Meth, Coke, Heroin, etc.

Okay, if you want to smoke weed now and then, I don't care- but why would ANYONE want to do meth, coke, or anything like that? Seriously, I am going to sound like a kid who payed attention in health class too much, but I decided on my own. Does anyone actually think these drugs should be legalized? What is your reasoning for the government sanctioning the use of these things?

P.S. I don't think cigarettes should be legal either, so don't use that on me.

or anything that doesn't already grow out of the ground in its usable form.

not sure were your coming from mate.

Zoom Zoom !!!

"Hippie the Skinny Energizer Bunny" in the mid-80's ...


:hippie:

Because criminalizing drugs does not stop people from doing them. It only makes these people criminals before they are even addicts, which is a different thing. It's all in the mindset, but once you are a "criminal" it's not hard to jump to stealing or other crimes to support your drug use because, WTF? you're already breaking the law! It discourages addicts who WANT to get help from doing so for fear of criminal prosecution and costs far more than treating people for addiction.
It feeds high prices on the black market which makes real criminals rich while stealing the lives of the addicts. (See: Prohibition)
Forces people underground which results in whole families in secret shame and hiding because of a drug using parent who they love.
It feeds a military industrial complex to have a "War on drugs" which is really a war on people who need help.

Freepers apply the same logic to guns.

Just a thought.

though i dont have any, use them or like them

Alcohol. People through-out history have their coping tools, and the US of A upped our usage incredibly by way of VietNam. The amount of heroin addicts produced by that little party is staggering. Giving speed to pilots is still okey-dokey. The drug companies are no better than the Afghanis...especially seeing the huge percentage of legal drugs being pulled because of whoopses. Starting us younger and younger....its all about profit.

the overwhelming majority of vets who used heroin in Vietnam stopped using when they returned home. This changed a lot of thinking about the course of heroin use.

Not me, but I knew one. Not even Vietnam, he spent his service in Germany. He said every payday, *everybody* in his unit went out and scored as much smack as their check would buy, and did it all. It was their way of coping with the numbing futility of their assignment.

When I knew him he wasn't doing any more heroin, but he smoked weed around the clock, and kinda couldn't function without it.

Maybe he "kicked" heroin. More likely, I think the way he was using it had enough built-in clean time to prevent the physical addiction syndrome from ramping up-- but I think he acquired the *psychology* of addiction, and that it persisted.

On edit: I present this only in the nature of anecdotal evidence, which I hope we all know is worth perhaps an entire bucket of warm spit. But I want to clarify that, while I respect soldiers who kick, I don't know that society can consider them clean and healthy.

And I agree with what seems to be the general thrust of this thread, that narcotics should be legal under a doctor's prescription, and should be made available for treatment of any recognized medical condition, including addiction.

Before Ronald, patron saint of felons, got hold of Margaret Thatcher's ear, cocaine and heroin were not only legal in England but available on the National Health Service's formulary. And here we're not talking about the cheap scag you can get on the streets of LA that's half powdered milk, 25 percent rat poison and just enough smack so it smells like smack, but no-shit pharmaceutical-grade heroin.

How much of a drug problem did England have? IIRC there were six narcs in all of London. Six narcs. Overdoses were almost unheard of because you knew what you were getting and you knew how much to take. Dirty-needle disease wasn't a problem either because if the government was buying you drugs, they'd buy you works too. And a properly-maintained junkie who isn't conflicted because he's got a guaranteed supply of heroin can be a productive member of society.

Then came Reagan to save Britain by banning hard drugs...and now England has a drug problem just like we do.

I wouldn't want to work with a heroin addict because I use a lot of heavy machinery; heroin and lift trucks are not a good fit. But Wal-Mart is a different story--a guy who works the floor at Wal-Mart and who doesn't drive lift trucks would be much happier stocking those shelves if he had a buzz on, and he certainly could put the socks on the correct pegs if he was stoned.

Nobody likes to talk about this, but cirrhosis of the liver dropped during and after Prohibition and didn't rise back up to pre-Prohibition levels until the 1960s.

I'm not proposing that we go back to making alcohol illegal. I'm just pointing out that legalizing drugs won't solve the problem.

I think a much better approach would be to put a lot more money into health care, including mental health care. A healthy population is a population that doesn't need to abuse drugs and alcohol.

to ever try it.

from what i've seen with cocaine, it's really not addictive unless you do it for about a month straight every day. it makes you feel like shit when you come down so you want more, but once you get through that couple of hours you are fine.

Much more addictive.

Crack is more addictive because it's smoked and crosses the blood brain barrier faster. (This is what makes nicotine so addictive too). Crack is just a dirtier, cheaper form of coke.

