NationStates Jolt Archive

How does the government have the right what i can and cannot put in my body as long as i am responsible (not driving under the influence and such). This topic has always infuriated. This and drug testing, as if drugs are the root of any problem in society. We should test people for ignorance, arrogance or greed. The negativity and issues tied to those things are innumerably larger than DRUGS!!!

Cuz lesser people get hooked up on them and destroy thier own life among others aswell.

Ofc, drinking alcohol kind of have the same issues, but that problem i think we have to live with.

Cuz lesser people get hooked up on them and destroy thier own life among others aswell.

Ofc, drinking alcohol kind of have the same issues, but that problem i think we have to live with.

What does "lesser people" mean? Why should we live with alcohol? From what i read, pot is on the same level as alcohol. Whats wrong with pot that isn't wrong with alcohol?

I feel like using drugs is a personal choice, i think things like "the war on drugs" are just a big waste of money. They put people in jail for posession. A huge part of the jail system is filled with such "criminals", not drug smuglers, just people who wanted to use. I think its preposterous because those people aren't a "danger to society."

The problem is, once people take drugs (especially the more potent ones) it gets out of their control. Once people become hooked on drugs they will do anything to get them and therefore become irresponsible. Plus the government does have a certain degree of responsibility to care for its citizens.

What does "lesser people" mean? Why should we live with alcohol? From what i read, pot is on the same level as alcohol. Whats wrong with pot that isn't wrong with alcohol?

I feel like using drugs is a personal choice, i think things like "the war on drugs" are just a big waste of money. They put people in jail for posession. A huge part of the jail system is filled with such "criminals", not drug smuglers, just people who wanted to use. I think its preposterous because those people aren't a "danger to society."

They are a "danger to society". If a drunk or high person goes driving around it is very possible that they can crash and kill somebody because alcohol and drugs MESS YOU UP.

How does the government have the right what i can and cannot put in my body as long as i am responsible (not driving under the influence and such).

Because you are unlikely to be responsible after you go under the influence of drugs *including alcohol here*. Once you get some of the stuff in you you stop thinking responsibly. Everyone says "Yeah, when I'm drunk or high I'm not gonna go drive." but the second they get drunk or high they think "Eh, no problem." and go do it. And then usually they don't hurt anyone. So they figure it really is no problem and do it again. And again. And that is when innocent people begin to die.

The question is one of degree. I personally think that alchohol should be illegal and pot should be legal, since 1) pot CAN'T kill you, period. 2) Pot is NOT physically addictive, while acholhol is highly addictive 3) Pot does not impair your judgement nearly as badly 4) Pot does not make people violent

Plus, there all the medical uses, and the uses for industrial hemp (paper, rope, etc.) 1 acre of Hemp produces 5 times the amount of paper EACH YEAR as an acre of trees produces in 100 years. (A stand of trees takes ~100 years to grow)

As for other drugs, like Heroine and Crack, possession should not be illegal, sale should be illegal, and addicts should be able to recieve treatment to wean themselves off of drugs for free. Treating drug addiction as a medical rather than a legal problem would cause the market to drop out of selling drugs. If drugs aren't available illegally, fewer people would start using drugs, and eventually we wouldn't have the problem. This is the only way to win the "war" on drugs, no amount of border control is going to stop it, because it will always be worth it for the shipments that make it through, didn't you ever see Traffic?

So thers my 2 cents....

They are a "danger to society". If a drunk or high person goes driving around it is very possible that they can crash and kill somebody because alcohol and drugs MESS YOU UP.

Just so you know.. alchohol causes many many more deaths than drug use. Crackheads usually sell their cars for crack, not drive them

The problem is, once people take drugs (especially the more potent ones) it gets out of their control. Once people become hooked on drugs they will do anything to get them and therefore become irresponsible. Plus the government does have a certain degree of responsibility to care for its citizens.

but you seem to generalize this to a lot of people. The numeber of people who actually GET ADDICTED is rather small. I think therapists think its about 10%. People get just as addicted to alcohol. Not to mention the fact that people have many other addictions including sexual and gambling. Should the governemnt be responsible for them too. (sexual addiction is a huge health risk and gambling is devastating to finances) Why are drugs so different? I feel that people are greatly misinformed about the effects of drugs and are fearful of them in general.

And another thing is that our government should shy away from prosecuting users to rehabilitating addicts.

They are a "danger to society". If a drunk or high person goes driving around it is very possible that they can crash and kill somebody because alcohol and drugs MESS YOU UP.

I never said that ok, read the first post. poeple should be responsible. They should be prosecuted from driving under the influence just like they are for driving drunk. if you put someone else's life in danger you should pay

Drugs ought to remain banned. They are dangerous. Dangerous for the person, as well as the society.
Consumption may not be punished as such, but possession, trafficking, importing, planting, e.g. ought to be punished. Since it is not possible to consume that stuff without doing at least one of those things it doesn´t make much of a difference whether the actual consumption (without driving a car or other vehicles) is illegal and a punished crime or not - as it is the legal situation in some countries.

As for other drugs, like Heroine and Crack, possession should not be illegal, sale should be illegal, and addicts should be able to recieve treatment to wean themselves off of drugs for free.

While that is a nice thought I don't think it would actually work. Because if people who willingly put themselves in rehab can't break their addictions, how likely is it that people who don't want to give it up can be cured? Plus, if it was implimented there would need to be a large amount of government funding, and we all know the two things people want less than drug addicts is a tax increase and defficit spending.

Drugs are not bad but if your high your probaly not going to think that your not allowed to drive and you may go get someone killed. So I don't think they should be legalized except for the sick.

Re: Weed.

You are NOT more likely to get in a car and think "eh, no problem" if you are stoned. You are just as, if not more, likely to think of the consequences as when you are sober, then decide "hey, whats on TV?" or go listen to some music. The thing is, you don't feel like going out in the first place. Alcohol is more dangerous on all levels than marijuana- i've seen hardcore smokers decide "eh, i'm sick of this, i'm going to straighten out" and do it overnight without withdrawal. Alcoholics can't do this. I support the legalisation and regulation of marijuana.

Harder drugs though, well...while i've tried some (no injectables though!) and decided they aren't for me, I honestly think they cause too many problems to be legalised outright. It's not often a case of "the user is an adult, so they can do what they want", most of the people I know who use them got hooked with them before turning 18. That said, they should be helped, not punished.

Drugs are not bad but if your high your probaly not going to think that your not allowed to drive and you may go get someone killed. So I don't think they should be legalized except for the sick.

How does this justify alcohol?

While that is a nice thought I don't think it would actually work. Because if people who willingly put themselves in rehab can't break their addictions, how likely is it that people who don't want to give it up can be cured? Plus, if it was implimented there would need to be a large amount of government funding, and we all know the two things people want less than drug addicts is a tax increase and defficit spending.

They can. I've seen it, and it's not pretty to watch, but they can quit them if they try, even if they are unwilling to do it at first.

Harder drugs though, well...while i've tried some (no injectables though!) and decided they aren't for me, I honestly think they cause too many problems to be legalised outright. It's not often a case of "the user is an adult, so they can do what they want", most of the people I know who use them got hooked with them before turning 18. That said, they should be helped, not punished.

Now i also know people who have used/ continue to use ocasionally "harder drugs," though the term is ralative the ones i know who are addicted, truly have a problem, that number is very small compared to those who tried and aren't addicted.

Now i also know people who have used/ continue to use ocasionally "harder drugs," though the term is ralative the ones i know who are addicted, truly have a problem, that number is very small compared to those who tried and aren't addicted.

I know. But some people simply can't control themselves, while others are fine with it.

I know. But some people simply can't control themselves, while others are fine with it.

but thats true of ALL addictions.

While that is a nice thought I don't think it would actually work. Because if people who willingly put themselves in rehab can't break their addictions, how likely is it that people who don't want to give it up can be cured? Plus, if it was implimented there would need to be a large amount of government funding, and we all know the two things people want less than drug addicts is a tax increase and defficit spending.

First of all, I don't know if you have ever met a Heroine or crack addict, but most of them do want help, and would be rid of their addictions if they had a choice. If treatment was available for free, and illegal drugs cost a lot of money (which they do) most addicts would choose free treatment . The thing is treatment has to involve suppliing addicts so that they can be weaned off drugs, also so they do not return to buying illegal drugs.

As for where to get the money, I would take it out of defense, but tax increases for the wealthy (dividend tax, estate tax) could help also. As for whatI would cut in defense, I don't think we need more inventive ways to blow people up, we have plenty. If we took the money wasted on Bush's missile defese sheild that didn't work and was essentially corporate welfare and spent it on drug treatment, we would see a dramitic decrease in addiction. Our defense spending should mainly be concerned with giving our troops a fair wage and free insurance and such, anybody read yesterday's New York Times?

