| THIS IS A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE FROM THE SORABJI.COM MESSAGE BOARDS (1995-2016). |
|---|
One step forward, two steps back. |
Nuff said. |
AMEN |
AMEN AND PASS THE BONG! |
|
so is snorting coke. pass the dollar bill, pass the syringe. |
|
be sure and check your facts, first because i have a pretty good idea where you're going. |
|
|
I know the difference |
|
the principle is the same. you take over the counter drugs right? heroin is just as addictive as cigarettes. you dont hear about people fucked up on heroin slamming into telephone poles with their cars do you. Sure it happens, but no where near the frequency with alcohol. the buzz is different but to say it warrants different legistlation is completely illogical. have you ever seen anyone who took painkillers and drank a 12 pack? guess who could drive a car better? the junky ANYDAY. trace. the majority of junkys, like potheads pose little to no threat to society. the advanced junkys dont even get high from the shit anymore, they simply have to shoot up to keep from getting sick. i know of plenty of functional junkies. this all applies for coke as well. the most dangerous drug out there is alcohol. people are assholes on alcohol. so no. you don't know the difference. observing your uncle doesnt really amount to anything. |
|
no. they are irrelavent to me because i would wear a helmet or seatbelt regardless. i view them as a method of padding the states budget. but lets not sidetrack spunky. we are talking about the differences between drugs and why some should be legalized and some should not. and thus far, all you've come up with is you've seen your uncle on pot and heroin and the perceived buzz, thereby warrants different legislation. that doesnt cut it. |
your junky friend's ability to function under the influence doesnt really amount to anything either. |
You know that "dimlu's firsthand experience" == truth. Nothing is true beyond what we've experienced firsthand. Well, except steadfastly held political beliefs. And religious beliefs. And beliefs about human nature. But, apart from that, nuthin'! NUTHIN'! |
c'mon, lets flesh this out spunk. tell me why some drugs deserve to be illegal and some not? you've implied that its because of the effects of certain drugs. my reply about functional junkies is anecdotal but it was a response to your reasoning. of course it doesnt amount to much, but until you offer more than what you have, we'll stay on this level of conversation. What is it about the effects? is it the dehabilitating effect of coke and heroin? if so, thats your perception and ignorance. alchohol is way more dehabilitating. ive done heroin, ive done coke. alcohol combined with over the counter and prescription drugs are way more dehabilitating. ok. so what else is it? do you think if they were legal all of sudden your city would be covered with slobbering, filthy junkies? thats also a misconception. there's good indication that actually legalizing all the illicit drugs could actually improve conditions in cities by removing the black market and the related violence and criminal activity and free up olice resources for more important matters, like uh, terrorism. Also by removing the stigma and mystery to illicit drugs it could cut down on the inclination to do them to begin with. the tax revenue created could not only fund treatment programs but any extra could go to other social outlets like healthcare or education. |
Then, the drugs can cause you to behave in dangerous and violent ways. Sure, alcohol does, too -- I'm not saying the govt isn't hypocritical. Did you know that morphine and heroin are virtually identical chemically, and heroin is actually better for killing pain than morphine because it enters the brain faster, but the govt considers it "addictive without therapeutic value" because of the stigma attached to it, while morphine is "addictive with therapeutic value"? Just like suicide is illegal, the federal government has laws against hard drug use to protect people from themselves. Cocaine, btw, is one of the most (if not the most) addictive substances out there, at least in lab rats. :) Researchers use it as a starter drug to make rats work for other chemicals they won't ordinarily touch. |
Eh, food for thought. Just old fashioned resistance to the "if it feels good, do it" doctrine i suppose. |
That's the point I am begining to question. Is good intentions of protecting the population reason enough to create a law? |
i completely disagree spider. the biggest reason people OD on heroin is purity control. Something that can be resolved with legalization. As far as coke and others and health hazards...well....i simply disagree because be it a heart attack or a drunk driver, both are health hazards that can kill you. yes spider. i know morphine and heroin are practically identical. i've taken them both, as well as oxycontin and demoral. both are also essentially synthetic heroin. as far as beign prone to violence....most junkys cant get off the floor upon shooting up. of course other drugs can cause rage but so can tequila, as you acknowledge. so that moot. but if you are for legalizing pot, as spunky is because you think users should be able to decide for themselves, there is no logic and applying a double standard. people should be able to decide to shoot up just they should be free to twist a fatty. trace, 'it feels good do it' ? im not sure what thats about but you know drug use is going to happen one way or the other. is going to happen whether its legal or not. its quite evident the current system isnt working. with legalization, we could actually be taking a more proactive step in not only curbing and treating its abuse and decreasing the related violence and raising more revenue for the states. Right now with the enforcnement, everything from sending para-military forces to Columbia, to jailing college kids smokeing dope, is a astronomical burden on our system with little to no effect. |
