruined if caught is probably the biggest problem.


----------



## kwc57 (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Define adult.  I'm guessing that these adults are just over the legal limit of 21 and still have some maturing to do.  The point is this, people who want to use will continue to want to use.  People who don't won't all of a sudden have some huge temptation to become drug users.  What is the logic that drives anti-legalization folks to think that drug use will all of a sudden take some big double digit jump?


----------



## rikules (Dec 30, 2010)

kwc57 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



"What is the logic that drives anti-legalization folks to think that drug use will all of a sudden take some big double digit jump?"


they are conservatives. logic doesn't apply.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

kwc57 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



I'm not saying that drug use will double or anything, your right people who want to use will continue to use. I'm just saying from my personal experience of seeing and dealing with people addicted to drugs, I just can't imagine seeing these things legally available in stores for people to buy just like that.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



If someone is addicted to heroin or crystal meth their lives are pretty much ruined whether they are caught or not.


----------



## kwc57 (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



And I've seen alcohol destroy lives.  Went to a funeral two weeks ago for a guy who slowly drank himself to death.  Do I say, "I just can't imagine seeing these things legally available in stores for people to buy just like that"?  No.  Why?  We went down that road once before and the "cure" was worse than the disease.  Legalizing booze did away with the organized crime part of the business that sprang up to give people who wanted to drink the booze they desired.  Drug legalization will do the same thing.  It still all boils down to liberty and personal responsibility.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > $30 a bottle isn't expensive...Try pricing out some of the single malt scotches.
> ...


I'm one of them.

Under that paradigm, things like crystal meth and tar heroin would vanish overnight, much the way bathtub gin did after the end of prohibition.

Now, you might in turn point out that there are still moonshiners, and there are....Yet, they do what they do largely as hobbyists and, as an added benefit, Chicago isn't a shooting gallery for people who are in it only for the illicit profits.


----------



## HUGGY (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



Not necessarily.  Most of the trauma of even harder drugs is related to what they have to do to get them.  AND more to the point of the OP there would be more people safe in their homes and safely for the public off of the streets if they could do their chemical relaxation without fear in their own environment.  i suspect that many of the "accidents" cited were on the way to or from a clandestine drug deal.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

Oddball said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



But, bathtub gin was taken away because people could now go into a store and buy real gin. Are you saying if we legalized things like marijuana and other lesser drugs, people wouldn't want heroin or crack anymore? I doubt very much that would be the case.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 30, 2010)

rikules said:


> "What is the logic that drives anti-legalization folks to think that drug use will all of a sudden take some big double digit jump?"
> 
> 
> they are conservatives. logic doesn't apply.


Plenty of alleged "liberals" use that lame-assed jabbering point....But logic hasn't applied to them either, since at least the onset of industrial revolution.


----------



## westwall (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...






You don't.  You educate them on what the signs of toxicity are.  What to do when the signs emerge and most importantly when it is no longer a legal issue they will be far more likely to call for help.  A simple shot of Narcan deals with a heroin overdose...provided the paramedics get there to administer it.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



Legalizing drugs may take crime off the streets and people will be able to shoot up in their own homes but it still does not take away the damage that years of heroin, meth, crack etc. abuse will do to an addict, legalizing these things does not automatically fix everything for these people.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

kwc57 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



You make a good point.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

Oddball said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



The grandchildren of the moonshiners are now cooking crank in my old hometown.  It doesn't matter what the substance is, as long as it is illegal there will be a market for it and people will use that to try and supplement their incomes (or simply survive in the case of the new "Moonshiners").  

That doesn't mean that just making everything legal is the solution to it.  At some point asking "what is the net gain for society"? is a legitimate question.  

Even the purest of Methamphetamine is a wicked drug.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



But, as soon as you inject heroin its pretty much too late to try and stop the high right? I mean using heroin is not like sitting there and drinking beer after beer, you can always stop drinking after a certain amount but once you inject that needle how can you go back?


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> You don't.  You educate them on what the signs of toxicity are.  What to do when the signs emerge and most importantly when it is no longer a legal issue they will be far more likely to call for help.  A simple shot of Narcan deals with a heroin overdose...provided the paramedics get there to administer it.



Narcan is only effective if you are able to find the person the person before their respiratory drive goes to 0.  

It also doesn't deal with the problem of narcotics.  It's just an antidote to overdose.


----------



## HUGGY (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



I don't think it is anyone's business to "fix everything" for anyone else.  Some people are just going to be alcoholics...heroin users...pot smokers etc..  Dehumanizing them certainly does not improve the whole situation...for the user or society.


----------



## westwall (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...





There are allready laws on the books that deal with this.  The problem is very little resources are given over to enforcement.  I guarantee you though, if the enforcement is stepped and more importantly the penalties are stepped up, you will have very few adults willing to risk prison for a kid they don't know.

Complicit adults who wish to screw their childrens lives up are plentiful and they allready do it so decriminalization won't affect them anyway.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

Oddball said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> > "What is the logic that drives anti-legalization folks to think that drug use will all of a sudden take some big double digit jump?"
> ...



I don't see what being conserative has to do with this, not ever liberal wants drugs legalized either.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



You make a good point, I certainly don't have all the answers I just know that I want to see as few people as possible become drug users.


----------



## westwall (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...






No they're not.  There are lots of functional heroin addicts who go about their lives and no one knows who or what they suffer from.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> But, as soon as you inject heroin its pretty much too late to try and stop the high right? I mean using heroin is not like sitting there and drinking beer after beer, you can always stop drinking after a certain amount but once you inject that needle how can you go back?



Hitting someone with Narcan not only stops the high, it causes a 180 turn so that the person goes through withdrawal and people tend to go a little apeshit when they get it.  They try to avoid it unless it's absolutely necessary.  

The real problem with opiates is the addictive potential they have.  People that are hooked have a hard time kicking it.  Legality isn't going to change that.  The hallmark of addiction/dependence is using a substance regardless of negative consequences to include loss of job, family, etc.  Chemical addiction is real.  It's not simply a matter of being "weak".  Legalizing opiates only removes criminal sanctions for an addict.  It doesn't change the fact that people that are addicted to opiates are non-productive.  

I don't think we need to contribute to social Darwinism in the name of individual liberty.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



You have a point, stiffer penalties may work if they are enforced.


----------



## del (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> You guys are really comparing heroin to porn, booze and smokes?



can't fool you for long, huh?


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



There is an upper limit to functionality for a heroin addict that is significantly lower than a sober person.  

Eventually the addiction catches up with you.  Again, look at what happened with Methadone.  

It was supposed to be a magic cure for heroin addiction.  In the end people just traded one addiction for the other.  The only benefit of methadone is that users avoid the needle and the criminal side in order to get their fix.  

That being said, you don't see many productive members of society who are regulars at the methadone clinic.


----------



## westwall (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...




That is the case though.  Of course there are allways going to be a few who go on to harder things.  But the majority won't and if the stuff is legal you don't see a lot of meth use because the cocaine (especially pure) is actually cheaper to get, give a better effect and in general has no bad side effects.  

If you have a choice of buying moonshine from some garage operation or fine whiskey from a store with a government stamp on it...and the good stuff is cheaper, why would you ever buy the crap that can kill you?


----------



## westwall (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...






Where have we ever claimed that?  We fully acknowledge that that is true.  However the overall benefit to society is far better with the drugs legal.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > rikules said:
> ...


That's largely because they didn't meet a massive, freedom-killing failure of a nanny state program that they didn't like.

I was, BTW, pointing out the absurdity of the claim that divorcing oneself from logic isn't an affliction suffered exclusively by so-called "conservatives".


----------



## HUGGY (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > But, as soon as you inject heroin its pretty much too late to try and stop the high right? I mean using heroin is not like sitting there and drinking beer after beer, you can always stop drinking after a certain amount but once you inject that needle how can you go back?
> ...



I injured my back about seven years ago and the pain was off the charts.  They prescribed pain killers progressively stronger until I was popping methadone like M & M's.  I was thoroughly addicted while HAVING to take them for about 3 months then it took about three weeks to wean myself clean off them after my back healed.  The addiction to opiates is over rated.  Now cigarettes...  That's a whole horse of a different color.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



I see what your saying but, what could be put on the market to take people away from wanting crystal, heroin and crack? because marijuana isn't it, those guys who are real addicts don't want weed anymore.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> That is the case though.  Of course there are allways going to be a few who go on to harder things.  But the majority won't and if the stuff is legal you don't see a lot of meth use because the cocaine (especially pure) is actually cheaper to get, give a better effect and in general has no bad side effects.
> 
> If you have a choice of buying moonshine from some garage operation or fine whiskey from a store with a government stamp on it...and the good stuff is cheaper, why would you ever buy the crap that can kill you?