(from http://www.tfy.drugsense.org/tfy/addictvn.htm)
Experts Rate Problem Substances
Dr. Jack E. Henningfield of the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Dr. Neal L. Benowitz of the University of California at San Francisco ranked six substances based on five problem areas.
• Withdrawal: Presence and severity of characteristic withdrawal symptoms.
• Reinforcement: A measure of the substance's ability, in human and animal tests, to get users to take it again and again, and in preference to other substances.
• Tolerance: How much of the substance is needed to satisfy increasing cravings for it, and the level of stable need that is eventually reached.
• Dependence: How difficult it is for the user to quit, the relapse rate, the percentage of people who eventually become dependent, the rating users give their own need for the substance and the degree to which the substance will be used in the face of evidence that it causes harm.
• Intoxication: Though not usually counted as a measure of addiction in itself, the level of intoxication is associated with addiction and increases the personal and socIal damage a substance may do.

1 = Most serious 6 = Least serious

HENNINGFIELD RATINGS

Substance Withdrawal Reinforcemt Tolerance Dependnce Intoxictn
----------- ---------- ----------- --------- --------- ---------
Nicotine 3 4 2 1 5
Heroin 2 2 1 2 2
Cocaine 4 1 4 3 3
Alcohol 1 3 3 4 1
Caffeine 5 6 5 5 6
Marijuana 6 5 6 6 4


BENOWITZ RATINGS

Substance Withdrawal Reinforcemt Tolerance Dependnce Intoxictn
----------- ---------- ----------- --------- --------- ---------
Nicotine 3* 4 4 1 6
Heroin 2 2 2 2 2
Cocaine 3* 1 1 3 3
Alcohol 1 3 4 4 1
Caffeine 4 5 3 5 5
Marijuana 5 6 5 6 4

*equal ratings

Also toxisity ratings from another site (forgot to get the sit)
(amount till lethal)
Cannabis and hallucinogens - not toxic
caffeine 10,000mg, = 100 cups of coffee
barbiturates 2,000mg
amphetamine and cocaine 1,000mg
heroin 120-350mg
nicotine 60mg


Hmmm also found some facts buried in the pages … it appears that while these are the effects nicotine has about the highest addiction rate also some of the worst withdrawals … read through the site
Those that are looking to ban drugs … how bout that one? For those looking to approve drug’s while marijuana is pretty mild … what about some of the others? There are some pretty messed up drugs that will REALLY mess with your system … not just effects (though they are bad enough) but a combination of effects … dependency … tolerance. Also look at the potential for od and death related to drugs.
How about drugs while a mother is pregnant? Yes alcohol is bad … but it usually just does damage … things like crack … will be having even more babies born addicted to drugs
All just thoughts :)

but thats true of ALL addictions.

Yes, but the end results of a heroin addiction cannot be justified in any way.

First of all, I don't know if you have ever met a Heroine or crack addict, but most of them do want help, and would be rid of their addictions if they had a choice. If treatment was available for free, and illegal drugs cost a lot of money (which they do) most addicts would choose free treatment . The thing is treatment has to involve suppliing addicts so that they can be weaned off drugs, also so they do not return to buying illegal drugs.

As for where to get the money, I would take it out of defense, but tax increases for the wealthy (dividend tax, estate tax) could help also. As for whatI would cut in defense, I don't think we need more inventive ways to blow people up, we have plenty. If we took the money wasted on Bush's missile defese sheild that didn't work and was essentially corporate welfare and spent it on drug treatment, we would see a dramitic decrease in addiction. Our defense spending should mainly be concerned with giving our troops a fair wage and free insurance and such, anybody read yesterday's New York Times?

but if certain drugs were legal (at least weed) the government could tax that and get the money there. Plus with all the money they would save on not putting people who are found in possession into jails. Because jails are very expensive

Its obvious from reading most of these posts that the only two people who have actually educated themselves on the topic of marijuana are BoogieDown and Kanabia.
I'm tired of reading posts from reactionary, DARE-school rejects who say "All drugs are bad" when they have no clue what marijuana actually does to your body physiologically.
I'm not sure if Polok was refering to weed when he talked about how people would do "anything" for drugs, but the worst thing I do when I've run out of smoke is whine.
And as far as potheads being unable to be "responsible", most smokers don't even like driving high because its too much for them to handle. As someone already said, you're much more likely to just stay home or wherever you're at until you come down. And if a high person does drive, studies show that the biggest problem they have is driving in a completely straight line (and people talking on cell phones are worse than that).
Cocaine, heroin, crack are all problems that should be dealt with because they do cause social disorder. But natural substances like marijuana and shrooms don't harm the body (cause God made 'em that way).
So, before people shoot off their mouths about why drugs are bad they should do their research because they'd find that alcohol is actually worse than marijuana, even just looking at the affects it has on one's health.
That's all I've gotta say about that.
Signed,
Kelly Houlihan
Supreme Executive Minister of the Free Land of Sonsy

but if certain drugs were legal (at least weed) the government could tax that and get the money there. Plus with all the money they would save on not putting people who are found in possession into jails. Because jails are very expensive

Good point. That would at least cover a significant portion of the cost.

Yes, but the end results of a heroin addiction cannot be justified in any way.

then whats the end? be more specific. because the end of sexual addiction can lead to STD's in the person afflicted as well as spread it to all those he/she has sexual relations with. What about addiction to food. That can leave the afflicted person with seriousl health risks. Its true there are no "withdrawal" symptoms from not drug addicted. However, Kanabia was making a point about control over addiction.

Its obvious from reading most of these posts that the only two people who have actually educated themselves on the topic of marijuana are BoogieDown and Kanabia.


First I resent that. Just kidding. Yes but i do agree with what you said. As a the quote goes:

"God made pot. Man made beer. Who do you trust?" ~Graffiti

Drugs are bad because they can easily kill and corrupt you.

Drugs are bad because they can easily kill and corrupt you.

I love it when people respond to a long thread without reading it... It makes them look SOOOO dumb....

Drugs are bad because they can easily kill and corrupt you.

can't cars easily kill you. How about the govenment corrupting people. a little less of unsubstantiated personal opinion and a little more evidence would be nice

I love it when people respond to a long thread without reading it... It makes them look SOOOO dumb....

Thankyou....and you are who?

can't cars easily kill you. How about the govenment corrupting people. a little less of unsubstantiated personal opinion and a little more evidence would be nice

Erm...idiot....doesn't the thread title say, and I quote - Drugs are bad...why?. Therefore, my post was replying to the question in the thread. Now go along and try to make yourself look big somehwere else.

Ok I normally don’t argue about stuff like this but


As for where to get the money, I would take it out of defense, but tax increases for the wealthy (dividend tax, estate tax)

First of all that is BS … maybe the wealthy but you know what it kind of is a bad idea in a capitalistic society to penalize people for doing good

But the ESTATE tax is bs … you know it sounds good but when the majority of the “estate” being transferred is NOT money it is a REAL burden (such as family farms … we just had to go through this)

We just went through this with my family
We aren’t poor but when my dads mom died and my dad ended up with just 200 acres of land and an estate tax of 90 k! what the hell were we supposed to do? Also things like zoning laws prohibited us from selling off small chunks of land to pay for the damn tax (nothing less then 40 acres!)

This happens all over the place! Specially in rural America
Time to dip into the retirement fund for a 55+ year old man just so he can keep the farm going (the other option was to get rid of the land … which has been in the family for over 100 years … we ended up having to do this)

could help also. As for whatI would cut in defense, I don't think we need more inventive ways to blow people up, we have plenty. If we took the money wasted on Bush's missile defese sheild that didn't work and was essentially corporate welfare and spent it on drug treatment, we would see a dramitic decrease in addiction. Our defense spending should mainly be concerned with giving our troops a fair wage and free insurance and such, anybody read yesterday's New York Times?

I agree that some of what bush does is complete bs … don’t get me wrong
But we cant cut ALL defense spending … the reason when we do fight (and not going into reasons for fighting a war) but the reason troop loss ratios are so incredibly low (I know I know even one dead is too much … but again assuming the war) is because we spend the money to train … and equip our troops. The bigger gap in training and equipment between us and who we are facing … the lower the loss ratio.

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/weekly/aa120102a.htm

hmmm and look a nice new pay raize for our troops … hmmm where did it come from … the defense fund

Also some more in-depth info on pay for military

http://www.rand.org/publications/IP/IP205/


so far looks like the wage to be somewhere more then a person with a 2 year degree and 4 year … so about 30 k a year … trying to find a figure but cant … probably buried in there or other pages I have looked at

Anyways rant summery: don’t penalize people in the wrong places … might not be best for everyone

And
Some money has to be spent to keep our troops ALIVE … lol why increase their pay but increase the danger they will potentially be in


Lol and sonsy … I didn’t educate myself? What the hell was all that reading for then :-P

(also trying to be objective … just because they don’t think it is bad doesn’t NESSISARLY mean that they educated them self’s) just pointing that out

Erm...idiot....doesn't the thread title say, and I quote - Drugs are bad...why?. Therefore, my post was replying to the question in the thread. Now go along and try to make yourself look big somehwere else.