It is very easy to OD on this stuff, purity issues aside. If you are going to add heroin and cocaine to the list of legals, I would grudgingly agree, because they are directly derived from natural substances. As far as reducing crime rate via legalization, which SHOULD reduce the cost of the drugs, does that mean that current users say "yay, now I get it for half price! or Yay! now I can buy TWICE as much!" We are not talking about candy here. We ARE talking about some very addictive narcotics. |
With my cocaine example, the same amount that gets you high could kill me, because of the difference in our body chemistries, heart conditions, etc. Prolonged cocaine use destroys the tissue in your sinuses and can cause death via aneurysm. This has nothing to do with overdosing. (I don't know enough about the way that heroin, crystal meth, etc. work to comment on them, but I'm assuming similar dangers are there.) Addiction is physically damaging, as well. Look at Chet Baker! The question is, should the govt prevent people from destroying themselves. (Personally, I think individual drug use -- at least pot; I haven't thought enough about the others -- should be decriminalized while distribution and production of drugs should still be illegal.) |
The drug would be a controlled product and the price could be levied to a certain level. Its illogical to think that if its cheaper you'll do more. If you've done plenty of drugs, you'll know this doesnt make much sense. Most drug users want to be around another day, price is not really the biggest factor to those who do drugs. They do them in the quantities they do them in order to obtain the buzz they want. People who OD, most often OD because they arent sure what they are getting, so no, purity issues NOT aside. When you buy off the street, you never know for sure what you are getting. Besides, people will OD regardless if the drug is legal or not. They are right now. The impact on healthcare? How could it be any more than it is now? If anything it could stand to be reduced BECAUSE you would reduce the number of ODs due to purity control. Also, the tax revenue raised would be directly responsible for treatment, as i said. Right now, we are paying for prison and treatment of users without taxing the product. How fucked up is that? |
|
Or from acceptance of decades of government propaganda. |
i thought we were talking about removing control? You can get arrested for having darvocet without a prescrition. It's called possesion of a controlled substance. I am no expert on drugs, the manufacture of them, or effects of them on the body or the brain. What I am talking about here is the fundamental point of "If it only effects you, and no one else, then should it be against the law?" That could be applied to many different issues other then drugs |
|
|
um no. the issue is decriminalization. "What I am talking about here is the fundamental point of "If it only effects you, and no one else, then should it be against the law?" but see, thats not really a fundamental point, and really, it has no bearing on this conversation. in fact, in the advocation of decriminalization, that "fundamental point" never comes up. in fact, im not really sure where its coming from other than you. |
Find in the source the bits that look like "POST112542" next to the post in question. Append that to the end of the URL with a "#", like this |
|
|
|
"Politicians have no right ordering Americans not to smoke -- much less people halfway around the world," Neale said. "Smoking is a personal choice, not an international crisis." AMEN " By Antigone on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 01:36 pm: So is smoking pot! AMEN AND PASS THE BONG! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By spunky on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 01:39 pm: i do not disagree. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By patrick on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 01:53 pm: so is shooting heroin. so is snorting coke. pass the dollar bill, pass the syringe. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By spunky on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 02:42 pm: i disagree -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By patrick on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 02:56 pm: whats the difference? Where does the part of it being reduced from ilegal to controlled come into play? |
|
HELLO? FDA??? USDA???? When i say controlled, i mean controlled, inspected, quality control etc. can we move on to something of the issue that actually is of relavence? You appear not to understand the point of this thread spunky. |
did you read the link i set up? |
damn boy |
We know different types of users Patrick. Though the ones I know are addicts. I can tell you that price can be a HUGE factor to them, and they do the quantities they can afford to do, because they have blown all of their money on drugs and slowly dig themselves deeper and deeper until they take a $5 bill they found in a gutter and take it to someone just to get high. But then again, I am sure my personal experience is of no importance. |
this was going real well, but you're confused. do you realize that when i say "decriminalization" and you say "politicians tellin the public what to smoke" we are in fact saying the same thing? because if you dont understand that, then this has gone to shit. Im familiar with the WHO/smoking story. I dont even know what you mean by that last post. GETTING back to the subject. Why, should some drugs be decriminalized (i.e. legalized, allowed by them folks up in DC) and some not? You don't want the Feds messing with your stogies, why are is my sack of blow any different? |