That's not really true.  

Meth has a much longer half life than cocaine and, while also a stimulant, it has different effects than Cocaine.  

Their mechanism of action on the brain is similar, but not exactly the same.


----------



## westwall (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...






The net gain for society is you no longer have completely innocent bystanders killed because of wars over drug selling territory.  You don't have dipshits breaking into others houses to feed their habit, you don't have drug addled halfwits abusing their children because they are afraid to seek help.  The list is a pretty long one if you just think about it.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> Legalizing drugs may take crime off the streets and people will be able to shoot up in their own homes but_* it still does not take away the damage that years of heroin, meth, crack etc. abuse will do to an addict, legalizing these things does not automatically fix everything for these people.*_


Once again, you're operating from premises that are false on their face, not the least of which that it's not gubmint's job to "fix" people.


----------



## westwall (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...







Why do you wish to control peoples ability to life, liberty, and their pursuit of happiness?


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



That very well maybe, I havent met one though. I know a few people who are heroin addicts and they are barely hanging onto basic jobs like working at fast food to support their habits and shacking up with other addicts, I definently wouldn't consider them valuable members of society.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


----------



## Oddball (Dec 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> The net gain for society is you no longer have completely innocent bystanders killed because of wars over drug selling territory.  You don't have dipshits breaking into others houses to feed their habit, you don't have drug addled halfwits abusing their children because they are afraid to seek help.  The list is a pretty long one if you just think about it.


You don't have dangerous meth labs literally destroying houses on contact from the airborne toxins, and subsequently endangering entire neighborhoods....The list goes on and on....


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> I injured my back about seven years ago and the pain was off the charts.  They prescribed pain killers progressively stronger until I was popping methadone like M & M's.  I was thoroughly addicted while HAVING to take them for about 3 months then it took about three weeks to wean myself clean off them after my back healed.  The addiction to opiates is over rated.  Now cigarettes...  That's a whole horse of a different color.



Over-rated for you perhaps, but your neurophysiology is not the same as the next man.  It's the same reason while some people can drink alcohol in moderation their whole lives and other progress to addiction.

The medical establishment has inadvertently created a lot of addicts with pain pills.  Most people can kick them, but some people get on them and never can.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

Oddball said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Legalizing drugs may take crime off the streets and people will be able to shoot up in their own homes but_* it still does not take away the damage that years of heroin, meth, crack etc. abuse will do to an addict, legalizing these things does not automatically fix everything for these people.*_
> ...



What is false about what I said? when should I say the government should fix anything?


----------



## Oddball (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> That very well maybe, I havent met one though. I know a few people who are heroin addicts and they are barely hanging onto basic jobs like working at fast food to support their habits and shacking up with other addicts, I definently wouldn't consider them valuable members of society.


I can say that for some of the booze hounds I've worked with.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> The net gain for society is you no longer have completely innocent bystanders killed because of wars over drug selling territory.  You don't have dipshits breaking into others houses to feed their habit, you don't have drug addled halfwits abusing their children because they are afraid to seek help.  The list is a pretty long one if you just think about it.



You presume.  By that logic, alcoholics never cause harm to society at the hands of their drug of choice.

That is not the case.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

Oddball said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > That very well maybe, I havent met one though. I know a few people who are heroin addicts and they are barely hanging onto basic jobs like working at fast food to support their habits and shacking up with other addicts, I definently wouldn't consider them valuable members of society.
> ...



There are plenty of congressman, governors, Military commanders, professional athletes, doctors and lawyers who are alcoholics, how many heroin addicts are in prominent positions? heroin addicts may be do ok as Rock Stars or something but what else can they do?


----------



## westwall (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > You don't.  You educate them on what the signs of toxicity are.  What to do when the signs emerge and most importantly when it is no longer a legal issue they will be far more likely to call for help.  A simple shot of Narcan deals with a heroin overdose...provided the paramedics get there to administer it.
> ...






The problem is if it is a legal matter most will wait till it's too late to save them.  If it is a purely medical issue there will be no issues there.  As far as the other, who cares?  I could give a flying f you know what what someone does in the privacy of their home.  Who are you to tell them what they can and can't do?  If you truly believe in this great country of ours then the Declaration of Independence and it's guarantee of the rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness should actually mean something to you.

The main problem with illegal narcotics is as Huggy said, the vile stuff they have to do to feed the habit.  Legalise the drugs and that whole paradigm changes overnight.


----------



## del (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



not everyone can do that, we call ourselves alcoholics.

addicts aren't any different than alcoholics in that there is something inside of them that drives the need to change how they feel. it isn't the drug that causes the addiction; it's the person using it, imo. there are probably people that could use heroin *socially*.

personally, i think it's foolish to allow one recreational drug (alcohol) to be legal and all the others are illegal when alcohol far and away causes more damage and misery to society.


----------



## westwall (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > But, as soon as you inject heroin its pretty much too late to try and stop the high right? I mean using heroin is not like sitting there and drinking beer after beer, you can always stop drinking after a certain amount but once you inject that needle how can you go back?
> ...






First off individual liberty is a cornerstone of the founding of this country.  What ever someone wants to do to themselves is none of your business.  The only concern that we should have is that people do no harm to others.  Legalising drugs removes a tremendous amount of harm to others.  And, if the addicts decide to go straight, they have a leg up because they are no longer considered criminals but ill.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> The problem is if it is a legal matter most will wait till it's too late to save them.  If it is a purely medical issue there will be no issues there.  As far as the other, who cares?  I could give a flying f you know what what someone does in the privacy of their home.  Who are you to tell them what they can and can't do?  If you truly believe in this great country of ours then the Declaration of Independence and it's guarantee of the rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness should actually mean something to you.
> 
> The main problem with illegal narcotics is as Huggy said, the vile stuff they have to do to feed the habit.  Legalise the drugs and that whole paradigm changes overnight.



I am someone who never bought into the libertarian fantasy-land.  

Again, you guys presume all the ill-effects of drugs is due to the criminality of the matter, because that's the most immediate and tangible issue.

However, the larger problem are the substances themselves which are highly addictive and destroy lives.

I can buy the:  "Individuals have the right to fuck up their lives" to an extent.  However, it's fair for society as a whole to ask:  what benefit is this to us as a whole?  

I have no desire for America to become a paradigm of Brave New World and for everyone to have their own "soma".


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

del said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I heard that alcohol causes more damage but I never understood that, how can beer cause more damage to a person than heroin or crack?


----------



## HUGGY (Dec 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



This is a man that is clear on the founders intent!  Good for you!  You just pegged my respect meter!


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

del said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I agree that alcohol is more dangerous to society.  However, I would argue that is simply because of access as it is legal.  This is the point that I think many of us are making.

Is it a hypocritical double standard that alcohol is legal and other drugs are illegal?  You bet.  However, the genie is out of the bottle with alcohol.  You can't put it back.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

del said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I have had a few alcoholic incidents and people have told me  I am an alcoholic but, I am able to stop drinking after 1 beer and I am very strict that If I drink a few beers I do not drive, so I guess I'm not an alcoholic.


----------



## westwall (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...






I have many friends in law enforcement.  One is a special agent for Californias Bureau of Narcotics Enforecment and he will disagree with you.  He knows many people (I actually met one of them once) who have been heroin addicts since the 1960's.  They live in San Francisco and hold down good jobs.  They are intelligent and are able to control their addiction because they educated themselves and know how to.  

There are plenty of people on serious pain meds who also hold down regular high paying jobs.  They have legal prescriptions and must use the drugs because of injury not addiction.  I am sure they would be very surprised to hear that they are incapable of functioning normally.


----------



## del (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



i wasn't implying that you are.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

del said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



I know you weren't.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> First off individual liberty is a cornerstone of the founding of this country.  What ever someone wants to do to themselves is none of your business.  The only concern that we should have is that people do no harm to others.  Legalising drugs removes a tremendous amount of harm to others.  And, if the addicts decide to go straight, they have a leg up because they are no longer considered criminals but ill.