OxyContin is synthetic heroin, a form of morphine. Also, very addictive. Heroin addicts rarely get off of it. The recovery rate is extremely low for crack, heroin, meth and other heavy narcotics and barbituates.

NONE are worth trying, IMO. The risks are too great. That said, we should legalize drugs with drug edu programs. As mentioned in the nurse's post, legalizing would eliminate the dangerous black market and ensure the dosages were consitent and bad fillers were not used.

Alcohol is a drug and it's legal, so really what is the difference?

(BTW, I don't do drugs nor do I smoke).

I saw a Bill Moyers show a few years ago where I believe the statistic was the first time you snort coke, you stand a one in 10 chance of becoming addicted. With crack, it's more like 50-50. Too much of a chance for ME to take anyway. My XH battled it for years, and still is, for all I know. It's definitely not a pretty picture, something to stay away from.

That said, I'm for decriminalization, also. At least you get rid of all the violence involved with distributing and obtaining the stuff. ED-U-KA-SHUN is the way to go.

All the illegal drugs put together cause less morbidity and mortality than cigarettes OR alchohol. Does that mean any should be illegal? HELL NO.

Back in the 60s, before the stupid war on drugs really got rolling, most stuff was pretty available. The "speed kills" meme dropped amphetamine use to nearly nothing until the drug war started working too well and a bathtub drug like meth, produced locally, was often the only thing around. Teenagers, who are always the great experimenters, are huffing gasoline and air conditioner coolant because they can't buy the more benign stuff. This is MADNESS! It's KILLING us!

Yes, some people will run into problems with decriminalized drugs. However, why not take the BILLIONS we throw down the prohibition rathole and turn it into rehab for people who want to get off the substance abuse merry go round? THAT would help problem users, alcoholics included. Prohibition helps NO ONE.

Prohibition will NEVER WORK. Regulating the harder substances to keep them out of the hands of little kids is probably the best we can hope for, and we know some kids will always get them, legal or not.

The drug war needs to be ended. Prohibitionists LOST, as they always do. Their only successes have been to drive people to more dangerous drugs and to keep chronic pain patients living in pain. Only a fool would cling to these two things as proof it's working.

to "win" it. They would just end their own very lucrative careers...

issue, we'd be way ahead as a society. I'm not convinced that heroin addiction is any worse than alcohol addiction, after all, if they were both legal, I think heroin addicts would be in better shape than winos after a lifetime of abuse. Just a theory.

Heroin destroys the pleasure centers and addicts have a much lower recovery rate than alcoholics. Most heroin addicts are junkies and die sooner than alcoholics and not just from dirty needles.

Other than addiction, heroin has no negative impacts on your mind or body.. whereas alcohol is a completely different story.

I had no idea that heroin had no effects on the body. Do you remember the commercial with the former model (heroin addict) who takes out her false teeth, etc on camera? Was that some sort of secondary effect to long term drug abuse?

Which can cause things like losing your teeth. But that's caused by spending all your money to buy the stuff & shooting up God Knows What.

If heroin were available by prescription, the effects would not be as bad. It would be like taking medication for a chronic condition. The users would be able to lead an almost normal life--not optimum, but where there's life, there's hope. I've known heroin users with enough money who lived long enough to kick--of their own accord. They were able to avoid the poverty & degradation. Plus the risks of getting shot while committing robberies--or just hanging out with bad guys.

Not to mention the risk of AIDS. There are ex-junkies out there, but no ex-AIDS patients.

I was watching a show on HBO and a woman showed her missing teeth and blamed it on methadone treatment. I have to admit I don't know much about it. Is methadone actually worse than heroin?

that I advocate as decriminalization. But either way, people who use and/or abuse drugs are not criminals. If people want to put those things in their body, it's no one's business but their own. When use/abuse infinges on the rights of another or puts him/her in danger, then THAT can be the crime.


The whole *war on drugs* is a crock and a half. Keeping drugs illegal is what fuels criminal behavior and spreads disease. The nurse said it much better than I have.


Besides, cocaine is fun. I never got into meth, and only tried heroin mixed in with other things (like MDMA) and that should be reason enough for anyone. I'm kidding. But not about the FUN part.

Heroin is the ultimate downer and pain killer, Coke is the ultimate upper and happiness drug, and Meth is the ultimate stimulant and anger drug.

We're comparing apples, oranges, and coffee beans. :crazy:

I never really liked any of them that much. Crank is hard on your body. In one way a little is good if you need to stay up for something but it is hard on your body.