I am BoogieDown Productions, and you are very welcome. You are right that is what the title said, but since that is all you read, you don't know what was actually being discussed, the merits of outlawing drugs, and how to best deal with the problem of drugs in this country. Read the thread, educate yourself a little and maybe you can have something more worthwhile to say than "Drugs can kill and corrupt you" We are aware of that, READ THE THREAD, and you might figure out a comment that is relevant to the conversation at hand. That would help you to not sound so dumb...

I am BoogieDown Productions, and you are very welcome. You are right that is what the title said, but since that is all you read, you don't know what was actually being discussed, the merits of outlawing drugs, and how to best deal with the problem of drugs in this country. Read the thread, educate yourself a little and maybe you can have something more worthwhile to say than "Drugs can kill and corrupt you" We are aware of that, READ THE THREAD, and you might figure out a comment that is relevant to the conversation at hand. That would help you to not sound so dumb...

I don't really care what has been discussed by you guys. Big whoop. I was simply refering to the thread question when you guys decide to make comments to me.

really, i say legalize it all. alcohol is legal. there are some people who are addicted to it, but that doesn't make it illegal. tobacco is a very dangerous substance that's highly addictive, but it's legal. so why would you make coccaine illegal because some people are addicted to it? doesn't make sense.

but seriously, at least legalize pot. it's not a harmful substance (especially if eaten rather than smoked) and removing the stigma from hemp would mean greater hemp production for a variety of purposes, which would be excellent for the environmnent. it could even solve the current gas woes, imagine a car running on hemp oil, burning clean and efficiently. :)

How does the government have the right what i can and cannot put in my body as long as i am responsible (not driving under the influence and such). This topic has always infuriated. This and drug testing, as if drugs are the root of any problem in society. We should test people for ignorance, arrogance or greed. The negativity and issues tied to those things are innumerably larger than DRUGS!!!

Because drugs will alter the way you think and act, and eventually you might do something to harm others, whether you want to or like to or not. Who can guarantee you won't punch someone in the face once you down one drug or the other. And if you're so nonchalant about your own life, here's what: it doesn't really matter if you die or not. what about the cost of ambulance to take you to the hospital? the time of a doctor to certify you're dead? space at the morgue and the cemetary? it all boils down to taxpayer money. i'm not spending my hard-earned money on irresponsible, selfish trash like you. sorry if i sound a little over the edge, i hope you understand what i feel about people bragging about their "right" and "freedom" to take drugs.

First of all that is BS … maybe the wealthy but you know what it kind of is a bad idea in a capitalistic society to penalize people for doing good

But the ESTATE tax is bs … you know it sounds good but when the majority of the “estate” being transferred is NOT money it is a REAL burden (such as family farms … we just had to go through this)


You make a good arguement for the reform of estate tax policy, but not for eliminating it entirly, which is the current plan. It would be quite simple to waive estate tax as it applies to land that has been owned a certain amount time (10 years for instance) This would exclude family farms but also keep the rich from just buying land to evade taxes. There is no reason to eliminate the estate tax for estates that are in the tens of millions to save family farms, come on now....


I agree that some of what bush does is complete bs … don’t get me wrong
But we cant cut ALL defense spending … the reason when we do fight (and not going into reasons for fighting a war) but the reason troop loss ratios are so incredibly low (I know I know even one dead is too much … but again assuming the war) is because we spend the money to train … and equip our troops. The bigger gap in training and equipment between us and who we are facing … the lower the loss ratio.

Do you even know abou the missile defense shield? It alone costed enough to fund treatment centers across the nation. $125 BILLION was wasted on a plan that doesn't work, that experts said would never work, and is pointless since the major threat is no longer from ICBMs but from terrorist attacks. If this money was being spent on equiping troops I would be less outraged, but since many troops go into combat without body armor, this kinda pisses me off.



Some money has to be spent to keep our troops ALIVE … lol why increase their pay but increase the danger they will potentially be in

Take a look at Iraq, are those millions of dollars in cruise missile really keeping troops alive? There have been many more casualties in time since Bush announced "mission accomplished" than there were before.The enemy is smaller, more evasive and more devious than ever before, New ways to blow up more people from farther away isn't going to help with the way war is fought today. I think even you would be apalled how much defense spending goes to new toys and not to troops, it couldn't possibly be to prop up the defense industry.. Heavens NO!

Its funny how if you even mention trimming the fat on defense people get all up in arms about how you dont want to keep out troops alive.

I don't really care what has been discussed by you guys. Big whoop. I was simply refering to the thread question when you guys decide to make comments to me.

If you don't care what is being discussed, go post somewhere else.

Lol alright my turn again

You make a good arguement for the reform of estate tax policy, but not for eliminating it entirly, which is the current plan. It would be quite simple to waive estate tax as it applies to land that has been owned a certain amount time (10 years for instance) This would exclude family farms but also keep the rich from just buying land to evade taxes. There is no reason to eliminate the estate tax for estates that are in the tens of millions to save family farms, come on now....

Didn’t mean eliminate but surly not raise it

But the eliminate on the more then 10 year thing … agree wholeheartedly



Do you even know abou the missile defense shield? It alone costed enough to fund treatment centers across the nation. $125 BILLION was wasted on a plan that doesn't work, that experts said would never work, and is pointless since the major threat is no longer from ICBMs but from terrorist attacks. If this money was being spent on equiping troops I would be less outraged, but since many troops go into combat without body armor, this kinda pisses me off.


Yes the shield was a waste of money … not arguing there.
Was arguing the broad “defense” money reduction … in specifics yes but maybe just re attributing it to like you said raises


Take a look at Iraq, are those millions of dollars in cruise missile really keeping troops alive? There have been many more casualties in time since Bush announced "mission accomplished" than there were before.The enemy is smaller, more evasive and more devious than ever before, New ways to blow up more people from farther away isn't going to help with the way war is fought today. I think even you would be apalled how much defense spending goes to new toys and not to troops, it couldn't possibly be to prop up the defense industry.. Heavens NO!



may seem like a simple response but if you can accurately apply “power” from a distance they can not feasibly respond to … then defiantly less deaths

it is about accuracy of power

and as for the deaths … currently some things have to be done the old fashion way … currently is no way to accurately identify and apply force to an individual

and new toys and pet projects generally turn into great things

I mean spending money on making new personal armor(vests or such) that can take a hit from a large cal personal mobile weapon would save a LOT of lifes
And nor is it “blowing people up from farther away”

Yes money is wasted don’t get me wrong … but we have to do more like they are trying to do with weapons
Accurately apply money to the best projects
And save what we don’t use there

Its funny how if you even mention trimming the fat on defense people get all up in arms about how you dont want to keep out troops alive.

Because defense spending DOES keep people alive … BUT it has to be done right other wise it is a waste

We respond the way we do because you don’t specify … you just say “defense” not specifically that boondoggle of a defense shield or some other such thing

I've researched this issue (amongst other things) years and I think there is really a big conspiracy. Everyone who has put more time into this matter understands this so called drug problem was created mostly by drugs being made illegal. The same people who are responsible for that are really the ones on top of drug business. They make money from it and power most of all. You need 'enemies' to control people. The drugs have been made one. And it works well. People don't even think they just react.

Well the world is insane, these times are insane; and insane things are still to happen...

Btw I would consider marihuana a lot softer drug than alchohol which would be objectively speaking up there with heroin and amphetamine, as how addictive and dangerous it is...

Btw about 50 years a go you could at least here in Finland get heroin without prescription; it was a cough medicine. Was it then a problem. No, nobody here had even heard of such thing as 'the drug problem'. Alcohol was the drug which was the biggest problem then and which still is.
And I don't tell you that alcohol should be illegal, of course not. Making a drug illegal only makes things worse, it just increases the divide between the goverment and the people.

Catholic Europe, so anything that can kill you is bad?

Pencils can kill. Sugar can kill. Little kids can kill. Governments can kill. Priests can kill. Catholics can kill. Europeans can kill. All bad, yesiree! Oh and, well, God can kill too.

Anyway, since you're clearly thinking you "answered" the thread topic and there is no need for "discussion" you won't have to respond to this.

(Also, reading can kill.)

Anyway, "drugs can alter the way you think and act." Heh! So can indoctrination into one of the millions of stupid worldviews out there! So can indoctrination into a political party! So can gaining new friends! So can having sex! So can growing up!

Altering how you think and act is not only not an inherently bad thing, it's part of life. One might say it IS life. I mean, if no living things adapted themselves, life wouldn't exist. And if humans don't at least attempt to change the way they think now and then, they regress to the level of simpering, drooling automatons and might as well just shoot themselves in the head, IMO. Waste of flesh, waste of a brain.

The taxpayer money argument: I'm sick of hearing it. Everyone complains endlessly because THEIR tax dollars don't go exactly where they want. Everyone's a martyr. The minute a discussion comes up about government spending, everyone becomes self righteous and hard-working, selflessly giving only to have their generous donations abused by the Other Political Party. Well, it's getting old.