price can be levied accordingly. addicts are going to blow their last dollar on drugs whether its legal or not. how is that really relavent eri? you guys are failing to remember that we have addicts right now. that wont change. the behavior of a drug user is not whats being addressed when you legalize drugs. |
OK maybe altering it so that you can use in the privacy of your own home. that would suck at parties, but the idea of getting toked at a party and driving home is not the best idea on earth either. |
cigarettes cigarettes sorry |
so by having these laws, we are preventing people from altering their behavior? is that the point of these laws? you and both know that drugs are NOT a deterrent to their use. people don't stop from doing a rail at a party because of the fear they could get caught. |
we posted about steve before, didn't we? how about all the other users that run around here. been to downtown KCMO or KCKS after dark? I'm not talking about dealers here, I'm talking about the USERS. It makes no diff to them if the drugs are legal or not. |
One beer is not illegal. Being intoxicated in public is. |
I strongly beleive in personal choices and dealing with natural consequences versus laws. if what you are doing has no effect on anyone else other then you and maybe a concenting partner, then so be it. The problem with hard drugs is that there are very few who restrict usage to the home. The behaviour of the person under the influence differs from person to person. They can become violent, and they can become dangerous. They can become a public danger. |
this has nothing to do with believing in the effects of drug use and what the effects have on non drug users. there is no basis to think if drugs were legal the use would increase...SO...with this in mind, why is the behavior of someone on these drugs even an issue because people will use them regardless if they are legal or not. Do you follow whta im saying? |
this wont change with decriminalization spunky. |
|
|
most people respect the law. others fear it. so they dont use what is illegal. To get an accurate picture of the effects of legalizing the drug, you would be well served to assume the user count will increase |
|
|
right now drugs are totally accessible if you want them. if they were sold at the pharmacy like cigarettes, then yes, access could be greatly restricted. most dealers will sell to a 10 year old if they could. however, playing devils advocate with myself, im wondering if the blackmarket could ever be abolished once legalized. But then again, its not really common place to a pusher on the corner hawking beers and smokes |
what are you basing this on? "most people respect the law." when it comes to drug use, this statement clearly shows how out of touch you are. I've been in and around drug culure for 18 years spunk and I i have NEVER heard anyone say "you know....im gonna pass on that joint or coke rail...its illegal you know" Adolescent users are more afraid of getting caught by their parents than the police. |
you don't put sick people in jail. You make them legal so you can better control where they are and who has them, and less people get really sick off of bad street drugs. And you become less of a nation that is becoming one big prison. Everyone wins. Spunk, do you support alcohol prohibition then? Because lets not compare pot to heroin here, lets go with the alcoooool. Its bullshit to support one as some sort of social thing, tax it, advertise it as cool on TV, but the other thing will put you in jail. Laws targeting preference? Bullshit. |
Not if you're Rick Santorum. |
i think we recently superceded russia in numbers of those incarcerated. the vast numbers of those locked for minor drug offenses is fuckign ridiculous and criminal in its own right. |
WHY do you take drugs? |
|
why do people drink? same reasons, i find: They're bored / They need it to relax / They like how it feels / everyone else does it / they're weak motherfuckers / they can't sleep / they're at a party and they actually have really boring friends so ANYTHING helps / motivation to fuck ugly people / courage on karaoke night / need it to paint decent pictures / they were born addicted. many reasons. Mostly boredom. |
I have never seen people on pot get in a fight, because it's fucking impossible. |
sometimes it eases stress. sometimes the burden of reality is too much. its escape. some people watch movies.some go skydiving. sometimes i just like the euphoria. you've never felt euphoria like MDMA or really good X or the rush of really good coke at a happening party or bar. why do you take your over the counter drugs? to sleep? well, that is another reason I drink sometimes, if im wound up. now to be honest, i dont really mess with drugs these anymore. the occasional joint, sure. mostly i just have a drink instead. to give you an idea of how my use has subsided...ive had a script of valium in my possession for well over a year now. 3 years ago, that would have been unheard of. Dude. Go rent Drugstore Cowboy and report back. Its a pretty accurate drug film in many regards and frankly damn hilarious and sad at times. |
I NEVER said anything about drugs being cheaper if they were legalized. I never said anything at all like that. I said that money does drive some users, but I never said anything about it being cheaper. Check again. Wasn't me. "I've been in and around drug culure for 18 years spunk and I i have NEVER heard anyone say "you know....im gonna pass on that joint or coke rail...its illegal you know" You are in only one sect of the drug culture, the part that doesn't question whether or not it is OK. I have been at plenty of parties where people have passed on pot because it was illegal and therefore made them uncomfortable. Of those who used the pot at the parties, 90% of them wouldn't do coke because of the fact that is was chemically based and more dangerous than pot in their eyes. So actually Patrick, your view only covers one portion of drug users and is common for those you know but still only one part. There are plenty of people who pass because it is illegal but would use if it wasn't illegal. I know a few of them myself. Hell, I know a lot of them. |