Coke. I never liked this drug. The bad thing about Coke while it actually improves your motivation and reflexes, it actually impairs your judgement worse than alcohol, but where with alcohol the buzz is "noisy" (ie impaired coordination, slurring) and you know you are messed up and not to make any hasty decisions (most people) with coke you don't have that feeling and can make really bad decisions, including doing other drugs on top of the coke.

Heroin. Makes you feel like all is right with the world. Why do I want to do a drug like that. I want some introspection and self examination, or at least some self reflection and mild amusement. The worst thing about heroin is everybody I know that has really gotten into it just stops coming around. It gets to be just this one on one relationship with the drug. Then they spend all the money they have, sell off everything they have, and lose their job. It's awful.

But should they be illegal? I don't know. I've certainly known more people have trouble with alcohol. But is it because it is more available? Then again it is harder to OD on Alcohol than those drugs, so maybe they should. I don't know.

and otherwise.

this is the only way to get control of the situation.

As long as you don't hurt anyone else.

Now society has a right to defend itself and protect itself to an extent. To this end regulate the snot out of drugs. Tax them to pay for education and medical care.

What I do to my body is none of your damn business. I happen to believe that drugs are damn stupid. But what others do to their body is their business. One of the guarantees in this nation is the freedom to pursue happiness. That guarantee did not come with a prescribed list detailing the alllowable forms of happiness.

Some people have claimed to have had phenomenal visions while drugged. This has import to them. Who are we to deny them of this? Just because we think it foolish does not mean they are required to agree with us.

Educate, regulate, and tax.

Because it makes you feel good. Humans seem to have an innate drive to alter their consciousness . For some people it's caffeine, nicotine and booze (the "socially acceptable" methods); for others, it's something else.

I've done cocaine, and heroin (snorted, not injected), and I enjoyed both of them. However, I never developed an addiction, either (with opiates, it takes about 2 weeks of constant use to develop physical dependence). My reason for doing them? Curiosity.

And, personally, I think that all drugs should be legal. If they were, they'd provide a significant source of revenue from excise taxes, and these funds could provide TRUTHFUL education about drugs and their effects AND effective treatment for addicts who need it; and the purity of what's on the street would be standardised and guaranteed, eliminating things like overdose (fun fact: most heroin overdoses AREN'T heroin overdoses, but appear to be due to the effect of quinine, frequently used to cut street heroin, on the lungs).

Whether or not you feel the need, it seems like a majority of people in this country have an in-built need to change their state of concsiouness, whether it be by alcohol, cigs, dope, meth, or some other substance. It has been proven time and again that making such substances illegal has no positive benefits in cutting back on the usage of such substances, in fact a very good case can be made for exactly the opposite, that banning such substances make them more alluring for some people, and usage rates go up.

In either case, the worst effects on society come from the supposed "cure" itself. Enforcing the ban on a substance unleashes the violence of gangs, whether it be Capone's boys in Chicago, or the Bloods and Crips in LA, or just the small time, though still lethal, gangs of small town America. They become purveyors of violence throughout the nation, and soon expand their criminal activities far beyond their original venue of drug running. Crime rates go up, violence rises, and the police and other law enforcement officials start succumbing to corruption and graft.

Meanwhile, in a misguided effort to combat this supposed menace, our civil liberties and rights are systematically stripped away, all in the name of the War on Drugs. The Fourth Amendment was dead before the passing of the Patriot Act, due to the reactions of law-makers. Police have been given a monetary stake in busting otherwise law abiding citizens through asset forfeiture, where a citizen's assets can be seized if even a minute quantity of a drug is found. And even though the person may later be found innocent, most of the time their assets remain property of the state, due to the high cost to the citizen of going to court. This again has led to further corruption of the police and other law enforcement officials, who plant, or otherwise concoct a fraudulent drug case against a citizen, all in order to seize their assets.

Meanwhile, incarceration of citizens whose only crime is a victimless one has made America the most incarcerated populace in the world. Harsh minimal sentencing laws have led to some very skewed sentencing, with people busted for minute quantities of a drug given very long prison sentences, while criminals convicted of much more grievious crimes such as rape and murder being given shorter spans of incarceration, and in some cases, no incaceration at all.

And such prohibitions are bankrupting the nation, with money that could be put to much better use treating the sources of addiction and crime in general instead being diverted to prohibition efforts that produce no tangible benefit. My state spends five million dollars every summer flying around the state searching out dope that they subsequently eradicate. The trouble is that my state was one of the biggest producers of hemp, and thus 98% of what this program eradicates is ditch weed, no more of a drug than corn or wheat. Yet that five million dollars, applied to wiping out poverty and providing early education would do much more good in the state in terms of stopping drug use, and crime in general.