Anyway, the point is, none of the alternatives to legalized drug use seem very viable. They all take precious taxpayer funds too. Ambulence costs are nothing compared to public rehab centers, and losses from crime from people having to steal. Nothing. The simplest solution for everyone is legalized drugs, just as we have legalized caffeine, alcohol, cigarettes and Catholicism. Then people can get high on whatever they like, be it the magic fairy in the sky or the magic fairy in the crack pipe, or not, and they can suffer the consequences or not, and that's that.

The problem is one of control. People want to control other people. If *I* don't like marijuana, because I've been indoctrinated to believe that marijuana is bad, mmkay - well you shouldn't either! What's more, I'll lock you up for trying, and throwing in my face the fact that I'm a pissy sheep who believes solidly in "misery loves company," as well as other phrases, like "do unto others as they deserve to be done, the criminal bastards."

Lastly, the driving thing. Here's what I think:

In the past week, I've nearly gotten into three accidents.

All three were because of some asshole who was driving while talking, oh-so-importantly, on a cell phone. And not paying as much attention to the road.

Now, I could blame the cell phone, but the real problem is stupidity. Unless you outlaw stupidity, the highways are always going to be asphalts of death. And even then, outlawing something doesn't make it magically disappear, does it? Maybe we should kill anyone below a certain IQ. You never hear the anti-drug fanatics suggest something like that. Why not? Are they worried?

The problem is, once people take drugs (especially the more potent ones) it gets out of their control. Once people become hooked on drugs they will do anything to get them and therefore become irresponsible. Plus the government does have a certain degree of responsibility to care for its citizens.

thats true they also have a responisbility to cut down the number of deaths that have alcohol and drugs related to them

Because drugs will alter the way you think and act, and eventually you might do something to harm others, whether you want to or like to or not. Who can guarantee you won't punch someone in the face once you down one drug or the other. And if you're so nonchalant about your own life, here's what: it doesn't really matter if you die or not. what about the cost of ambulance to take you to the hospital? the time of a doctor to certify you're dead? space at the morgue and the cemetary? it all boils down to taxpayer money. i'm not spending my hard-earned money on irresponsible, selfish trash like you. sorry if i sound a little over the edge, i hope you understand what i feel about people bragging about their "right" and "freedom" to take drugs.

ok so this eventually causing harm to others... what drug have you tried? I feel like one of the things that is most evident with is ALCOHOL, which is legal. What guarantees you won't punch someone in the face if you are angry, or mad, and not under the influence of a drug? What can guarantee if you will punch someone if you are drunk? Thats a really closed-minded way of thinking about harmful effects of drugs. I have NEVER EVER seen anyone get into a fight when they were stoned. Anyone with evidence to the contrary, please feel free to chime in. I have however, seen countless bar brawls and fights and arguments at parties because people have been drinking. What about tax payers paying for the war in iraq, because of some irresponsible, selfish trash of a president. Why arent we educating people? Why are we paying countless dollars to put users in prison, people who dont pose a hazard to anyone, except probably themselves. You seem to be ignorant of the effects of most drugs, and fearful of what they may do to you. God forbid you ever try anything, you may just punch someone in the face!

Santa Barbara

*applause* you said it better than i could!

But the eliminate on the more then 10 year thing … agree wholeheartedly

See? There are better way to go aobut solving the problems of the esate tax than eliminating it entirely. Thats a lot of money going to make the rich richer.



Yes the shield was a waste of money … not arguing there.
Was arguing the broad “defense” money reduction … in specifics yes but maybe just re attributing it to like you said raises

$125 Billion is enough wasted to give raises and then fund education or drug-treatment etc. I am objecting to the obvious corporate welfare that is our defense spending.



may seem like a simple response but if you can accurately apply “power” from a distance they can not feasibly respond to … then defiantly less deaths

it is about accuracy of power

and as for the deaths … currently some things have to be done the old fashion way … currently is no way to accurately identify and apply force to an individual

and new toys and pet projects generally turn into great things

I was making the point that today's wars are more complex, and will not be won with bombs. Lookat Iraq or vietnam and you will see, bombs don't really help too much, and the ones we have got are good enough.


I mean spending money on making new personal armor(vests or such) that can take a hit from a large cal personal mobile weapon would save a LOT of lifes
And nor is it “blowing people up from farther away”

Yes money is wasted don’t get me wrong … but we have to do more like they are trying to do with weapons

Unfortunatly, new body armor is not what the money is going to, its goign to blowing people up from farther away. Each cruise missle cost enough to build a state-of-the-art school building, and hove enoguh left over to finance the school for several years.


Accurately apply money to the best projects
And save what we don’t use there
This is my point exactly. The "best projects" are usually not the most expensive, again I cite the Missile Defense Shield.



Because defense spending DOES keep people alive … BUT it has to be done right other wise it is a waste

I agree entirely, but I would say that the only reason we need to spend so much is because of the massive waste that is going on. If defense spending were cut back to only cover the "best projects" we would have ton of money left over for other uses.


We respond the way we do because you don’t specify … you just say “defense” not specifically that boondoggle of a defense shield or some other such thing


If we took the money wasted on Bush's missile defese sheild that didn't work and was essentially corporate welfare and spent it on drug treatment, we would see a dramitic decrease in addiction.


Im pretty sure I did specify, see above, my first post on the subject. At least one example is the Missile defense shield, i could research some others, but that is the only one I know of offhand, and it also happened to be the most egregeous. The defense budget is fat, and should be trimmed. America spend more on defense than the next 30 biggest spenders in the world combined. I fwe reduced this number to twenty, we would still have hegemonic power in the world military arena, but we might be able to afford things like drug treatment.

I have not even mentioned the money that would be saved by not having to fight a "war" on drugs, seriously, there is plenty of money, you act like Im talking about getting rid of military spending all together...

Drugs should be legal because prohibition doesn't work. Prohibition creates the necessity for gang violence and secret dealings.

Alcohol prohibition showed us that.

If someone wants to drink their life away then that is their choice, their body, their life, their money, their loss. But if they go drinking and driving (or some such nonsense like that), then we have laws that punish those who endanger others and we can do the same for all drugs.

Alcohol is no safer than any illegal drug. You can die from drinking too much of it. It impairs your judgement. You can easily get violent on it. You can do something and not remember it the next day.

Illegal drug users are demonized while alcoholics get sympathy.

Legalizign drugs can help reduce our prison population and abusers will have the option of goign to get rehabilitation for their addiction witch is a disease and not a criminal inclination.

Legalizing drugs can help make drugs safer because there will be quality standards. It can generate revenue for our country instead of gangs. It will make it harder for kids to get it because you will have to have an ID (right now kids can get drugs easier than alcohol because they dont need to ask an adult to buy it for them). Criminals could instead become legitimate businessmen instead.

It will take a lot of money from gangs as well as that is the main source of gang revenue.


no?

Drugs should be legal because prohibition doesn't work. Prohibition creates the necessity for gang violence and secret dealings.

Alcohol prohibition showed us that.

If someone wants to drink their life away then that is their choice, their body, their life, their money, their loss. But if they go drinking and driving (or some such nonsense like that), then we have laws that punish those who endanger others and we can do the same for all drugs.

Alcohol is no safer than any illegal drug. You can die from drinking too much of it. It impairs your judgement. You can easily get violent on it. You can do something and not remember it the next day.

Illegal drug users are demonized while alcoholics get sympathy.

Legalizign drugs can help reduce our prison population and abusers will have the option of goign to get rehabilitation for their addiction witch is a disease and not a criminal inclination.

Legalizing drugs can help make drugs safer because there will be quality standards. It can generate revenue for our country instead of gangs. It will make it harder for kids to get it because you will have to have an ID (right now kids can get drugs easier than alcohol because they dont need to ask an adult to buy it for them). Criminals could instead become legitimate businessmen instead.

It will take a lot of money from gangs as well as that is the main source of gang revenue.


no?

Yes!

YA WANNA KNOW GOD DAMN WHY? IT'S BECAUSE WE, THE VOTERS, CHOOSE DRUGS TO BE BAD!

We vote the politicians into office, thus they must listen to what we want otherwise they will most likely be voted out. If a politician is threatened enough to be voted out of his position if he does not pass certain laws or vote against, than he will lose his position BY THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE HE/SHE REPRESENTS.

We, society, choose drugs to be evil because we see them as a harmful thing to our family and friends. For example, my uncle (19 right now) has been taking drugs (speed, marijuana, etc.). Wanna know what he's doing? Working at Taco Bell and living with his mother and not seeing a good reason to continue living. Even he tells me to not listen to what people say and don't do drugs...I think that's why I'm against the legalization of marijuana and drugs alltogether.


So, if you want to complain about why the government tells us that drugs are bad, open up a book about democracy and do something about it. You want drugs to be legalized? Write a letter to your congressman. YOU HAVE A GOD DAMN VOICE IN THIS COUNTRY, USE IT!


There, after a dozen arguments, I think I have the perfect answer for this question.

Colodia, Pot is actually illegal because DuPont did a smear campain on "marijuana" calling it teh mexican killer weed that made people kill and rape. DuPont wanted to use synthetic materials they developed on the market but HEMP was too much of a competition for them. Getting rid of Cannabis was the only way to corner the market.