Eventually, as people become consumed with addiction and society suffers as a whole because of it, it becomes all of our business.

Again, you guys are acting like the only problem with addictive substances is that we choose to make them illegal.  That's a niave way to think of the matter.

You don't run into many people who will say:  "Gee, I am really glad I discovered heroin!"

I agree that dependence/addiction is a medical problem.  I don't agree that the solution to the problem is to make it easier for society as a whole to gain access.


----------



## westwall (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > That is the case though.  Of course there are allways going to be a few who go on to harder things.  But the majority won't and if the stuff is legal you don't see a lot of meth use because the cocaine (especially pure) is actually cheaper to get, give a better effect and in general has no bad side effects.
> ...






Yes but pure coke is MUCH cheaper than Meth.  And it has no immediate bad side effects.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> I have many friends in law enforcement.  One is a special agent for Californias Bureau of Narcotics Enforecment and he will disagree with you.  He knows many people (I actually met one of them once) who have been heroin addicts since the 1960's.  They live in San Francisco and hold down good jobs.  They are intelligent and are able to control their addiction because they educated themselves and know how to.
> 
> There are plenty of people on serious pain meds who also hold down regular high paying jobs.  They have legal prescriptions and must use the drugs because of injury not addiction.  I am sure they would be very surprised to hear that they are incapable of functioning normally.



Perhaps my view is confounded as I see all the people in the hospital who weren't able to hold down their habits and function in society.  

So tit for tat.  

In the end, what benefit is it to society (other than satisfying some flowery language like "This is what the founders intended!  Everyone has the right to destroy their lives!") to legalize substances that are highly addictive and carry the potential for acute overdose?

People that use oral pain meds to control pain for long periods of time are using them out of addiction and not to simply control pain.  They probably just don't realize it.  There are some people who need to be on narcotics in perpetuity due to a chronic pain state (i.e. people with Sickle Cell Anemia).  However, many people who have a five year Lortab habit (in which they have gone from 5 to 7.5 to 10 mg) are addicted.  Their body sends a pain signal when they need their drug, because that is  how addiction and withdrawal works.


----------



## westwall (Dec 30, 2010)

Oddball said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > The net gain for society is you no longer have completely innocent bystanders killed because of wars over drug selling territory.  You don't have dipshits breaking into others houses to feed their habit, you don't have drug addled halfwits abusing their children because they are afraid to seek help.  The list is a pretty long one if you just think about it.
> ...






Or just flat out exploding.  Meth labs, when they go, up are pretty spectacular.


----------



## westwall (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > The net gain for society is you no longer have completely innocent bystanders killed because of wars over drug selling territory.  You don't have dipshits breaking into others houses to feed their habit, you don't have drug addled halfwits abusing their children because they are afraid to seek help.  The list is a pretty long one if you just think about it.
> ...






Alcoholics cause harm by _their_ actions.  However, there is no criminal enterprise that causes harm far beyond what the individual can do.  Think Chicago in the 1930's.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



And some people will still choose Meth over Cocaine simply due to it's six hour half life (versus cocaine which has a 30 minute half life).  

If you think pure Cocaine has no immediate bad side effects, you are incorrect.  People who die of cardiovascular events on cocaine don't die due to impurities.  They die because their body couldn't handle the effects the drug was designed to create.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> Alcoholics cause harm by _their_ actions.  However, there is no criminal enterprise that causes harm far beyond what the individual can do.  Think Chicago in the 1930's.



Right.  And this would be different with people who use methamphetamine, heroin, and/or cocaine because of why?  

Like I said, if you remove the criminality of the matter, it doesn't change the fact that these substances are problematic unto themselves.

Again, what benefit to society, other than someone's personal political science experiment, does legalization provide?


----------



## westwall (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is if it is a legal matter most will wait till it's too late to save them.  If it is a purely medical issue there will be no issues there.  As far as the other, who cares?  I could give a flying f you know what what someone does in the privacy of their home.  Who are you to tell them what they can and can't do?  If you truly believe in this great country of ours then the Declaration of Independence and it's guarantee of the rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness should actually mean something to you.
> ...






I am someone who has never been drunk or stoned in my life.  It has frankly never interested me.  I watched my dad as a youngster and saw the effects it had on him and said to myself eww, i don't want to look like that when I get up in the morning!  His brother my uncle obviously died of drug in the 1980's.  He wasn't high at the time but had used so many hard drugs he just kicked off from a heart attck.

People like them can't be saved.  But the youngster laying in their bed can.  I don't care what happens to addicts, I really don't.  I do care about all of those innocent people who have died because some asshole has decided he would rather be a killer drug dealer than a productive member of society.

Legalisation puts those pricks out of work.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> I am someone who has never been drunk or stoned in my life.  It has frankly never interested me.  I watched my dad as a youngster and saw the effects it had on him and said to myself eww, i don't want to look like that when I get up in the morning!  His brother my uncle obviously died of drug in the 1980's.  He wasn't high at the time but had used so many hard drugs he just kicked off from a heart attck.
> 
> People like them can't be saved.  But the youngster laying in their bed can.  I don't care what happens to addicts, I really don't.  I do care about all of those innocent people who have died because some asshole has decided he would rather be a killer drug dealer than a productive member of society.
> 
> Legalisation puts those pricks out of work.



So it took you personally experiencing how destructive substance abuse can be after watching it harm your family members to decide that using these things was a bad idea for you?  

Why do you think this is a good idea, again?


----------



## westwall (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Alcoholics cause harm by _their_ actions.  However, there is no criminal enterprise that causes harm far beyond what the individual can do.  Think Chicago in the 1930's.
> ...






Why wouldn't it?  I have historical data to back up my opinion.  What do you have?


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



All substances are not created equal and prohibition is not a "once size fits all" argument in favor of legalization.  

As for what I have, I have the status quo in which kids will sneak out to smoke a cigarette or drink a beer, but generally not to shoot up on the heroin they boosted out of dad's drug cabinet.


----------



## kwc57 (Dec 30, 2010)

I do want to commend everyone in this thread for having a decent and mature conversation.  I've participated in a number of these drug legalization threads here that devolve into name calling and political hackery.  Thanks!


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

kwc57 said:


> I do want to commend everyone in this thread for having a decent and mature conversation.  I've participated in a number of these drug legalization threads here that devolve into name calling and political hackery.  Thanks!



I am also glad no one resorted to name calling either, it is good to have a civilized discussion with adults.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...




Thats the ticket right there.


----------



## del (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



but they will be boosting the benzos, adderol, ritalin, vicodin, percocet, codeine, oxys et al. how is that different?


----------



## kwc57 (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



But again, this is where personal responsibility and good parenting come into play.  My son can't sneak any of my cigarettes, beer or herion out to use.......because I don't have any.  He has been raised in an environment where he has been taught what those things can do to you and has a life example to follow.  He's my son, I'm his dad.  What he does, who he does it with and where he goes is my business.  Period, end of story.  He is 17.5, an honors student in his senior year and just made Eagle Scout less than a month ago.  He comes home everyday shaking his head and laughing about this kid or that kid who came to school drunk or high.  He thinks they are idiots.  He was given a good example and he has been exposed to the bad examples and he has come away from it with a personal decision of how he wants to live his life.  He doesn't want to party, get high and flip burgers the rest of his life.  He wants to take his scholarship and study engineering and live a lifestyle as good or better than his parents.

There is no reason that what happened in my house can't happen in others.  But it takes a committment to good parenting and personal responsibility and providing the right kind of example.  Not everyone else does that....and that is why I volunteer my time in Scouting to hopefully make a positive difference in other kid's lives as well.  I can do that regardless of what the government deems legal or illegal to sell.

I really don't want people to take away from this that I think I'm better than anyone else or that I think I have all the answers.  Life is a series of choices and we can ultimately only make those choices for ourselves.  I can do all I've done and five years from now my son could become an addict.  I don't think that will happen and I like to think that it is because I did it right.  I really don't need the government limiting our freedom of choice to do my job as a parent.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

del said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



It's not.  Which is why those substances are controlled.


