War on Drugs Gets a New Target


sorabji.com: Are there any news?: War on Drugs Gets a New Target
THIS IS A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE FROM THE SORABJI.COM MESSAGE BOARDS (1995-2016).

By spunky on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 10:53 am:

    It looks like tabacco is going to be added to the list of "controlled substances".

    One step forward, two steps back.


By eri on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 01:10 pm:

    "The bottom line is that treaties, taxes and tyranny won't curb smoking in the United States or abroad."

    Nuff said.


By spunky on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 01:24 pm:

    "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?

    be sure and check your facts, first because i have a pretty good idea where you're going.


By eri on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 03:12 pm:

    Here we go again.............


By spunky on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 03:15 pm:

    the effects are the difference


By spunky on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 03:19 pm:

    I have seen my uncle on both pot and heroin.
    I know the difference


By spunky on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 03:33 pm:

    do you support helmet laws and seat belt laws?


By patrick on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 03:34 pm:

    but wait.

    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.


By spunky on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 03:37 pm:

    answer my second question


By patrick on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 03:37 pm:

    helmet laws or seatbelt laws?

    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.


By spunky on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 03:43 pm:

    its not just about the user, patrick.
    your junky friend's ability to function under the influence doesnt really amount to anything either.


By Antigone on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 03:45 pm:

    Aw, come on patrick!

    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'!


By patrick on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 03:52 pm:

    then what is it about?


    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.



By Spider on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 04:01 pm:

    Hard drugs like heroin, cocaine, crystal meth, crack, PCP, etc. are dangerous to the user in ways that alcohol isn't. For example, cocaine, being a powerful stimulant, can cause heart attacks and death in low doses. Alcohol can kill you, too, but you have to take a lot to get to the poisoning stage.

    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.



By spunky on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 04:04 pm:

    there are good points to what you have said.
    Eh, food for thought.
    Just old fashioned resistance to the "if it feels good, do it" doctrine i suppose.


By spunky on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 04:07 pm:

    "Just like suicide is illegal, the federal government has laws against hard drug use to protect people from themselves."

    That's the point I am begining to question.
    Is good intentions of protecting the population reason enough to create a law?


By patrick on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 04:15 pm:

    "Hard drugs like heroin, cocaine, crystal meth, crack, PCP, etc. are dangerous to the user in ways that alcohol isn't."

    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.


By spunky on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 04:22 pm:

    True, but what about the impact to medical groups?

    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.


By Spider on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 04:30 pm:

    Patrick, hard drug use is dangerous not just because you can overdose. All chemicals have an effect on your system, and the reason we have the over-the-counter vs. prescription only distinction is because certain chemicals are more reactive and unstable than others.

    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.)


By Antigone on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 04:31 pm:

    For addictiveness ratings, check the tables at the bottom of this page, then do a google search on the names of the respective addictiveness scales.


By patrick on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 04:32 pm:

    these points you make stem from ignorance about the drugs themselves.

    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?





By Antigone on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 04:34 pm:

    As for junkies being prone to violence, any members of a marginalized population is prone to violence. Here's the cycle: ostracize->marginalize->blame->ostracize


By Antigone on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 04:35 pm:

    "these points you make stem from ignorance about the drugs themselves."

    Or from acceptance of decades of government propaganda.


By spunky on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 04:39 pm:

    "The drug would be a controlled product"

    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


By Spider on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 04:39 pm:

    I knew I had posted about this before.


By Spider on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 04:40 pm:

    Dammit, how do you link to a specific post?


By patrick on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 04:43 pm:

    "i thought we were talking about removing control?"


    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.














By Antigone on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 04:45 pm:

    "Dammit, how do you link to a specific post?"

    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


By spunky on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 04:45 pm:

    the whole point of this thread, bucko


By Antigone on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 04:46 pm:

    YOUR point ain't necessarily OTHER PEOPLE'S point, dimlu.


By Antigone on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 04:48 pm:

    Oh, yeah. I'd like to point out that nicotine tops out the "Dependence" line on both sets of addictiveness scales I posted above.


By spunky on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 04:52 pm:

    "By spunky on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 01:24 pm:
    "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?


By Spider on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 04:55 pm:


By spunky on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 04:56 pm:


By patrick on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 05:01 pm:

    spunky, cigarettes are controlled substances now you ding dong. so is alcohol so is the lettuce you eat. so is the meat you buy.

    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.