People didn't know what this Marijuana was, but they didnt want some killer weed. Little did they know it was the most used medication at the time. George Washington had crops of the stuff.

And as a matter of fact I am using my voice and voting to legalize it. THE PEOPLE did VOTE IN THE MAJORITY in california to make Medical Marijuana Legal, so it passed but the Feds are still stopping it from happening. So what now?

got proof? I live in the same bloody state and have never heard of such a thing.

YA WANNA KNOW GOD DAMN WHY? IT'S BECAUSE WE, THE VOTERS, CHOOSE DRUGS TO BE BAD!

We vote the politicians into office, thus they must listen to what we want otherwise they will most likely be voted out. If a politician is threatened enough to be voted out of his position if he does not pass certain laws or vote against, than he will lose his position BY THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE HE/SHE REPRESENTS.

We, society, choose drugs to be evil because we see them as a harmful thing to our family and friends. For example, my uncle (19 right now) has been taking drugs (speed, marijuana, etc.). Wanna know what he's doing? Working at Taco Bell and living with his mother and not seeing a good reason to continue living. Even he tells me to not listen to what people say and don't do drugs...I think that's why I'm against the legalization of marijuana and drugs alltogether.


So, if you want to complain about why the government tells us that drugs are bad, open up a book about democracy and do something about it. You want drugs to be legalized? Write a letter to your congressman. YOU HAVE A GOD DAMN VOICE IN THIS COUNTRY, USE IT!


There, after a dozen arguments, I think I have the perfect answer for this question.

Well how would you feel if your uncle goes to jail? Wouldn't it be nice if he had rehab? But wait in this system, he DOESNT!!! There are very few jails offering rehab. Secondly, it's your uncle's choice to do drugs, a personal choice, clearly drugs being illegal hasnt stopped him! Nor does it stop the rest of the population!!!

I'd say he was addicted, but I figured your big strong muscled brain is too strong to handle such facts.

Are you politically active in Calif? Or have you just not been here very long? This was HUGE in '96

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=05062002-093230-1418r


The medical marijuana concept appealed to California voters who in 1996 approved Proposition 215, which allowed doctors to "prescribe" marijuana to such patients -- the measure unfortunately did not address the issue of how these souls would get a hold of a substance that is inherently illegal.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling last year that there was no medical necessity for exempting marijuana from the federal Controlled Substances Act, which effectively trumped Prop 215 and turned the state's marijuana buying clubs into common drug dealers in the eyes of the law.

As a result, the DEA has raided marijuana cooperatives in the San Francisco Bay Area as well as in Los Angeles. A building used by a buyers' club in Santa Rosa was raided earlier this week by the DEA, which insists it is not targeting medical marijuana organizations, but will investigate large-scale trafficking organizations.




Check out this link on the reasons Marijuana is illegal:
http://www.parascope.com/mx/hemp02.htm

I'd say he was addicted, but I figured your big strong muscled brain is too strong to handle such facts.

way to reply to any of my questions. obviously he is addicted. look at my post... and dont refer to my brain in stupid names. Its quite squishy and wonderful, we get along great.

*sigh*

Anya...he's been to jail numerous times. It really wouldn't suprise me if he went in again.

Secondly, yes, he IS trying to rehab himself. Although I doubt he is getting anywhere. You try getting anywhere in the middle of Los Angelos

Are you politically active in Calif? Or have you just not been here very long? This was HUGE in '96

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=05062002-093230-1418r





Check out this link on the reasons Marijuana is illegal:
http://www.parascope.com/mx/hemp02.htm
I was 6 at the time

*reads article*

oh f***...states rights crap.

This is a states rights issue, also concerning the means of how a patient can GET the marijuana. An issue for the Supreme Court, not Congress nor the President.

*sigh*

Anya...he's been to jail numerous times. It really wouldn't suprise me if he went in again.

Secondly, yes, he IS trying to rehab himself. Although I doubt he is getting anywhere. You try getting anywhere in the middle of Los Angelos

but thats the point, he shouldnt have to go to jail. if things like pot were legalized he could go to rehab instead, and not be seen as a criminal. i mean do you see him as dangerous, does he sell or smuggle, becuasse it just sounds like he is an addict? Legalizing things like pot would provide much more money for rehab instead of jail. Also it would make pot, and if other drugs are legalized more safe because it should be sold like alcohol and it would have to have some sort of standard. Im sure if your uncle smokes he probably has had experience with pot being laced with something. Thats very dangerous when you are expecting something, and get something totally different. Also, he wouldnt have a criminal record if it wasnt illegal because im sure he would perhaps like to go to school and be able to take out loans and such. pot being illegal hasnt stopped him, and that was your argument before, that the gov. says its bad because it is. But its not a deterrent. And what about alcohol, whats your thoughts on that.

I was 6 at the time

*reads article*

oh f***...states rights crap.

This is a states rights issue, also concerning the means of how a patient can GET the marijuana. An issue for the Supreme Court, not Congress nor the President.

and since we dont elect the supreme court, most people DONT have a say. thus, your logic is flawed once again.

but thats the point, he shouldnt have to go to jail. if things like pot were legalized he could go to rehab instead, and not be seen as a criminal. i mean do you see him as dangerous, does he sell or smuggle, becuasse it just sounds like he is an addict? Legalizing things like pot would provide much more money for rehab instead of jail. Also it would make pot, and if other drugs are legalized more safe because it should be sold like alcohol and it would have to have some sort of standard. Im sure if your uncle smokes he probably has had experience with pot being laced with something. Thats very dangerous when you are expecting something, and get something totally different. Also, he wouldnt have a criminal record if it wasnt illegal because im sure he would perhaps like to go to school and be able to take out loans and such. pot being illegal hasnt stopped him, and that was your argument before, that the gov. says its bad because it is. But its not a deterrent. And what about alcohol, whats your thoughts on that.

Your walking away from my original argument - that the VOTERS say it's bad. Not the government.

Oh, and my uncle is a very good man thank you very much.

My thoughts on alcohol are complicated. On one hand you have a substance that can seriously alter your mind and cause you to do retarded things, and possibly kill you. Seeing as how a large enough number in our society doesn't use alcohol in a responsible manner. On the other hand, it is traditionally seen as a great drink that the *ahem ahem* voters like to drink.

and since we dont elect the supreme court, most people DONT have a say. thus, your logic is flawed once again.
not entirely true.

The President appoints those in the Supreme Judge. Congress can choose whether or not the appointee can have their meeting with the President to officially become the Judge.

So indirectly, we do.

Your walking away from my original argument - that the VOTERS say it's bad. Not the government.

Oh, and my uncle is a very good man thank you very much.

My thoughts on alcohol are complicated. On one hand you have a substance that can seriously alter your mind and cause you to do retarded things, and possibly kill you. Seeing as how a large enough number in our society doesn't use alcohol in a responsible manner. On the other hand, it is traditionally seen as a great drink that the *ahem ahem* voters like to drink.

well pot is a great weed that politicians like to smoke. Our president is a recovering Coke addict. The implications of alcohol are worse than pot (there has been support for that in this entire thread).

Now i feel like i've lost sight of your original point of why drugs should be illegal. So please enlighten me again.

Not like our current president was actually elected though.

but on topic and your original argument, the VOTERS voted for the legalization of medical marijuana.

Since the voters wanted it to be legal in California, don't you agree that it shoudl be legal in California? The majority has spoken.

Not like our current president was actually elected though.

but on topic and your original argument, the VOTERS voted for the legalization of medical marijuana.

Since the voters wanted it to be legal in California, don't you agree that it shoudl be legal in California? The majority has spoken.

Yes! But it should just be legal, and everywhere for that matter. Why does it take us so damn long to follow europe's, canada's and australia's steps in terms of pot???

Not like our current president was actually elected though.

but on topic and your original argument, the VOTERS voted for the legalization of medical marijuana.

Since the voters wanted it to be legal in California, don't you agree that it shoudl be legal in California? The majority has spoken.
and the Supreme Court said what they said

also it got into this whole states right mumbo jumbo B.S.

Yes! But it should just be legal, and everywhere for that matter. Why does it take us so damn long to follow europe's, canada's and australia's steps in terms of pot???
If Canada, Europe, and Australia jumped off a bridge, should America do it too?

Well i think its best to make it legal everywhere and put restrictins but I was just trying to get Colodia to agree with it being legal where the voters voted for its legalization.

Several states have voted for its legalization.

well pot is a great weed that politicians like to smoke. Our president is a recovering Coke addict. The implications of alcohol are worse than pot (there has been support for that in this entire thread).

Now i feel like i've lost sight of your original point of why drugs should be illegal. So please enlighten me again.
GIMMIE A V-O-T-ERS VOTERS!


I swear I just did a gay thing....and I dont like it

I'd love to stick here and chat about how we shouldn't throw away the voice of the people and stick to laws that we voted for because the majority wanted them, not because random people want it. But I gotta eat. And I other stuff to.