----------



## del (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



and yet they get out on the street anyway. i certainly don't favor untrammeled access to rec drugs, but treating them the same as booze seems to me to be worth trying. 

i've been wrong before, though


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

kwc57 said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I applaude you raising your son in a positive environment, but sometimes thats not enough. My brother is a heroin addict and we were raised in the same home, my father was not a drug addict, he did smoke and drink but never did drugs or had it in the home.  But, in high school my brother was a big pothead and than later got into heroin, he said he could control it but he could not, one day my father came home and found that he sold everything in the house, fridge, coaches, beds, washers, etc EVERYTHING, to payback the credit he owed his drug dealer. Me and my brother are total opposites, I served 7 years in the Military and now hold a good job with the government, my brother dropped out of high school to do drugs, joined the Army but was sent back home in basic training because he tested positive for cocaine on the drug test, and is now serving time in Wasco State Penn in California for domestic violence, drug possession and various parole violations. Sometimes providing a good home is not enough.


----------



## kwc57 (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



True.  Life is choices.  All we can do as parents is point the right way and back it up by our example.  But eventually, your children make their own choices and as painful as it is to watch, it is their choice.  You can't change what they decide.  My older brother was a pot head back in high school and I'm sure he did some harder stuff.  At some point he grew out of it and turned back into a responsible and sensible person.  He was married with two kids and finished his college education and has held a management position in a very large corporation for the past 30 years.  Personal responsibility and freedom to choose.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

kwc57 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



Very true.


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> You guys are really comparing heroin to porn, booze and smokes?


Heroine and alcohol...


both are physically addictive


you can O.D. on both


in both cases, making them illegal created a huge black market and spawned brutal cartels and gangs that drove violent crime through the roof


both tend to abused by many people

....

so, please, explain to me how they're really so different


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > You guys are really comparing heroin to porn, booze and smokes?
> ...



There are people that can be social drinkers and only drink on special occasions, and than not drink again for like 6 months, how many people can take a hit of heroin and than go cold turkey for 6 months?


----------



## Father Time (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> You guys are really comparing heroin to porn, booze and smokes?



No I'm just saying that we don't have to let kids have it if we legalize it. Just like all those other things I mentioned.


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...


A fine case for making alcohol illegal


Why haven't we tried that?


Oh, wait...


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...


Not necessarily.

The pharma corps will charge as much as they can get and there will be regulations

Do you have any idea how cheaply one can make something that will pass as street crank?


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 30, 2010)

kwc57 said:


> Do we have a french fry epidemic?


You might want to pick a different example


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 30, 2010)

You can 'O.D.' on water

Water intoxication - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...


You really think people will want tar if they can buy real heroine?

Or modern crank of they can buy engineer's chocolate?


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Nor does making it illegal


but one of these paths spawns cartels and the other spawns a more open system that''s receptive to addicts and encourages people to seek treatment while subjecting the production of these drugs to FDA and other standards


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...


Just look at China post Opium Wars to see how things can turn out


But


then look at Portugal today to see a very different way things can go when done right


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



I thought the whole point of legalizing drugs was to make it less expensive and take power away from the drug dealers on the streets? if legalized heroin is still expensive addicts will still kill and rob to acquire it, so what changes?


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Once the alcohol's in your system...

same thing


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



That all depends on how expensive those things will be right? if the heroin that is legalized is expensive people may stick to the streets to get their fix.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



People can drink 1 beer and stop, not alcoholics but most people can, but once you inject yourself with heroin your in the for the ride, heroin is very addictive. Not everyone who drinks a beer turns into an alcoholic.


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > But, as soon as you inject heroin its pretty much too late to try and stop the high right? I mean using heroin is not like sitting there and drinking beer after beer, you can always stop drinking after a certain amount but once you inject that needle how can you go back?
> ...




Now where else have I heard this language....?

Removing those criminal sanctions *is* best for society as a whole. 

Just look at the incarceration rate and the social and fiscal costs of maintaining a massive prison system

And do you really think prison addresses the problem of addiction- or the underlying issues that led to abuse?

If you do, I'd love to hear you explain the recidivism rate

And how many people get out of prison for drug possession, have difficulty finding work, and then turn to other crimes to support themselves? The 'War on Drugs' is manufacturing criminals.


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...


So if I shoot up one cc, I will necessarily shoot up another cc and then another cc and then another cc and then another cc and then another cc and then another cc and then another cc and then ad infinitim? 

once *any drug  *is in you're system, you're in for the ride- what's your point?


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


'cause fuck the tax man?


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 30, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



<!-- insert Limbaugh anti-drug rant here -->


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...




My point is some drugs are more addictive than others, alot of people have smoked marijuana one time and than never had the urge to do it again. Drugs like heroin and crystal meth are very addictive and take over the lives of the people addicted to them.


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


Those two will likely happen regardless

hell, the latter happens with alcoholics all the time


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



And making them illegal magically made it all go away?

Or it simply added the problems of drug cartels and territory wars?


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



I'm not saying the way things are right now is the right thing but, making drugs legal will take away power from the drug dealers and cartels but still does nothing to curb the problem of addicts unless more treatment programs are put into place also.


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...


Right-wing radio talk show hosts?


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



makes sense, then, that everyone here has voiced support for combining decriminalization with treatment

did we not mention Portugal?


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



I'm not sure whats going on with Portugal, did they actually legalize everything there?


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



we tried doing things your way, retard
Prohibition &mdash; History.com Articles, Video, Pictures and Facts


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Pop quiz: Which European country has the most liberal drug laws? (Hint: It's not the Netherlands.)
  Although its capital is notorious among stoners and college kids for   marijuana hazefilled "coffee shops," Holland has never actually   legalized cannabis  the Dutch simply don't enforce their laws against   the shops. The correct answer is Portugal, which in 2001 became the   first European country to officially abolish all criminal penalties for   personal possession of drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, heroin and   methamphetamine.
  At the recommendation of a national commission charged with   addressing Portugal's drug problem, jail time was replaced with the   offer of therapy. The argument was that the fear of prison drives   addicts underground and that incarceration is more expensive than   treatment  so why not give drug addicts health services instead? Under   Portugal's new regime, people found guilty of possessing small amounts   of drugs are sent to a panel consisting of a psychologist, social  worker  and legal adviser for appropriate treatment (which may be  refused  without criminal punishment), instead of jail.
  The question is, does the new policy work? At the time, critics in   the poor, socially conservative and largely Catholic nation said   decriminalizing drug possession would open the country to "drug   tourists" and exacerbate Portugal's drug problem; the country had some   of the highest levels of hard-drug use in Europe. But the recently   released results of a report commissioned by the Cato Institute, a   libertarian think tank, suggest otherwise.
  The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years   after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among   teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by   sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking   treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.
  "Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a   resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and   fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled   the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far   better than virtually every other Western country does."
  Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal's drug use   numbers are impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the   lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.:   10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%.   Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have   used marijuana.
​
Decriminalizing Drugs in Portugal a Success, Says Report - TIME


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


shocking...


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

del said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



Sorry.  I should have expanded on that.  The fact that these items are controlled makes it much harder for the average teenager to gain access to them than booze and cigarettes, which can be obtained on every street corner.

I would imagine the percentage of teenagers who have raided their father's liquor cabinets dwarfs the percentage of teenagers who have raided the medicine cabinet.  Even then, the percentage of American households that have liquor in them certainly dwarfs the percentage that have benzos and narcotics.


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> pure coke is MUCH cheaper than Meth.


where the fuck do you live?


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



That is very interesting.


----------



## del (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



there have been plenty of high functioning drug addicts in positions of responsibility


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

kwc57 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



I basically agree with both of you, with this caveat: why facilitate the ability of teenagers to gain access to dangerous substances?  What benefit is their to society, other than buying into the libertarian mantra, that would make this a smart move on our part?  While many kids will do the right thing with proper parenting (and some without it), some will still do the wrong thing.  

Why increase the odds that the average rebellious teenager can get their hands on opiates, which they might not be able to kick, as opposed to alcohol which they probably will?


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Alcoholics cause harm by _their_ actions.  However, there is no criminal enterprise that causes harm far beyond what the individual can do.  Think Chicago in the 1930's.
> ...


how dense are you?

look at Mexico right now


go 'head


right now


those are called cartels


and they exist, in large part, because we made cocaine, heroine, and other drugs illegal

now... call the FBI and ask about cartel activities within the US- because they are here


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 30, 2010)

del said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



simple: the people who make those gave more the reelection campaign..


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > You guys are really comparing heroin to porn, booze and smokes?
> ...