By spunky on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 05:03 pm:

    I started the thread.........


    did you read the link i set up?


By spunky on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 05:05 pm:


By eri on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 05:08 pm:

    "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."

    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.


By patrick on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 05:08 pm:

    spunk.

    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?


By patrick on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 05:12 pm:

    eri, what i say "price is not really the biggest factor to those who do drugs" i mean just that. i didnt say its NOT a factor.

    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.


By spunky on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 05:17 pm:

    my cigarrettes do not alter behaviour.

    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.


By spunky on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 05:18 pm:

    cigarettes
    cigarettes
    cigarettes


    sorry


By patrick on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 05:21 pm:

    thats not the point. altering behavior. if it was, alcohol wouldnt be legal.

    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.


By spunky on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 05:21 pm:

    eri is correct.

    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.


By spunky on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 05:22 pm:

    "alcohol wouldnt be legal."

    One beer is not illegal.

    Being intoxicated in public is.


By spunky on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 05:40 pm:

    I am getting myself side tracked and off course here.

    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.


By patrick on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 05:52 pm:

    eri is not correct. she is working off the assumption that drugs would be cheaper if they were legalized.






    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?


By patrick on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 05:53 pm:

    "The problem with hard drugs is that there are very few who restrict usage to the home."


    this wont change with decriminalization spunky.


By Spider on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 05:54 pm:

    You don't think the fact that they're illegal is keeping some people from using them? I think it's perfectly reasonable to believe that if they were available at a corner pharmacy a lot more people would use them.


By Antigone on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 05:56 pm:

    Yes. And that's why we restrict the public abuse of certain substances, but not the private use. The distinction between substances, especially between pot and alcohol, is completely artificial and highly influenced by social factors.


By spunky on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 05:58 pm:

    i rather beleive the user count will increase.
    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


By Antigone on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 05:58 pm:

    Spider, it's easier for me to get pot than Zanax, and it's cheaper.


By Antigone on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 05:59 pm:

    Of course the user count will increase. So what?


By patrick on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 06:01 pm:

    that has more to do with accessibility than legality.

    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


By patrick on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 06:04 pm:

    "i rather beleive the user count will increase."

    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.


By patrick on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 06:23 pm:

    actually if you look at this which is cited from the UN World Health Org published in 2001.


    Actually there is a shitload of research and reputable data to be found

    here



By patrick on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 06:24 pm:

    actually if you look at this which is cited from the UN World Health Org published in 2001, you'll see that America tops the charts in pot use. Not Amsterdam. fucking A.


    Actually there is a shitload of research and reputable data to be found

    here



By Rowlf on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 06:25 pm:

    drug users aren't criminals, they are sick.

    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.


By Antigone on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 06:34 pm:

    "Laws targeting preference? Bullshit."

    Not if you're Rick Santorum.


By patrick on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 06:38 pm:

    and rowlf hits another point...when we are building more prison beds than schools desks, its a problem.

    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.


By spunky on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 07:06 pm:

    answer me this:

    WHY do you take drugs?


By Rowlf on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 07:26 pm:

    I don't use drugs, at least any more than you do spunk... (coffee, cigs)


By wisper on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 07:30 pm:

    i dunno why people 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.


By Bill Hicks on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 07:34 pm:

    See I think drugs have done some good things for us. If you don't think drugs have done good things for us then do me a favor. Go home tonight and take all of your records,tapes and all your CD's and burn them. Because, you know all those musicians who made all that great music that's enhanced your lives throughout the years? Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreal fucking high on drugs, man.


    I have never seen people on pot get in a fight, because it's fucking impossible.



By patrick on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 07:36 pm:

    me?

    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.


By eri on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 08:20 pm:

    "eri is not correct. she is working off the assumption that drugs would be cheaper if they were legalized."

    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.


By patrick on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 08:52 pm:

    No you didnt say that. Your husband did, that is the conversation about the idea of reduced prices with legalization of which you came right along and supported what he said, which was a safe assumption on my part to assume that you took his stance as well. Fine, you didnt say it, but it was damn implied.

    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.


By patrick on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 08:53 pm:

    Also
    "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.


By spunky on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 09:00 pm:

    I was just curious.
    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.


By spunky on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 09:02 pm:

    Patrick, i wont even be in the same room that pot is being smoked it.
    I choose not too specifically because it is illegal and I am not loosing my clearance.