Legalizing drugs would relieve the nation of these problems, with no adverse side effects. Nations that have legalized drugs have seen their drug addiction rates go down, as have the incidences of violence, law enforcement corruption, and the abuse of civil liberties. Meanwhile, they have regained that money stream formerly put into prohibition efforts, turning it to other programs that truly help the public, such as health service expansion and education. In addition, these coutries have opened up another revenue stream by taxing the drugs themselves, and another suprising money source opened as well, as thousands of drug users, no longer engaged in the untaxed job of dealing drugs or feeding their addiction, have gone to work and become happy, productive, tax paying citizens.

The time for legalizing drugs is long past due. For too long has that scourge known as the War on Drugs stalked this country, ruining peoples' lives, shredding our Constitution, and slowly bankrupting our country. One hundred years ago drugs were legal, controlled and easily available to the public. Yet the addiction rate was lower than it is now, and we didn't suffer from the attendant problems that the War on Drugs has brought on. It is time for us to go back to that safer, saner time period, when drugs were legal, controlled, and our addiction rates were lower. Otherwise we will live in an every increasing police state, ripe with crime, incarcerating minorities at a disproportionate rate, shredding our civil liberties, and bankrupting our country, both fiscally and morally. It is time to put a stop to the madness of the War on Drugs before it is too late.

The high is fun, there are no short term problems for most people if they have the money to afford it.

The idea that drugs get you hooked like some magical forcefield sucks you to them is nonsense.

The first step to doing a drug is trying it. So why do people try these drugs. Others suggest it, thrill seaking, boredom(never forget boredom, especially with meth), poverty/destitution, depression(situational and chronic), and anxiety can all motivate someone to try these drugs.

If you tried it once and had a good experience, or it really triggered your brain strongly, you are going to try it again. The more you use theses substances the more dependent you get and the more of a habit you build.

When you have something motivating you to try it, you can just try it once, its not a good idea for many people because they wont be able to avoid trying it again, but its not physically impossible to do so, so its very tempting to just give it a try. Then from there its where you take it.

but regulations have to be put forth.

I don't know the full effects of the various drugs mentioned (the only thing I have done is smoke weed a few times), but I do know that the dependancy and problems caused by some hard drugs destroys families (though of course alcoholism can cause the same problems).

I know meth for one can cause the home unlivable, mostly because of the chemicals released in the air when it is created, often in home labs. Interestingly enough, it's a major problem in poorer areas. It seems to be the redneck drug of choice (other than alcohol of course). Partly because it can be cooked on a stove with many other drugs found in stores. Another problem is that the effects are long term for meth.

I'd advocate a decriminalization of hard drugs (and a legalization of marijuana), but strict regulations need to be in place. Harder drugs often are part of larger criminal enterprises and there are links with drugs, terrorism, and other more violent criminal activities. Though this is partly the result of it being underground. By decriminalizing, it is in some ways, more easy to regulate.

legalization of cannabis, I think. But there are so many drug warrors in America now, what to do with all of them, if they legalized all drugs? Democracy plays no role in this decision, it's strictly the government dictating to it's people the laws. The drug war is a way for the government to invade all countries all over the world, and dictate to them their 'values'. Now with prisons for profit, they justify it even further with their new slave system. America is totally out of control, and I don't see that there is a logical way to get the government to admit to it's mistakes, and right the wrong that has been committed by so many innocent people.
LEGALIZE & REGULATE

Meth- A form of amphetamines, speed. Amphetamines and similar drugs have been around for a long time and are still used medicinally to treat attention disorders and by the military for alertness. Meth is generally made in trailers and sheds in low population areas. It is a very simple procedure, but does have the potential to go wrong drastically.

Like all forms of speed it is a very popular drug because it keeps people alert, awake, happy, motivated, energetic, confident etc. You can see how all those things would be desired. The positive effects and the chemical rewards make this a very addictive drug. You just keep taking it and taking it to stay up and high.

Cocaine is very similar to speed. The high is stronger and the experience more intense and lasts for less time. The addiction is the same, the experience encourages rapid and regular use to stay up and high. Crack is a form of the same drug that is absorbed into the brain faster and is thus even more intense and addictive.

Heroin is an opiate designed to deliver the same effects as morphine, but faster, thus creating a more intense and addicting experience. And, like all oppiates it causes a strong dependency. It is however, if used responsibly, a perfectly safe drug. There may be long term negative effects, but on the short term at least, it leaves very little impact on the body(except for dependency), unless you do enough to stop your breathing of course.