Heroin is much more addictive and much easier to overdose on.

It's also not deemed to be socially acceptable.  

One reason prohibition was a disaster was that alcohol had previously been legal and was used by many Americans before they decided to make it illegal.  Therefore, there was a huge demand for the product when it became illegal.  While all illegal substances generate demand, the relative scope compared to alcohol is much smaller.  That is why organized crime boomed.  It was just the fact that something was made illegal.  It was the fact that something a large portion of the society used was made illegal.  

Furthermore, making alcohol illegal was a change from the status quo.  

What good does it do our society to change the current status quo?


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> You can 'O.D.' on water
> 
> Water intoxication - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Let's not be absurd, here.  

You'll also die without water.

That is not the case with any recreational drug.  Legal or not. 

That is, unless you are already hooked to it and try and go cold turkey (which is the case with alcohol, benzos, and barbiturates).


----------



## westwall (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...






Have you ever read histories of the Prohibition times and how the alcohol was just as plentiful only now you also had to deal with organised crime too?  Has that completely passed you by?


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Just look at China post Opium Wars to see how things can turn out
> 
> 
> But
> ...



Interesting you mention that.  My mother is a political scientist and we were just discussing legalizing MJ (which I am for and she is against) and she referenced the Opium Wars.

Though, in that case I don't think a comparison is that easy.  Opium is incredibly addictive.  To the point where it will drive men to violence.  MJ, not so much.  

Decriminalizing Drugs in Portugal a Success, Says Report - TIME

It's an interesting perspective, though Portugal is not the United States.  Different societal values, etc.  Furthermore, as has been suggested, there is debate about whether the Cato Institute's study was accurate.  

The one thing that is certain, the world didn't end in Portugal when they decriminalized drugs.  

I am not suggesting that would be the case here either.  I just don't see any benefit to carte blanche legalization.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



I am all in favor of a more progressive policy towards people who are addicted to drugs.  I have no problem with trying rehab before prison either.  

Neither of those approaches necessitate making them legal.


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 30, 2010)

> I just don't see any benefit to carte blanche legalization.



I'm pretty sure everyone here favours decriminalization/regulation of some sort and not 'carte blanche legalization'. Many seem to support basing the laws around those surrounding alcohol and tobacco.


----------



## westwall (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I am someone who has never been drunk or stoned in my life.  It has frankly never interested me.  I watched my dad as a youngster and saw the effects it had on him and said to myself eww, i don't want to look like that when I get up in the morning!  His brother my uncle obviously died of drug in the 1980's.  He wasn't high at the time but had used so many hard drugs he just kicked off from a heart attck.
> ...






Because I have also read history and the only effect of criminalization has been to get a lot of innocent people killed.  How many were killed during Prohibition who were not involved in the booze trade?  How many innocent people have been killed in teh various drug wars now goin on around the world?  Mexico alone has seen 22,000 people killed THIS YEAR in the various drug gang wars.  Most are innocent bystanders.  Are you so blind that you can't see this?


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



And this thread was progressing so nicely.  

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3146053-post193.html


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

del said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



That's somewhat analogous to saying that "there have been plenty of high function autistic people".  

However, I think we can all agree that it's a better hand to not be autistic.


----------



## kwc57 (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Why?  Because this nation was founded on freedom and liberty......not a nanny state.  Do you really want the government saving you from yourself?  Are you not responsible enough to decide what you want to do?  Making it legal does NOT mean easier access for kids.  We already have models in place for alcohol and tobacco.  Pot and cocaine are not going to be mixed in with the Snickers and Sweetarts for kids to pick up and take to the counter.

Right now here in Oklahoma there are news stories about the possible change in laws to allow strong beer and wine to be sold in grocery stores and conveninece stores.  The state regulating agency is using the argument that this increases access of harder liqour and therefore is a bad thing.  Yet I can travel across the border to surrounding states, walk into a grocery store and by six point beer or wine with no problem.  I don't know 100%, but I'm willing to bet that those states don't have any higher rate of alcohol related issues than we do.  For God's sake, we have liqour stores right next to the grocery store where you can go buy anything you want and they are afraid that putting it in the grocery store next door is somehow going to increase use and make it to accessible!


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



http://www.usmessageboard.com/3146053-post193.html

Again.  "All prohibition is not created equal".


----------



## westwall (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...






Once again who cares.  Drugs are bad.  More to the point the actions that people do to feed their habit are worse.  When drugs are cheap they don't need to go out and rob and kill to get the money to feed their habits.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



It's a shame that innocent people die.  

It's an unavoidable consequence to human existence.  

Innocent people die in war.  That doesn't stop our zeal to make it.


----------



## westwall (Dec 30, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...






But nowhere at the current rate that it does.  When I look through the police blotter in Carson City 90% of all crimes are drug related.  That one simple action will reduce that number.


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...


so there are no cartels?


----------



## westwall (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...






Actually it doesn't.  There are just easier cheaper drugs to go for so why bother.  Supply and demand my man.


----------



## kwc57 (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Ding, ding, ding!!!

The same argument you just made for alcohol and social acceptance can be made for drugs like pot and cocaine.  You are aware that cocaine was an ingredient in a good number of products sold across the counter aren't you?  There was no social stigma associated with cocaine until it was made illegal.  People accepted it, used it and wanted it. Making it illegal was a change from the status quo.

snopes.com: Cocaine in Coca-Cola


----------



## westwall (Dec 30, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > pure coke is MUCH cheaper than Meth.
> ...






My dentist is one of the few in CA that is certified to use pure cocaine on some of his patients who can't use any other type of anasthetic.  He buys it direct from the Federal Government and it cost about .25 cents a gram.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

kwc57 said:


> Why?  Because this nation was founded on freedom and liberty......not a nanny state.  Do you really want the government saving you from yourself?  Are you not responsible enough to decide what you want to do?  Making it legal does NOT mean easier access for kids.  We already have models in place for alcohol and tobacco.  Pot and cocaine are not going to be mixed in with the Snickers and Sweetarts for kids to pick up and take to the counter.



With all due respect, you guys consider everything the government does, short of the most basic of services, to be the "nanny state".  You guys are certainly entitled to your opinion, but there is a reason that libertarian platform continually fails to gain traction.  Most Americans don't subscribe to that political philosophy.  It's too extreme.  That's not my opinion.  It's quantifiable with election results.  

In regards to government, I expect government to be prudent and make moves that are in the best interest of our society.  

I never perceived that you guys wanted make illegal substances as available as sweetarts.  That being said, to say that removing societal boundaries for illegal substances will result in a more responsible society is a stretch.  Again, alcohol and cigarettes are not perceived in the same light as a narcotic.  Making narcotics legal would certainly make access easier.  



> Right now here in Oklahoma there are news stories about the possible change in laws to allow strong beer and wine to be sold in grocery stores and conveninece stores.  The state regulating agency is using the argument that this increases access of harder liqour and therefore is a bad thing.  Yet I can travel across the border to surrounding states, walk into a grocery store and by six point beer or wine with no problem.  I don't know 100%, but I'm willing to bet that those states don't have any higher rate of alcohol related issues than we do.  For God's sake, we have liqour stores right next to the grocery store where you can go buy anything you want and they are afraid that putting it in the grocery store next door is somehow going to increase use and make it to accessible!



Again, Alcohol is not the same as heroin, methamphetamine, or cocaine.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

kwc57 said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



And are you aware that ingesting cocaine completely changes it's pharmacological properties relative to snorting or inhaling it?  If you apply cocaine locally, it's an anesthetic.  If you give it direct access to your brain, it's a stimulant.  Even if cocaine gave the exact same "high" by being ingested orally (it doesn't), you would have to ingest a much higher quantity of it to account for first pass metabolism by the liver before the drug got to the blood stream and then the brain compared to snorting it or smoking it.    

So people who got cocaine in Coca Cola weren't exactly doing it for the same reasons that people use it for today.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



Sorry, I don't buy that.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Cocaine has medical indications as an anesthetic.  It's just not used much, as there are better anesthetics.  

PCP and Ketamine also started out as anesthetics.


----------



## westwall (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...






But the criminal exploitation of that paradigm is!  If a substance is illegal there is allways a group that is willing to make money providing it to those who want it.  Human beings are naturally addictive.  Human beings naturally want sex.  The lunatics preaching abstinence to teenagers are delusional.  They are arguing that teens should be able to fight a million years of genetic programming that says go out and procreate.  Addiction is the same way.
There are a very few people who can contrl those primal urges....they are the exception.