By Rowlf on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 09:11 pm:

    have you ever smoked pot trace?

    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?"


By spunky on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 09:58 pm:

    I might be scared about loosing my job, but I am not afraid of pot


By spunky on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 01:32 am:

    Sorabji, I dedicate this song to you.
    Especially for Patrick and Nate.


By Platypus on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 01:43 am:

    <Esk|out> If You're Happy And You Know It - Bomb Iraq
    <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


By Rowlf on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 09:13 am:

    speaking of Platypus, isnt that proof enough that God smokes dope?


By God on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 12:26 pm:

    yes i do.


By beta on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 07:05 pm:

    my understanding of the whole legalization issue is that the government can't or wouldn't legalize substances that are proven to be harmful...
    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?


By Lawless on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 07:17 pm:

    yes,bigger bucks for your lawyer.


By wisper on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 07:28 pm:

    no, not really.
    pot is no more dangerous than beer.
    And it usually works better/faster/cheaper.

    it's some twisted morality thinger.




    thinger!


By Platypus on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 10:06 pm:

    There have been few government sponsered studies on pot. A handful have been conducted and have not shown it to be a "gateway drug" or to have long term effects.

    Source. (Albeit a little questionable. But read it.)


By eri on Saturday, May 24, 2003 - 12:35 am:

    Pot doesn't do shit for me other than make me paranoid. I stopped doing it cuz well what the fuck is the point if I don't get stoned, but only get paranoid? I have horrible heart stopping nightmares on that stuff but that's all I get. So I don't do it cuz I don't like the effects it has on me.

    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.


By spunky on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 04:22 pm:

    Sensible legislation

    "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 eri on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 04:52 pm:

    I can't read it. I don't have a subscription. Damnit.


By spunky on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 05:12 pm:

    article in total:
    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/


By eri on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 05:34 pm:

    I already saw that article somewhere, but I don't remember where.


By patrick on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 05:37 pm:

    what a bunch of pussies.


    thats not legalization.



By eri on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 06:28 pm:

    Never said it was. Just said I have seen the article before.


By patrick on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 06:41 pm:

    wasnt


    talking


    to


    you


    per


    se


By Antigone on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 06:48 pm:

    I got stoned for the first time in about five years over the weekend. It was a fascinating experience, more interesting than I'd remembered. I had a great time inferring the effects on my short to mid term memory encoding based on my perceptions of (non)continuous reality.


By wisper on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 06:48 pm:

    no-one said it was going to be, patty.


    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.


By BIGKev on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 08:25 pm:

    its NOT legalization. idiot...
    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...


By patrick on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 08:33 pm:

    oh my god.

    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.






By patrick on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 08:37 pm:

    and yes i read the article and others like it since it became a subject from the get go in the last month.


By Bob marly on Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 10:41 pm:

    chill out mun, have a spliff.


bbs.sorabji.com
 

The Stalking Post: General goddam chit-chat Every 3 seconds: Sex . Can men and women just be friends? . Dreamland . Insomnia . Are you stoned? . What are you eating? I need advice: Can you help? . Reasons to be cheerful . Days and nights . Words . Are there any news? Wishful thinking: Have you ever... . I wish you were... . Why I oughta... Is it art?: This question seems to come up quite often around here. Weeds: Things that, if erased from our cultural memory forever, would be no great loss Surfwatch: Where did you go on the 'net today? What are you listening to?: Worst music you've ever heard . What song or tune is going through your head right now? . Obscure composers . Obscure Jazz, 1890-1950 . Whatever, whenever General Questions: Do you have any regrets? . Who are you? . Where are you? . What are you doing here? . What have you done? . Why did you do it? . What have you failed to do? . What are you wearing? . What do you want? . How do you do? . What do you want to do today? . Are you stupid? Specific Questions: What is the cruelest thing you ever did? . Have you ever been lonely? . Have you ever gone hungry? . Are you pissed off? . When is the last time you had sex? . What does it look like where you are? . What are you afraid of? . Do you love me? . What is your definition of Heaven? . What is your definition of Hell? Movies: Last movie you saw . Worst movie you ever saw . Best movie you ever saw Reading: Best book you've ever read . Worst book you've ever read . Last book you read Drunken ramblings: uiphgy8 hxbjf.bklf ghw789- bncgjkvhnqwb=8[ . Payphones: Payphone Project BBS
 

sorabji.com . torturechamber . px.sorabji.com . receipts . contact