I was just trying to address the original question of the whole topic.
Q: Why does the government say marijuana/drugs are bad?
A: Because we (the voters) said so

Colodia, so because someone who wasnt voted in office wants something that the Voters voted for then the Voters shouldnt get it? What kind of sense does that make?

I don't get what your point is about states rights? Do you think it should be up to the state or not?

Colodia said:
Q: Why does the government say marijuana/drugs are bad?
A: Because we (the voters) said so

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

because the voters were gravely misinformed. Did you even read the article I posted on why pot is illegal?


YOu never had a satisfactory answer on why you think Calif shouldnt be able to get what the voters voted for.

Colodia, so because someone who wasnt voted in office wants something that the Voters voted for then the Voters shouldnt get it? What kind of sense does that make?

I don't get what your point is about states rights? Do you think it should be up to the state or not?
I don't get what your saying either.

And I haven't read over the whole constitution to say if it should be up to states or not.

But I think no, since marijuana is such a huge subject and will disrupt populations of states seeing as how people will move to legalized states just so they can satisfy their addictions.

And then you got the problem of where the FBI can crack down on criminals or not.

I think that would be the satisfactory answer.

Now seriously, please dont respond with a question because I WANNA EAT!

If Canada, Europe, and Australia jumped off a bridge, should America do it too?

I meant in terms of drugs... i do like bungee jumping, maybe if it was a competition, and the winner would win civil rights, i'd jump.

I'd love to stick here and chat about how we shouldn't throw away the voice of the people and stick to laws that we voted for because the majority wanted them, not because random people want it. But I gotta eat. And I other stuff to.

I was just trying to address the original question of the whole topic.
Q: Why does the government say marijuana/drugs are bad?
A: Because we (the voters) said so

since when is that the original topic? basically none of what you said made sense. and please dont lump me into "we" because i never said it was bad.

Just like everything else, people react to drugs in many different ways. I say legalize drugs, but if you get hooked, you're on your own. If private organizations want to fund treatment programs that's fine; but public money shouldn't be used to pay for those who lack willpower.

Drugs that are currently illegal should be treated like alcohol and tobacco. People should be allowed to manufacture or grow their own supply (as long as they stay within a limit). They will also be held criminally and civilly responsible for any damage caused by faulty methods. For instance, if a guy blows up his meth lab he'll have to pay back for the fire an police response as well as any damage caused to the property of others. In addition he'll face charges of "unsafe production methods" (or something similar) in addition to breaking any other existing laws.

There should be both federal and state taxes applied to the substances, as well as state mandated age limits. Private sales will be illegal and all sales must be from a permanent site, and a licensed dealer.

[QUOTE=Paradise Rand]Just like everything else, people react to drugs in many different ways. I say legalize drugs, but if you get hooked, you're on your own. If private organizations want to fund treatment programs that's fine; but public money shouldn't be used to pay for those who lack willpower.

I agree, to say that drugs can be used by anyone, on the surface, looks like a gernerous, liberatarian thing to do. But infact, you throw the rights of the masses out of the window when government health spending has to deal with drug rehabilitation!!

I think we'd all be better off by reading some Burroughs!!!

Drugs should be legal because prohibition doesn't work. Prohibition creates the necessity for gang violence and secret dealings.

Alcohol prohibition showed us that.

If someone wants to drink their life away then that is their choice, their body, their life, their money, their loss. But if they go drinking and driving (or some such nonsense like that), then we have laws that punish those who endanger others and we can do the same for all drugs.

Alcohol is no safer than any illegal drug. You can die from drinking too much of it. It impairs your judgement. You can easily get violent on it. You can do something and not remember it the next day.

Illegal drug users are demonized while alcoholics get sympathy.

Legalizign drugs can help reduce our prison population and abusers will have the option of goign to get rehabilitation for their addiction witch is a disease and not a criminal inclination.

Legalizing drugs can help make drugs safer because there will be quality standards. It can generate revenue for our country instead of gangs. It will make it harder for kids to get it because you will have to have an ID (right now kids can get drugs easier than alcohol because they dont need to ask an adult to buy it for them). Criminals could instead become legitimate businessmen instead.

It will take a lot of money from gangs as well as that is the main source of gang revenue.


no?


also, rehab for drugs should be done the same way rehab for alcohol is done.

ALSO... if you look at places where drugs are decriminalized you will see that there are less people dealing with addiction. When something is taboo, people want to do it more.

You need 'enemies' to control people. The drugs have been made one. And it works well. People don't even think they just react.


like in 1984!

*gasp*

Well, skim reading this thread I see alot of, excuse the flame, idiots talking about Democracy, terrible definitions of what a 'Drug' is, why folk use 'them' and most thinking cause its more of a class issue with the heavy then those damn poor people who lack willpower should help themselves. Take it you've never tryed the hardcore stuff then? I havn't but I dont underrate the strenth/chemicly addictive qualities of it.

THe Naiveity here is tear worthy:S

-I define Drugs as things that chemicly mean your body desires them
-Mentat addiction is COMPLETLY different to physical addiction
-MArijuana should be legalized tomrro, it'[s less harmful than Alchohol and Cigarettes, this or the latter our outlawed.
-Personaly, we need a PROPER education on those 'Drugs', all 'drugs' should be legal, not supported or anything but not blocked, information, especily to the less well off folk needs to be spread but in the end it's the individuals choice and attacking them for lack of willpower is to attack people for being people.
What realy needs done is something to address the reasons why people say fuck it and turn to these distractions, pleasant as they are. Why is someones life so shit they feel they need to go and get so fucked up on the heavy shit when they know thew consequences of it? Is that person any different from the guy who goes on the binge everyweekend to forget his shitty job or the housewife jacked up on valium?

Anything less is taking the easy way out and the 'uR nOt oNe oF uS' approach that means u got no responsibility to your fellow persons suffering and your own little moral high grounds safe.

TRy looking at the reasons behind it, in the end it's a free choice. So long as it's informed then there's nothing more we should be able to do other than fix the depressin eviroment were the need to turn to distractions goes beyonnd cable TV, perscribed pills, drink and mind numbing nicitys.

They are a "danger to society". If a drunk or high person goes driving around it is very possible that they can crash and kill somebody because alcohol and drugs MESS YOU UP.

But don't you think it makes more sense to go after the dealers and suppliers, rather than just the users?

However, I agree that, in the privacy of their own home, they should be able to do all the drugs they want. Just don't bring it out and do them in public.

But infact, you throw the rights of the masses out of the window when government health spending has to deal with drug rehabilitation!!

That's why I stated that rehab shouldn't be government funded. At least read what you quote.

then whats the end? be more specific. because the end of sexual addiction can lead to STD's in the person afflicted as well as spread it to all those he/she has sexual relations with. What about addiction to food. That can leave the afflicted person with seriousl health risks. Its true there are no "withdrawal" symptoms from not drug addicted. However, Kanabia was making a point about control over addiction.

The end? Death. You can't justify someones right to use heroin if they get to the point that they don't realise that they're killing themselves.

RE: your points about sex and food addiction- There are underlying psychological problems that have to be tackled. With drug addicts, it's often the same, but a lot of the time it doesn't start out that way...chemical addiction is far more dangerous.

I do not wish to use drugs. I am hardly inclined to even ever try them. I think that to use them is a horrible idea, that one would use through injection or inhaling a chemical that distorts perception, judgment, and reality is a disturbing notion, and that the fact that people actually do it all the time is what's really disturbing.

Having said that, I want you all to know that I am totally for the legalization of all drugs, bar none. I am a firm believer in freedom, and with freedom comes, yes, the ability to screw yourself up. In fact, all consensual crimes - crimes that affect only the person committing them, such as smoking pot - should be legal. By what right does the government intrude and say, 'no, you can't do that to yourself?'

But then, it needs to go two ways. If we don't want the government to come in and say, 'don't do that,' we can't call them back when we want their help. It doesn't flow logically. Thus, no rehab center should be funded by government money. If you're going to ignore warnings, go right ahead ...at your own risk.

Moreover, I mentioned that all consensual crimes be legalized. This pertains only to situations in which the crimes remain consensual. If someone is found doing somerhing like driving a car while under the influence of a perception-distorting drug, then the consequences should be severe, because this individual has crossed the line and gone from affecting himself to potentially affecting the lives of others. But as long as he's only hurting himself, I have no problem with it.

What say you?

The end? Death. You can't justify someones right to use heroin if they get to the point that they don't realise that they're killing themselves.

but it started out as the persons CHOICE. Thats the point, its a choice in the beginning, and you should deal with the consequences. Its true for all addictions. I hate that crap that having drugs made illegal protects the greater good because it doesnt, responsible, smart people are treated like criminals if they use. Not everyone who uses becomes addicted. Most therapists say its less than 10% of users. Users are different than a person trying the drug once. Proportionally the number of people who become users after trying is smaller still. Why should the rest be punished because the addicts cant handle it? Its a personal problem and they should deal with it, just like any other addiction. It shouldnt be viewed as a criminnal offense but as a medical problem.

but it started out as the persons CHOICE. Thats the point, its a choice in the beginning, and you should deal with the consequences. Its true for all addictions. I hate that crap that having drugs made illegal protects the greater good because it doesnt, responsible, smart people are treated like criminals if they use. Not everyone who uses becomes addicted. Most therapists say its less than 10% of users. Users are different than a person trying the drug once. Proportionally the number of people who become users after trying is smaller still. Why should the rest be punished because the addicts can handle it? Its a personal problem and they should deal with it, just like any other addiction. It shouldnt be viewed as a criminnal offense but as a medical problem.
Its like... some people drive badly, but you don't ban cars.