Criminal enterprises exist because of laws.  Take the laws away and those criminal enterprises no longer have a reason for being.  Take a look at the gangs after Prohibition was lifted what did they do?  They went into prostitution and drugs.  Hell drugs were LEGAL until the mid 1960's for the most part.  The Gangs had to rely on terrorism of their neighborhoods (protection money) and gambling to survive.

Read some history.


----------



## westwall (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...






And yet drug related deaths are something COMPLETELY WITHIN OUR ABILITY TO CONTROL!  We can't prevent wars.  We can't prevent accidents, but we can prevent those and you just blissfully ignore that simple fact!  


Wow, just wow.


----------



## westwall (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > Why?  Because this nation was founded on freedom and liberty......not a nanny state.  Do you really want the government saving you from yourself?  Are you not responsible enough to decide what you want to do?  Making it legal does NOT mean easier access for kids.  We already have models in place for alcohol and tobacco.  Pot and cocaine are not going to be mixed in with the Snickers and Sweetarts for kids to pick up and take to the counter.
> ...






You're correct.  Alcohol kills far more people then all the other drugs combined save for the gang violence that accompanies them.  Eliminate the gang violence and all the other drugs have much less impact on society than alcohol does.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> But the criminal exploitation of that paradigm is!  If a substance is illegal there is allways a group that is willing to make money providing it to those who want it.  Human beings are naturally addictive.  Human beings naturally want sex.  The lunatics preaching abstinence to teenagers are delusional.  They are arguing that teens should be able to fight a million years of genetic programming that says go out and procreate.  Addiction is the same way.
> There are a very few people who can contrl those primal urges....they are the exception.
> 
> Criminal enterprises exist because of laws.  Take the laws away and those criminal enterprises no longer have a reason for being.  Take a look at the gangs after Prohibition was lifted what did they do?  They went into prostitution and drugs.  Hell drugs were LEGAL until the mid 1960's for the most part.  The Gangs had to rely on terrorism of their neighborhoods (protection money) and gambling to survive.
> ...



I agree people want to get high.  However, we are not biologically programmed to desire getting high, as we are for sex.  So I don't think it's analogous.  

I am not disputing the prohibition facilitates crime.  That's a non-issue.

I am disputing that the degree of crime that prohibition creates outweighs the degree of harm that would be done to our society if we made narcotics, amphetamines, and cocaine legal.  

Again, look at the methadone "experiment".  It didn't do much to stop heroin, and you won't see any pillars of the community at a methadone clinic getting their weekly fix.

Eventually, an addict is chained to their craving for the drug and becomes non-productive.  

You guys say:  "So, what?  Let people do what they are going to do."

That's your perspective.  However, it shouldn't be beyond the realm of comprehension that people would find that to be a absurd solution or proposal to take.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> And yet drug related deaths are something COMPLETELY WITHIN OUR ABILITY TO CONTROL!  We can't prevent wars.  We can't prevent accidents, but we can prevent those and you just blissfully ignore that simple fact!
> 
> 
> Wow, just wow.



Are you guys so naive to think that criminals are going to stop being criminals simply because you take away their cash crops?  As you noted, it didn't stop the Mafia.  Eventually they will just move on to the next illegal activity to facilitate their cartels.  Where does it stop?  This magical fantasyland were we end all crime by legalizing drugs is just that.    

We can't stop wars, but we can stop are eagerness to get into useless wars.


----------



## westwall (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > But the criminal exploitation of that paradigm is!  If a substance is illegal there is allways a group that is willing to make money providing it to those who want it.  Human beings are naturally addictive.  Human beings naturally want sex.  The lunatics preaching abstinence to teenagers are delusional.  They are arguing that teens should be able to fight a million years of genetic programming that says go out and procreate.  Addiction is the same way.
> ...






So riddle me this.  Almost all drugs were legal up till the 1960's..did this country fall apart from that?  What was the level of violent crime that was solely drug related?  What was the incarceration rate of non-violent offendors?  Criminologists know that 80% of all violent crime is committed by 7% of the criminal population, we have to let those animals out of jail to keep no-violent drug offendors in.

Does that make any kind of logical sense to you?


----------



## westwall (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > And yet drug related deaths are something COMPLETELY WITHIN OUR ABILITY TO CONTROL!  We can't prevent wars.  We can't prevent accidents, but we can prevent those and you just blissfully ignore that simple fact!
> ...






How many people were killed in Chicago when Prohibition was in effect?  How many were killed when it was lifted?  The numbers are astounding.  I will let you look them up so they have a stronger impact.

No, legalization won't end it, but it will significantly reduce the pain and suffering of complete innocents by a huge amount.


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



There's a reason it's called _pep_si


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> You're correct.  Alcohol kills far more people then all the other drugs combined save for the gang violence that accompanies them.  Eliminate the gang violence and all the other drugs have much less impact on society than alcohol does.



Right.  This is simple statistics.  The number of people using alcohol dwarfs the number of people using illegal drugs.  

We haven't even touched the aspects of the law that would be affected aside from criminalization.  

How many people who die from alcohol each year do so because of a car crash?  

By the same logic, if we just legalized drunk driving, that number would drop to zero!


----------



## HUGGY (Dec 30, 2010)

Almost every heroin overdose is directly due to the user not knowing the strength of the dose he or she is injecting.  With purity and dose size regulated and labeled the biggest drug killer of all drug killers would be eliminated.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> How many people were killed in Chicago when Prohibition was in effect?  How many were killed when it was lifted?  The numbers are astounding.  I will let you look them up so they have a stronger impact.



Again; the explosion of violent crime as a result of prohibition was a different circumstance for reasons I've already listed (previously legal substance that a lot of people used (thus had a high demand) being made illegal).  

While some facets of the current "prohibition" apply, it's not the same thing.  



> No, legalization won't end it, but it will significantly reduce the pain and suffering of complete innocents by a huge amount.



I disagree.  Enabling addiction isn't going to do any favors for the innocent people who are in the span of destruction of an addict.



> So riddle me this. Almost all drugs were legal up till the 1960's..did this country fall apart from that? What was the level of violent crime that was solely drug related? What was the incarceration rate of non-violent offendors? Criminologists know that 80% of all violent crime is committed by 7% of the criminal population, we have to let those animals out of jail to keep no-violent drug offendors in.
> 
> Does that make any kind of logical sense to you?



Society changed.  What doesn't make logical sense to me is changing to laws to try and undercut crime.  

I understand where you guys are going with your argument.  I just disagree with your conclusions.  

You are more focused on the criminal aspect of the matter and I am more focused on what the substances do to their users.


----------



## Bones (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> Are you guys so naive to think that criminals are going to stop being criminals simply because you take away their cash crops?  As you noted, it didn't stop the Mafia.  Eventually they will just move on to the next illegal activity to facilitate their cartels.  Where does it stop?  This magical fantasyland were we end all crime by legalizing drugs is just that.


It won't end all crime, obviously, however it may take a sizable chunk out of it.  If people can purchase whatever drug they wish without legal repercussions, what incentive do they have to purchase it from some seedy character in a back alley?

I'm sure the CIA wouldn't care for such legalization.  That would impinge upon their own drug-running profits.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> Almost every heroin overdose is directly due to the user not knowing the strength of the dose he or she is injecting.  With purity and dose size regulated and labeled the biggest drug killer of all drug killers would be eliminated.



I agree with that, I just don't think that preventing heroin deaths due to the fact that the dosage and potency is a variable with street drugs is an indication to legalize it.  

In fact, we have tried to address this issue with methadone.  It didn't really work.


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > You're correct.  Alcohol kills far more people then all the other drugs combined save for the gang violence that accompanies them.  Eliminate the gang violence and all the other drugs have much less impact on society than alcohol does.
> ...



you are retarded


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

Bones said:


> It won't end all crime, obviously, however it will take a sizable chunk out of it.  If people can purchase whatever drug they wish without legal repercussions, what incentive do they have to purchase it from some seedy character in a back alley?



None.  However, I am not at all convinced that making heroin as available as coors light will do us any favors.  

Again, I agree it will reduce crime.  It will also make a lot of addicts out of people who would have otherwise never have touched the stuff.  