Nonetheless. is it possible to say in the kindest way possible that i think ive been around more blocks than you in the subject without sounding completely arrogant? Because thats what id like to say. Id like to say, with an ounce of blindness (but a bet Im willing to take) that your experience in drugs, either taking them or being around those who take them on a regular basis is terribly limited. Not to say you cant have an opinion, but less credible. not that it matters but coke isnt chemically based. Its derived from natural substances. But thats ok. If you think the law deters people. Ok. Fine. They say that prison sentences or death penalities don't deter people from committing murder, so you know....if you say so eri. If you say you know people that dont do pot or coke soley because its illegal and they are so ultra paraoid at getting caught, thus their abstinence, id dare say they are so in the minority that they arent a even a consideration in this debate. |
"I have been at plenty of parties where people have passed on pot because it was illegal and therefore made them uncomfortable." Not doing drugs because they are illegal and not doing drugs because they are uncomfortable about the effects or ignorant of the compositions are two entirely different reasons by the way. |
Your usage is realive to this conversation. The fact that I had a toke of weed 15 years ago gives me no insight into that part of life. Being an outsider watching the effects of hard drug usage, i have an inkling of what it might look like. I mispoke when I said my uncle used heroin, it was acid. You know my stance about laws. The less the better. And you are absolutely correct. Damn could we save tax money if we got rid of the DEA. The motivation for my suggestion that marijuana and other "natural" drugs" (used without any chemical alterations or enhancements) does not come from an addiction/harm stance. No one should be forbidden to use anything that can be grown in your own home. Not from a drug use standpoint but rather a natural use stand point. |
I choose not too specifically because it is illegal and I am not loosing my clearance. |
because I used to think similarly to you before... I was scared of what I did not understand. After I first tried it and didnt really care either way, all I could think of was "thats it? this is what they're trying to keep you away from? this is immoral, wrong and should be illegal?" |
|
Especially for Patrick and Nate. |
<Esk|out> If you cannot find Osama,bomb Iraq. <Esk|out> If the terrorists are frisky, <Esk|out> Pakistan is looking shifty, <Esk|out> North Korea is too risky, <Esk|out> Bomb Iraq. I love bash.org |
|
|
the positive effects have to outweigh the negatives, or something along those lines (i'm admittedly not educated on the situation) but my impression is that certain drugs are illegal for the same reasons that asbestos is no longer allowed as a fire retardant, or the same reasons certain consumer products (i.e. baby strollers found to have a defect) are recalled - the government is liable for nearly any product sold in the US - legalizing a product proven to be harmful opens up a world of possibilities for lawsuits no? |
|
pot is no more dangerous than beer. And it usually works better/faster/cheaper. it's some twisted morality thinger. thinger! |
Source. (Albeit a little questionable. But read it.) |
I haven't tried anything else because I am highly sensitive to medications, even OTC stuff. It takes next to nothing to fuck me up and I tend to get every wretched side effect of everything I have taken. The doctors get sick of trying to write prescriptions for me cuz I have reactions to them all. There is a lot of work we would need to figure out to keep users safe from themselves if we legalized addictive drugs....I know cigarettes are addictive, I am dealing with my own addiction to that now but I am not talking about that cuz we all know what is out there to help you deal with that.....it's just that in my experiences dealing with rehab, I am hugely dissapointed. I see people who just say what they know others want to hear and get out and do it again......or they are totally brainwashed and not accepting personal responsibility for their actions and blame it all on the drugs even though they made the decisions to take them in the first place. If addictive drugs were legalized, there should be better programs for the......there needs to be better programs now. I am really torn over some of it, because of personal dangers, but at the same time, believe in freedom of the individual. So I flip flop a lot on the whole issue, not really knowing where I stand most of the time, cuz it is a bit of both. If we could trust people to be smart about their drug choices and not leave their used needles on the childrens playgrounds, not use and drive, not drink and drive, etc. and have decent rehab in place for those who need it, then I wouldn't have any issues at all with legalizing drugs, but it is more complicated than that, cuz when you get fucked up you don't always think to throw your needle in the trash and too many people get behind the wheel. Patrick, I know that you think that my experience with these things is less than yours and therefore I don't know as much, but you would be suprised. You really would. Did you ever wonder why I became a single mom at 20? Why I ended my first marriage? Why I distance myself from my family near you? Why I have taken this path that you seem to think has little contact with drugs? I did it by choice because I was in the same world as you and didn't like my life when I was. I didn't like the person I became when I was with the same crowds you run with. I have purposely distanced myself from it, but that doesn't mean that I haven't lived it and seen it and been a part of it. Please refrain from assuming that I don't know as much because I don't live that life now, or that I haven't seen as much because I am not part of it now. Maybe I haven't seen as much as the circle you run with, because you have been seeing it longer, but I left it for a reason. You really have no idea what I do or don't know when it comes to this. You couldn't until you walked in my shoes for the past 19 years. |