Well, skim reading this thread I see alot of, excuse the flame, idiots talking about Democracy, terrible definitions of what a 'Drug' is, why folk use 'them' and most thinking cause its more of a class issue with the heavy then those damn poor people who lack willpower should help themselves. Take it you've never tryed the hardcore stuff then? I havn't but I dont underrate the strenth/chemicly addictive qualities of it.

THe Naiveity here is tear worthy:S

-I define Drugs as things that chemicly mean your body desires them


I've tried the "hardcore" stuff.

Meth, coke, E, heroin

I didn't suffer from any horrible addiction, because I controlled myself.

Drugs are not something that your body chemically desires, drugs are either something prescribed as treatment for a disease, or something that chemically acts on the central nervous system.

Don't accuse anyone of being naive when you're so horribly wrong yourself.

Its like... some people drive badly, but you don't ban cars.


Exactly! Thats why we should make them legal.

Plus experimenting and having an open mind is very positive and opens all sorts of doors.

And anyway, statistics have shown that MOST people are responsible enough to use and try drugs.

Meh... I light up around once a week, but I still manage to stay within the top percentile in physics, maths and economics while staying in the top ten percent for everything else. I think drugs should be legalised, but there should be more education (not drugs are bad mmkay) but actually telling you what it does do, what it can do, and the likeliness of it happening (actual percentages, not just "a chance of triggering mental illnesses")

Honestly though, I do not know one person who has been under the influence of cannabis and died, however I know of several who have died while drunk. Also most people after smoking cannabis become self conscious, and would NOT drive, or if they do drive, they would take FAR more caution than a regular driver... regardless driving while under the influence is a terrible idea.

I do not go crazy if I don't smoke weed for a long time, I went without it for at least a year at one point, simply because I didn't feel like smoking. I have had discussions with many of my friends about cannabis, they are absolutely appalingly (sp?) misinformed. They don't know about what it does, or how it does it, they just have a knee jerk reaction to the mention of illegal drugs. Not one of them wants to discuss the reasons against them, same here.

Now time for some humour. (or weak attempt)
Everyone hates them damn potheads yes?
Cannabis is deadly yeah?
So why not enforce darwins theory and let us smoke ourselves to death o.O.








It was 2 am go easy on me >_<, I've been up since 4 am completing various assignments.

While we're on the topic can someone tell me everything they know about the abuse of tablets for motion sickness? I need to stop him from taking them, they are meant to be extremely dangerous and he is using them as a hallucinogen. I'm asking everyone I know because I'm worried.

If he's taking over-the-counter drugs as a hallucinogen, it's probably DXM acting as the hallucinogen.

It's possible to OD on it, but you have to take a lot.

I had a bad experience with something similar. Worst night of my life. Except I drank cough syrup for the same effect.

[QUOTE=Paradise Rand]Just like everything else, people react to drugs in many different ways. I say legalize drugs, but if you get hooked, you're on your own. If private organizations want to fund treatment programs that's fine; but public money shouldn't be used to pay for those who lack willpower.

I agree, to say that drugs can be used by anyone, on the surface, looks like a gernerous, liberatarian thing to do. But infact, you throw the rights of the masses out of the window when government health spending has to deal with drug rehabilitation!!

I think we'd all be better off by reading some Burroughs!!!

The costs of rehabilition are drastically less then the costs of incarceration. This is just in terms of actual dollars. The government is spending huge amounts because drugs are illegal. Society is suffering even more because mandatory minimum sentencing for victimless crimes means the criminals who actually cause harm to other people or other people's property are turned out on the street.

Legailizing drugs would also get rid of the black market drug trade - which would further reduce crime. Quality standards could be set which would reduce much of the harm associated with drugs. Furthermore regulating the drug trade, in addition to generation tax revenue, would allow for oversight laws such as mandatory carding to make sure that the person buying the drugs was of adult age (something a street corner dealer is not going to do) and would actually make it more difficult for minors to get drugs.

Quality standards could be set which would reduce much of the harm associated with drugs. Furthermore regulating the drug trade, in addition to generation tax revenue, would allow for oversight laws such as mandatory carding to make sure that the person buying the drugs was of adult age (something a street corner dealer is not going to do) and would actually make it more difficult for minors to get drugs.

just like they do with alcohol. I read things that say its a lot easier to get pot than alcohol for most kids. I saw it first hand too

I do not go crazy if I don't smoke weed for a long time, I went without it for at least a year at one point, simply because I didn't feel like smoking. I have had discussions with many of my friends about cannabis, they are absolutely appalingly (sp?) misinformed. They don't know about what it does, or how it does it, they just have a knee jerk reaction to the mention of illegal drugs. Not one of them wants to discuss the reasons against them, same here.

Now time for some humour. (or weak attempt)
Everyone hates them damn potheads yes?
Cannabis is deadly yeah?
So why not enforce darwins theory and let us smoke ourselves to death o.O.

It was 2 am go easy on me >_<, I've been up since 4 am completing various assignments.
I'd like to second everything you just said. (But I don't do maths, physics or, economics. In fact, I always had the poorest results for those subjects. I like languages more. But I digress.)


While we're on the topic can someone tell me everything they know about the abuse of tablets for motion sickness? I need to stop him from taking them, they are meant to be extremely dangerous and he is using them as a hallucinogen. I'm asking everyone I know because I'm worried.
Sounds like dimenhydrinate (dramamine, benadryl) .
Bookmark this site and learn all you can:
erowid.org (http://www.erowid.org/)


dimenhydrinate topic (http://www.erowid.org/pharms/dimenhydrinate/dimenhydrinate.shtml)

You can click the boxes that say FAQ, Effects, etc.

P.S. Insane Troll, cough syrup is not the only OTC med you can trip on. Most OTC's are really poor choices for tripping. On DXM however, opinions differ.

The end? Death. You can't justify someones right to use heroin if they get to the point that they don't realise that they're killing themselves.

RE: your points about sex and food addiction- There are underlying psychological problems that have to be tackled. With drug addicts, it's often the same, but a lot of the time it doesn't start out that way...chemical addiction is far more dangerous.

Please study actual science and not propaganda sheets. Heroin is a prime example of a relatively safe, albiet addictive drug, made highly dangerous through illegalization. Even long term use of opiates has relatively few deliterious effects on the human body, provided, of course, there is a clean reliable source of known purity. Dangerous cuts and fluctuating purity levels are the major causes of death associated with heroin. Unregualted purity means that a person can never know the dose ahead of time; even still, pure opiate od is rare - most happens throught combining with alcohol or other drugs due to lack of education. Secondary problems are caused by injecting - which is largely done because it is cost effective and the drug, which is cheap to manufacture, has a very high cost on the black market- and are severly aggravated by laws which stem the ability of users to get clean needles and thus make the use even more dangerous.

The effects of chronic over-eating are much more deadly and damaging. STD's are certainly more damaging. How are these more justifiable? Furthermore, how can one justify the additional harm that is being done by the fact that drugs are kept illegal?

Sounds like dimenhydrinate (dramamine, benadryl) .
Bookmark this site and learn all you can:
erowid.org (http://www.erowid.org/)


dimenhydrinate topic (http://www.erowid.org/pharms/dimenhydrinate/dimenhydrinate.shtml)

You can click the boxes that say FAQ, Effects, etc.

P.S. Insane Troll, cough syrup is not the only OTC med you can trip on. Most OTC's are really poor choices for tripping. On DXM however, opinions differ.

IT was dimenhydrinate, I searched erowid for ages to find that same info... He has woken up and said he won't be doing it for a long time, and that he is feeling fine, so I'm hoping for the best.

EDIT: thanks for taking the time IT and WE

Please study actual science and not propaganda sheets. Heroin is a prime example of a relatively safe, albiet addictive drug, made highly dangerous through illegalization. Even long term use of opiates has relatively few deliterious effects on the human body, provided, of course, there is a clean reliable source of known purity. Dangerous cuts and fluctuating purity levels are the major causes of death associated with heroin. Unregualted purity means that a person can never know the dose ahead of time; even still, pure opiate od is rare - most happens throught combining with alcohol or other drugs due to lack of education. Secondary problems are caused by injecting - which is largely done because it is cost effective and the drug, which is cheap to manufacture, has a very high cost on the black market- and are severly aggravated by laws which stem the ability of users to get clean needles and thus make the use even more dangerous.

The effects of chronic over-eating are much more deadly and damaging. STD's are certainly more damaging. How are these more justifiable? Furthermore, how can one justify the additional harm that is being done by the fact that drugs are kept illegal?