As it stands, criminal violence will always be with us.  The money is in the crime side of the equation.  The product is just what is being sold.


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> I am more focused on what the substances do to their users.


'cause you're retarded and don't realize nobody's arguing over whether abusing anything is good for you


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> t will also make a lot of addicts out of people who would have otherwise never have touched the stuff.



Proof?


Didn't happen in Portugal


Where's the huge epidemic of alcoholism since alcohol became legal again?


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> you are retarded



Brilliant retort.

There is a reason I am not wasting my time with you on this thread.  There are plenty of other posters (in fact, every other poster) on here who can discuss this matter without throwing a temper tantrum.

Now run along.


----------



## del (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



absolutely, but there is no choice involved in either scenario. 

i think decriminalization would eliminate a lot, perhaps most, of the violence that surrounds illegal drug use. there is also the "forbidden fruit" aspect that attracts some kids to drugs. keeping addicts in the medical system and out of the penal system would also benefit society, imo.


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > you are retarded
> ...


Pointing out the facts is not throwing a tantrum, retard


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 30, 2010)

del said:


> there is also the "forbidden fruit" aspect that attracts some kids to drugs.


definitely

look at teenage binge drinking


by 23, the novelty generally wears off

much of the marijuana culture seems likewise to me


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

del said:


> absolutely, but there is no choice involved in either scenario.



Good point. 



> i think decriminalization would eliminate a lot, perhaps most, of the violence that surrounds illegal drug use. there is also the "forbidden fruit" aspect that attracts some kids to drugs. keeping addicts in the medical system and out of the penal system would also benefit society, imo.



I agree that treatment is much more desirable than incarceration.  I wish we would try that approach first.  

My issue with the ordeal is this:  heroin is highly addictive.  It's potential to create addicts is much higher than everything else but cigarettes.  Now, if you legalize it and remove the societal stigma around the matter, we are going to have a lot of people who are addicted to heroin then would have otherwise been.

In other words, I agree with the forbidden fruit theory.  I think it works both ways.  I think plenty of people will never try heroin simply because it is illegal and the consequences outweigh the risk.  

I see no benefit to our society in making it legal.  

I understand the larger libertarian argument being made by that crowd, I just don't buy into that particular line of logic.  As I am consistent, I also support public schools.  

I also understand the people who are arguing that it will reduce crime.  I agree it will reduce _violent_ crime.  But at what cost?


----------



## del (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > absolutely, but there is no choice involved in either scenario.
> ...



i don't think that legalizing/decriminalizing it would remove the societal stigma. cigarette smoking is legal and has been stigmatized nonetheless.


----------



## westwall (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > You're correct.  Alcohol kills far more people then all the other drugs combined save for the gang violence that accompanies them.  Eliminate the gang violence and all the other drugs have much less impact on society than alcohol does.
> ...







Now you're just being silly.  Drunk driving is illegal in every state of the union and yet over 25,000 per year are killed so those laws are real effective aren't they?  Don't resort to silliness to try and prove a bad point.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

del said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



Yes, but it took a lot of cancer/COPD deaths before there was a stigma.  

On that note, I find it interesting that more teens are smoking MJ now as opposed to cigarettes.  On the one hand, you could use that point to argue the making something illegal makes it more illegal.  However, on the other hand you could argue that society, as a whole, is recognizing the harm of smoking and that is why less teens are doing it.  Probably a little bit of both. 

Then again, MJ isn't addictive (I don't buy the arguement of "psychologically addictive").  Amphetamines, opiates, and cocaine/crack are.  

I think legalizing it will cause a massive boom of people experimenting with drugs they wouldn't have otherwise been exposed too.  The problem is, there isn't really a large window to experiment with these substances.


----------



## westwall (Dec 30, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> Almost every heroin overdose is directly due to the user not knowing the strength of the dose he or she is injecting.  With purity and dose size regulated and labeled the biggest drug killer of all drug killers would be eliminated.






Exactly!


----------



## westwall (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > How many people were killed in Chicago when Prohibition was in effect?  How many were killed when it was lifted?  The numbers are astounding.  I will let you look them up so they have a stronger impact.
> ...






Almost all drugs were legal till the 1960's so it applies to them as well.


----------



## westwall (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> Bones said:
> 
> 
> > It won't end all crime, obviously, however it will take a sizable chunk out of it.  If people can purchase whatever drug they wish without legal repercussions, what incentive do they have to purchase it from some seedy character in a back alley?
> ...






Our prime point exactly.


----------



## kwc57 (Dec 30, 2010)

del said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



And so heavily regulated that they are prohibited from advertising their product. They ran the smokers out of the office building years ago and they would go outside the door to smoke.  They dicided it didn't look good to have all those people standing outside the door, so they prohibited employees from smoking there.  So the employees next door come over in front of our building and our employees go over in front of their building.  So the companies hang no smoking signs outside the door.  So the smokers go to the alley between the buildings.  Now the mayor wants to make the whole downtown area smoke free.  Drug use would still have much the same stigma as tobacco.


----------



## kwc57 (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > How many people were killed in Chicago when Prohibition was in effect?  How many were killed when it was lifted?  The numbers are astounding.  I will let you look them up so they have a stronger impact.
> ...



Society changed.......or did the government decide that drug use was an element of society they needed to control?


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> Now you're just being silly.  Drunk driving is illegal in every state of the union and yet over 25,000 per year are killed so those laws are real effective aren't they?  Don't resort to silliness to try and prove a bad point.



I admit I was being facetious.  I deny I was the first person on the thread to do so to try and make my point.  

My larger point is that the law does act as a deterrent.  How many people would be killed while DUI/DWI if there were no laws against it?  

Then, back to my original point, how many more people would be impaired and on the road if we expanded the amount of legal mind-altering substances the public had available to it?  

As it stands, a person metabolizes a beer an hour.  If you go out and get intoxicated with alcohol, you will generally be okay to drive seven hours after you stop drinking (unless you had a real bender).  

Seven hours is close to the half life of methamphetamine.  Peak concentration is around 10 to 24 hours for a single use.  That's scary.  

Informa Healthcare - Clinical Toxicology - 48(7):675 - Summary


----------



## Oddball (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > absolutely, but there is no choice involved in either scenario.
> ...


Funny nobody seems to factor in the costs of lost freedom, when making excuses for the nanny state.

Are turning lower income neighborhoods into shooting galleries and places like Juarez defacto death camps worthy prices to pay, for your moral superiority?


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Bones said:
> ...



So we can move past the whole criminality aspect of the debate and on to what concerns me; the addictive property of these substances and the potential to create a large number of addicts after a few uses?


----------



## Sheldon (Dec 30, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > there is also the "forbidden fruit" aspect that attracts some kids to drugs.
> ...



Pretty much. At 19 you drink to get blitzed at basement keggers as much as possible before the cops come... to being in the mid-twenties and doing it just to casually kick it around friends.

But I'm not always comfortable with the alcohol-to-hard-drugs comparison that's made in these threads sometimes. They're fundamentally different. A person can enjoy a little bit of alcohol and not be at serious risk of addiction; there's no such thing as 'a little bit of heroin'. 

Ultimately people have to make decision for themselves about this. There's enough stigma and information about the hard drugs like meth and heroin, that you know what you're getting yourself into. It's a waste of resources for cops to babysit adults like what's seen in the War on Some Drugs, imo.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

kwc57 said:


> And so heavily regulated that they are prohibited from advertising their product. They ran the smokers out of the office building years ago and they would go outside the door to smoke. They dicided it didn't look good to have all those people standing outside the door, so they prohibited employees from smoking there. So the employees next door come over in front of our building and our employees go over in front of their building. So the companies hang no smoking signs outside the door. So the smokers go to the alley between the buildings. Now the mayor wants to make the whole downtown area smoke free. Drug use would still have much the same stigma as tobacco.



Maybe, maybe not.  Why go through what our society has gone through with tobacco to address a problem?  



> Society changed.......or did the government decide that drug use was an element of society they needed to control?



Both.  Barring the goofyness that is our current MJ drug policy (and maybe LSD and mushrooms), these substances are dangerous for consumption.  That is why they were made illegal.  As society became more permissive and the people started using dangerous substances, the government made laws.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> So we can move past the whole criminality aspect of the debate and on to what concerns me; the addictive property of these substances and the potential to create a large number of addicts after a few uses?