"Those under 18 years old could face fines of up to $182 for minor possession while adults could be fined the equivalent of $292. At the same time, the maximum sentence for illegal growers would be increased to 14 years in prison from the current seven, while trafficking would remain punishable by up to life in prison." Kind of like Spider suggested. |
|
By TOM COHEN The Associated Press Tuesday, May 27, 2003; 11:34 AM TORONTO - Canada proposed a new marijuana law Tuesday that would eliminate a criminal record for possession of small amounts while spending millions to spread an anti-pot message. U.S. officials have warned the move could lead to tighter border security to prevent more Canadian-grown marijuana from entering the country. Under the measure introduced in Parliament, getting caught with 15 grams - about half an ounce - or less of marijuana would bring a citation akin to a traffic ticket, not a criminal record. While possession of marijuana would remain illegal, the bill is intended to prevent young people from getting saddled with a lifelong criminal record, Those under 18 years old could face fines of up to $182 for minor possession while adults could be fined the equivalent of $292. At the same time, the maximum sentence for illegal growers would be increased to 14 years in prison from the current seven, while trafficking would remain punishable by up to life in prison. Justice Minister Martin Cauchon said the law includes an education, research and treatment program aimed at persuading young people against drug use. The government intends to spend $179 million on the program. "The bottom line of this proposal is to create the most effective way to deal with the drug problem through a number of ways," Cauchon said. Two Parliament committees have recommended easing Canadian marijuana laws, and Prime Minister Jean Chretien made the proposal a priority of his last year in office. He has said he will step down in February 2004 after more than 10 years as head of government. Canada's Supreme Court is considering a constitutional challenge to laws that make it illegal to possess pot, and Ontario courts have declared the federal law against possession to be invalid because of legal questions. Liberalizing laws will boost drug use and bring more pot into the United States, says John Walters, director of the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy. Canada is already a major source of marijuana for the United States, with an estimated $2.5 billion worth smuggled in each year, Walters says. Cauchon traveled to Washington earlier this month to discuss the Canadian proposal with Attorney General John Ashcroft. The issue joins a growing list of differences between the North American neighbors that share the world's largest trade partnership, worth more than $1 billion a day. Despite their military ties and common democratic values, Canada has traditionally adopted more liberal social policies, in part to distinguish itself from its neighbor. Examples include diplomatic ties with Cuba, a ban on capital punishment and more lenient immigration policies. Most recently, Canada refused to join the U.S.-led coalition fighting in Iraq, saying it only would participate under U.N. auspices. Eleven U.S. states have taken some kind of step toward permitting the medicinal use of marijuana. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, has ruled there is no exception in federal law for people to use marijuana, so even those with tolerant state laws could face arrest if they do. --- On the Net: Canadian Department of Justice: http://www.canada.justice.gc.ca Canadian site advocating marijuana culture: http://www.cannabisculture.com U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration at http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/ |
|
thats not legalization. |
|
talking to you per se |
|
tickled as i am, i'm left wondering about the new growing laws. . . 14 years? ! seems way steep, especially compared to tiny little jail terms given to violent offenders. in other news, this is a crazy little town i live in. Affluent as all hell (or so they'd love people to think) and they keep finding grower houses here. Everywhere. They busted 4 or 5 since last summer, by my count they find at least 3 a year. It's creepy. I think it's the well-kept and landscaped cookie-cutter look of the new subdivisions, no one would ever know. Why grow pot in a shack out in hickville when you can do it in a spacious modern bungalow on a 50" lot overlooking the golf course? Just minutes from schools, the airport and down town. Community living at affordable prices. whoa, i pass way too many of those signs on the drive home. |
its DE-criminalization... did you read the article? Its about not sticking people with criminal records for their entire lives... you know, you've been especially bitter of late Patrick... |
calm down kev it was a joke you silly! it was a joke because the people in charge on this side of the fence have been acting particularly uptight about whats going on up there talking about sanctions AS IF you governement was to start handing out bongs at the post office. bitter? settle down. theres nothing bitter about me these days. cynical? sure. nothing new. bitter? i dont even know what you're talking about. |
|
|