THANK YOU!!! it is such a relief to find another person around here who understands some of the basic biology of drug action. sane attitudes toward drug use are few and far between, so thanks for being willing to help correct so many of the misconceptions people are carrying.

I'd love to stick here and chat about how we shouldn't throw away the voice of the people and stick to laws that we voted for because the majority wanted them, not because random people want it. But I gotta eat. And I other stuff to.

I was just trying to address the original question of the whole topic.
Q: Why does the government say marijuana/drugs are bad?
A: Because we (the voters) said so

the American system of government was specifically and intentionally designed to prevent the will of the minority from taking away the rights of the minority. the most tragic mistakes of our past were when that design failed to be recognized and upheld; after all, the majority of voters opposed giving women the vote. the majority of voters opposed allowing blacks and whites to inter-marry. the majority of people supported Prohibition, a law that was later ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL because...well, because it was. the majority opinion is totally irrelevant when it takes away rights guaranteed by the Constitution. if the majority of Americans voted to jump off a cliff, would you support a law requiring all citizens to do so?

Please study actual science and not propaganda sheets. Heroin is a prime example of a relatively safe, albiet addictive drug, made highly dangerous through illegalization. Even long term use of opiates has relatively few deliterious effects on the human body, provided, of course, there is a clean reliable source of known purity. Dangerous cuts and fluctuating purity levels are the major causes of death associated with heroin. Unregualted purity means that a person can never know the dose ahead of time; even still, pure opiate od is rare - most happens throught combining with alcohol or other drugs due to lack of education. Secondary problems are caused by injecting - which is largely done because it is cost effective and the drug, which is cheap to manufacture, has a very high cost on the black market- and are severly aggravated by laws which stem the ability of users to get clean needles and thus make the use even more dangerous.

The effects of chronic over-eating are much more deadly and damaging. STD's are certainly more damaging. How are these more justifiable? Furthermore, how can one justify the additional harm that is being done by the fact that drugs are kept illegal?

Don't accuse me of relying totally on propaganda sheets. I have a friend who overdosed on it and had to be revived, okay? He did a shitload more than he should have even if it was totally pure, and is very lucky to be alive. Fortunately, he realised where it was taking him and is now clean. I don't see how overeating could do that much damage.

Edit- I'd really like to be able to support peoples right to choose whether or not to use it, but this is one drug that I really feel strongly about. The law isn't helping right, and neither will legalisation, I believe. Keep sale illegal and don't punish the users, and opening of free injection clinics is what I believe in.

Don't accuse me of relying totally on propaganda sheets. I have a friend who overdosed on it and had to be revived, okay? He did a shitload more than he should have even if it was totally pure, and is very lucky to be alive. Fortunately, he realised where it was taking him and is now clean. I don't see how overeating could do that much damage.

Edit- I'd really like to be able to support peoples right to choose whether or not to use it, but this is one drug that I really feel strongly about. The law isn't helping right, and neither will legalisation, I believe. Keep sale illegal and don't punish the users, and opening of free injection clinics is what I believe in.

overeating can cause a person to "need to be revived" much more often than drugs can...check out statistics on cardiac arrest and diet, and you will find that America's history of heart disease has been united with our diet for years. no, you don't see many people keel over dead as they eat just one too many donuts, but just because the effects aren't instantaneous doesn't mean they aren't there or they aren't linked directly to the behavior. in fact, far more people in America die from over-eating each year than die from using all illegal drugs combined.

over-eating leads to more different health problems than we can count, including heart disease, respiratory problems, circulatory collapse, and even immune problems. a chronic over-eater will cause damage to their internal organs that can never be repaired, not with any techniques we know. they also can cause permanent damage to joints and bones, damage that also cannot be repaired short of putting in artificial bones or joints via surgery. they may even cause critical nerve damage, something that no amount of surgery or transplanting can counteract.

your friend may have needed to be revived from his over-dose, and i don't want to down play the danger he was in, but once he recovered the permanent damage to his system is likely to have been negligible. a person who suffers a heart attack due to over-eating will carry the damage in their body for the rest of their life, and will be in perpetual danger of the same thing happening again. so long as your friend doesn't overdose again he is safe, but a chronic over-eater will NEVER fully recover from what their body has suffered...even if they get down to a healthier weight.

overeating can cause a person to "need to be revived" much more often than drugs can...check out statistics on cardiac arrest and diet, and you will find that America's history of heart disease has been united with our diet for years. no, you don't see many people keel over dead as they eat just one too many donuts, but just because the effects aren't instantaneous doesn't mean they aren't there or they aren't linked directly to the behavior. in fact, far more people in America die from over-eating each year than die from using all illegal drugs combined.

over-eating leads to more different health problems than we can count, including heart disease, respiratory problems, circulatory collapse, and even immune problems. a chronic over-eater will cause damage to their internal organs that can never be repaired, not with any techniques we know. they also can cause permanent damage to joints and bones, damage that also cannot be repaired short of putting in artificial bones or joints via surgery. they may even cause critical nerve damage, something that no amount of surgery or transplanting can counteract.

your friend may have needed to be revived from his over-dose, and i don't want to down play the danger he was in, but once he recovered the permanent damage to his system is likely to have been negligible. a person who suffers a heart attack due to over-eating will carry the damage in their body for the rest of their life, and will be in perpetual danger of the same thing happening again. so long as your friend doesn't overdose again he is safe, but a chronic over-eater will NEVER fully recover from what their body has suffered...even if they get down to a healthier weight.

Fair points, but however, like I said in a previous post re: overeating "There are underlying psychological problems that have to be tackled. With drug addicts, it's often the same, but a lot of the time it doesn't start out that way...chemical addiction is far more dangerous."

I truly don't think the users should be punished- but if things get out of hand, then I believe they need help. I don't think outright legalising heroin is going to help addicts. I don't think punishing them helps either. They need help- To get off the drug and with the problems that caused them to become addicted in the first place.

I'm not naive enough to believe that outlawing the drug is going to stop people having access to it, please understand that. I just believe the best way is not to say "go ahead, do what you want", because as much as I agree with that in principle, I know that people like my friend may not be given the psychological help they need until it's too late.

And as i've said before, i'm fully in favour of the legalisation of marijuana, which does not at all have these problems associated with it.

BTW- You're right. He didn't suffer any permanent damage.

Fair points, but however, like I said in a previous post re: overeating "There are underlying psychological problems that have to be tackled. With drug addicts, it's often the same, but a lot of the time it doesn't start out that way...chemical addiction is far more dangerous."

I truly don't think the users should be punished- but if things get out of hand, then I believe they need help. I don't think outright legalising heroin is going to help addicts. I don't think punishing them helps either. They need help- To get off the drug and with the problems that caused them to become addicted in the first place.

I'm not naive enough to believe that outlawing the drug is going to stop people having access to it, please understand that. I just believe the best way is not to say "go ahead, do what you want", because as much as I agree with that in principle, I know that people like my friend may not be given the psychological help they need until it's too late.

And as i've said before, i'm fully in favour of the legalisation of marijuana, which does not at all have these problems associated with it.

BTW- You're right. He didn't suffer any permanent damage.

i agree with everything you said here, though i would add that eating can be an addiction as easily as marijuana or alcohol...more easily, in many cases.

chemical addiction, in some ways, is far easier to deal with than "emotional" or psychological addiction. the body's chemical need for a substance can be addressed medically, and, while it is a painful process, is relatively brief in the grand scheme of things. psychological addiction--whether it be to a drug, to gambling, to eating, or anything else--is a bit trickier, and that's the sort of addiction that brings the user back to their vice even after their body has gotten over it. i know this from experience, having gotten caught in such a situation myself at one time. i lucked out, and stopped myself early into it, but i still talk to my NA sponsor on a regular basis to help keep myself safe...and that's 2 and a half years after the fact.

i agree with everything you said here, though i would add that eating can be an addiction as easily as marijuana or alcohol...more easily, in many cases.

chemical addiction, in some ways, is far easier to deal with than "emotional" or psychological addiction. the body's chemical need for a substance can be addressed medically, and, while it is a painful process, is relatively brief in the grand scheme of things. psychological addiction--whether it be to a drug, to gambling, to eating, or anything else--is a bit trickier, and that's the sort of addiction that brings the user back to their vice even after their body has gotten over it. i know this from experience, having gotten caught in such a situation myself at one time. i lucked out, and stopped myself early into it, but i still talk to my NA sponsor on a regular basis to help keep myself safe...and that's 2 and a half years after the fact.

Yeah, I see your point. The thing is, chemical addiction is usually added to a psychological problem which is what makes it so dangerous...the focus is on getting rid of the chemical addiction, putting the user through the suffering of withdrawal, and meanwhile not doing anything about the underlying psychological problem which is making them feel like they need the drug.

IT was dimenhydrinate, I searched erowid for ages to find that same info... He has woken up and said he won't be doing it for a long time, and that he is feeling fine, so I'm hoping for the best.

EDIT: thanks for taking the time IT and WE
Glad I could help.