Nicotine is as addictive a substance as there is....Why not make it illegal in that basis as well?

And to further the point, could you imagine how many people would be getting killed, from both  criminal activity and from bad product, if crooks were cooking down tobacco the way the do for cocaine and heroin?


----------



## Bones (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> So we can move past the whole criminality aspect of the debate and on to what concerns me; the addictive property of these substances and the potential to create a large number of addicts after a few uses?


You could say the same for television or the internet.  Both have the great potential to create large number of addicts after a few uses.

The social consequences may differ, however if we're strictly talking about addiction here...


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

Oddball said:


> Funny nobody seems to factor in the costs of lost freedom, when making excuses for the nanny state.
> 
> Are turning lower income neighborhoods into shooting galleries and places like Juarez defacto death camps worthy prices to pay, for your moral superiority?



I have.  As I said, I don't buy into the Libertarian mentality.  Apparently, as evidenced by the polls, neither do most Americans.  

This has nothing to do with my "moral superiority".  Nowhere on this thread have I castigated addicts.  I've stated that I see addiction as a medical problem and think it should be treated as such.       

My problem is removing barriers to highly addictive substances is going to create a lot of addicts who would have otherwise not been an addict.  

In other words, lives are going to be ruined.  That is my problem with the matter.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> But, bathtub gin was taken away because people could now go into a store and buy real gin. Are you saying if we legalized things like marijuana and other lesser drugs, people wouldn't want heroin or crack anymore? I doubt very much that would be the case.


Well, I can see where you'd think that ...After all, I only have the facts of history and the reality of actual liquor store sales on my side, while you do have your doubts based upon......?


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

Bones said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > So we can move past the whole criminality aspect of the debate and on to what concerns me; the addictive property of these substances and the potential to create a large number of addicts after a few uses?
> ...



Yeah, but that can turn into a silly argument too.  Anything can be addictive.  Agreed.

However, few things are physiologically addictive meaning that using them alters your brain chemistry and physiology to the point where you experience withdrawal.  

The "Cocaine Crash" isn't an imagined thing.  It's the result of the brain overcompensating for the neurotransmitters it could reabsorb.  That's why people are euphoric on cocaine and depressed when they come down.    

And when it comes to substances that are physiologically addictive, the "hard drugs" that we are talking about are the worst of the worst.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Funny nobody seems to factor in the costs of lost freedom, when making excuses for the nanny state.
> ...


I couldn't care less which philosophy you or anyone else buys or not.

And you _*ARE*_ peddling a moral superiorist train of rationale here, whether you choose to accept it or not.

And lives are already being ruined and snuffed out, your moral relativism notwithstanding.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

Sheldon said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



Your middle paragraph is my basic point.  

I disagree with your last paragraph in regards to amphetamines, cocaine, and narcotics.  I agree MJ should be legal.


----------



## westwall (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Now you're just being silly.  Drunk driving is illegal in every state of the union and yet over 25,000 per year are killed so those laws are real effective aren't they?  Don't resort to silliness to try and prove a bad point.
> ...






The numbers will be the same.  I am all in favour of extremely harsh penalties for the criminal misuse of drugs just as I am all for it for some nimrod driving drunk.  We have idiots with 8! DUI arrests still driving illegaly and getting caught yet again. 

 I would bring back chain gangs and place those assholes on them and make them pay particular attention to every place where a drunk driver killed someone.  Make people pay for doing bad things.  Not for enjoying themselves in the privacy of their own homes.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

Oddball said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > So we can move past the whole criminality aspect of the debate and on to what concerns me; the addictive property of these substances and the potential to create a large number of addicts after a few uses?
> ...



A person can overdose on nicotine, but to do so would require an amount far beyond what anyone could smoke in a cigarette.  

It is certainly addictive.  As I said earlier, the genie is out of the bottle with regards to alcohol and nicotine.  There is no going back.  

Considering the problems that these substances impart on our society (to include health care dollars), I see little point in letting three more genies out of the bottle.  

Again, I concede that legalization would reduce criminality.  I don't think the degree to which that would happen would outweigh the added burden of having more people who are addicted to drugs.


----------



## westwall (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...






Sure, why not.  What possibly can be so bad from that as opposed to the thousands killed in drug violence every years?


----------



## Oddball (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...


The genie is already out of the bottle for everything, dude.

So, are you saying that the only thing keeping you from doing coke or heroin are the laws against them, hmmmmm?


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

Oddball said:


> I couldn't care less which philosophy you or anyone else buys or not.



As elections determine policy in this country.  You should care.  It's not going to be sufficient to sit back and call everyone who disagrees with you as someone who doesn't understand the founder's intent or whatever.



> And you _*ARE*_ peddling a moral superiorist train of rationale here, whether you choose to accept it or not.



Okay.  According to you, I am being a *moral superiorist*.  I hope I can sleep tonight.  



> And lives are already being ruined and snuffed out, your moral relativism notwithstanding.



As they would be if it were legal.  Making narcotics legal doesn't change what they do to the body.


----------



## westwall (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Funny nobody seems to factor in the costs of lost freedom, when making excuses for the nanny state.
> ...







Far fewer lives will be ruined by people WILLINGLY entering into their bad behaviour.  I find it interesting that you care more for people who will screw up their own lives, of THEIR OWN VOLITION, than those lives lost through no fault of their own.  Do you really not see the difference?


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Thousands dying of overdose every year.

Many more throwing their lives away because they have become hopelessly addicted to substances.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > I couldn't care less which philosophy you or anyone else buys or not.
> ...


No, crooked politicians determine policy.

And as it sits right now, there are more profits in it for them via the police state and prison/industrial complex, than there is any downshot of continuing their crooked and corrupt behavior.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



So the law can act as a deterrence in some aspects?  

I'll try to check in on this thread at a later date.  I've basically said what I wanted to say, and it's a surprisingly beautiful day and I am going to go and enjoy some sunshine.


----------



## westwall (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...






How many innocent lives are too many for you?  You seem to think you can control addictive personalities (there is no empirical data to support that particular idea, my daughters godmother is the head of the Psych Dept for Arapahoe county and deals with the issues all the time and she doesn't think it's possible) and yet the criminal killing of thousands of innocent people (which we could gain some control over) you will ignore
for what reason exactly?


----------



## Oddball (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...


Right...And hundreds-cum-thousands of innocent bystanders who'd never even think of taking drugs are being killed and victimized every day.

Better the dope who chooses to stick drugs in his body than someone who doesn't.


----------



## westwall (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...






The only deterrence it will have is to keep irresponsible people off the streets.  You can't enforce morality no matter how hard you try.  Just like laws that keep pedophiles locked up for life don't prevent other pedo's from committing crime it does prevent the one you caught from ever doing it again.


----------



## westwall (Dec 30, 2010)

Oddball said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...






Absolutely!  Who the hell cares what someone does to themselves!  We should only care about those who will be harmed by the dickheads profitting off of it!  Take the profit away and the violence follows.


----------



## del (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



enjoy


----------



## Sheldon (Dec 30, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> Sheldon said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



I get where you're coming from. It's no problem for weed. The thing is I've seen and heard some horror stories second hand about the harder drugs that make me less cavalier about legalizing them outright. But I also don't like the idea of supporting laws that tell other adults what they can and can't do with their own bodies.

For me it comes down to, the same process of logic and reason for legalizing weed can be used for legalizing the other drugs.

I guess I could tolerate some kind of middle ground, where the hard drugs are decriminalized so that the "punishment" is not incarceration, but treatment of the end user. I'd rather have my tax dollar going to that instead of over-feeding the fed pens.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 30, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...




I thought one of the benefits of legalization was that we didn't have to spend so much money on everyone we found with pot?



JBeukema said:


> The question is, does the new policy work? At the time, critics in   the poor, socially conservative and largely Catholic nation said   decriminalizing drug possession would open the country to "drug   tourists" and exacerbate Portugal's drug problem; the country had some   of the highest levels of hard-drug use in Europe. But the recently   released results of a report commissioned by the Cato Institute, a   libertarian think tank, suggest otherwise.
> The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years   after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among   teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by   sharing of dirty needles dropped,



I don't really trust any think tank, but anyway I never understood why legalizing drugs would get people to share needles less.​


----------



## Sheldon (Jul 27, 2011)

Holy fuck


----------

