Legalize *all* drugs now

Fuck it. Why not? Can it cause anymore harm than the private oil industry does on a daily basis? Meth, crack, pot, opium....is it really worth the drug war? Is the toll all that much greater than the oil industry, which we have accepted as a way of life?

We have war, environmental destruction, a ruined economy, and people want to be high and mighty about drugs? Its becoming absurd. Beyond absurd.

Legal drugs would be Mickey Mouse problems compared to everything else we deal with. Its making them illegal that amplifies their impact by bolstering the black market.

You might think differently about that "all" drugs point of view

Last I checked we have two hundred thousand barrels of oil leaking into the Gulf of Mexico, which will impact the environment, tourism industry and fishing. And thats all from legal activity.

We all have enough problems to worry about. If they put half the money they spent into the drug war into rehabilitation, education, and regulation of the drug industry, you'd probably have far less harm.

Harm reduction is inherently contradictory to drug war policy, and it cannot sufficiently happen until people change their entire thinking on this issue.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

trivial bullshit like the war on drugs? Thats why I'm mixing absurd ideas together.

There are real problems that people accept as necessary, yet they are gung ho about war against substances that are minuscule in comparison. Legal private industry is destroying the environment and killing off species at a stunning rate.

Seriously...my grandchildren may not have a world conducive to giving them grandchildren. Hyperbole aside, this globe is in a whole lot of trouble in the next 100 years. Why do I give two fucks about locking crackheads up then?

Addiction should be a MEDICAL problem, not a criminal one.

The threat of prison never impacted my drug use one fucking bit, it was just part of the risk of doin' bidness....

Getting killed was a bigger threat where I roamed...

Have you recovered yet?

...because the war on drugs keeps that problem at bay. Criminalizing addictive behavior keeps that kind of stuff out of our neighborhoods, schools, and families.

Oh wait....

Some drugs are innocuous.. Some drugs eat the body.. and Some drugs eat the soul..

it is their own fault and stupidity as well as their own lack of self control. I cannot drink alcohol responsibly, so I chose to quit doing alcohol when I was 21. If someone sees their meth use going from fun party use, to every day addiction use, they just need to take some personal responsibility and STOP USING METH!

It is easier for some to kick addictions than others. It isn't just a matter of personal responsibility.

and does not care. everyone i knew who started heroin or crack knew it was bad for them, they just did not care.

...for what we spend on the worthless war on drugs.

especially not meth.

Your advice is laughably useless. It also underscores a fundamental lack of understanding about addiction. You could stop drinking at 21 because you were not addicted or not strongly addicted.

I could never have just one drink, and with my buddies we had gotten drunk every day for over a year when we were 14 and 15. I am pretty sure I have a mental addiction to cannabis, there just are not a lot of negative side effects.

You may be lacking in self control, but not addicted.

Your "mental addiction" to Marijuana is just another example of how you are confusing self control with real addiction.

I am not physically addicted to cannabis, but I often feel an urge to smoke a joint. When I dont have pot I think about getting more so what I have done is just to buy more when I only have a three MONTH supply left. I have hash at the house i and my ex are selling (three months worth) about a two week supply where I actually live, plus I have a months worth at my ex's parents vacation home (in case my house got raided i could go get more hash) plus I have a few days worth stashed at my parents house in the USA for when I next come to visit. I think that is mental addiction. (i am actually going to counseling and talking about this with a pro).

Your body's reaction to years of marijuana use is less than the reaction would be to months of hard drug use.

It is called an addiction for a reason.

If they could simply chose to stop and be responsible they would.

I mean honestly when you see some homeless crack addict and you find out 5 years ago he owned a home, had a family, decent job, etc do you think he honestly wanted to end up homeless with teeth falling out or maybe just maybe your personal responsibility rant is just utter bs.

no one forces people to smoke crack or meth. I have a cannabis habit because i CHOSE to start smoking years ago, had I never CHOSEN to hit that joint i wouldnt have made a habit of it. At least i take responsablity for my actions

Meth is capable of turning your "fun party use" into addictive use in one dose. No other drug I know of is that addictive, that fast.

Think back to Robocop 2--remember the invented drug "Nuke" that was supposedly the most addictive drug in history? Remember the part of Detroit where the Nuke-heads were hanging out, and how they all looked like tweakers? If they were to remake that movie today, the drug would be meth and the reviews would rip on the relative peace and calm of the movie's meth zone compared to a real one.

I would be perfectly willing to make marijuana and LSD legal. Maybe even without an intoxication test. And under the right circumstances I might even be willing to make opiates legal. But meth and crack? Those need to be illegal. I'm sorry to poop on the party here, but those two drugs are that bad.

everyone knows the risks of using meth, yet people still use it, they make an informed choice and go with it.

The house across the street was a cookery for a year or so. That guy had a young wife and baby who often wandered around the front yard looking utterly lost. It's rural California. Meth is like part of the landscape here. So you're incorrect, I've known and worked with lots of tweakers.

Interestingly, the League of Women Voters broadcast a candidates forum last week for the candidates for district attorney here in Humboldt County. One of the questions asked was "What is the worst drug problem we have in Humboldt County and what would you like to do about it?" Two of the candidates answered-- predictably-- methamphetamine. Bear in mind that NO ONE who wants to be elected to DA in this county would have answered "marijuana." :rofl:

Anyway, both of those candidates expounded at length about the seriousness of the meth problem. One proposed law enforcement solutions, one noted that meth use has social roots that need to be addressed as well.

Then it was the turn of our sitting DA, who is running for reelection. His response? Sure, meth is a problem, but the biggest drug problem Humboldt County CA has, from a law enforcement perspective, hands down, is alcohol. More crimes involve alcohol than all other drug use combined, yet we embrace alcohol use as a cultural imperative.

Needless to say, I'll be voting for the current DA!

Oh wait...


You know long before we had 'meth addicts' (the new drug war bogey man) 'meth' was perfectly legal, and oddly enough, not a major medical or social problem. Why was that?

Look..ANYONE can drink alcohol till it rots your brain just like crack heads, meth heads..the rest..
I was a heroin addict for YEARS and the ONLY problem I EVER encountered from it was that it was ILLEGAL. If it hadn't been illegal I would never had gone into withdraw, would have never had to steal to obtain it so overly priced and I would have been able to keep any job I ever had. Heroin doesn't cause brain damage unless you do a massive overdose.
Opiates in fact, while addictive don't cause serious threats to brain function nor any other organ function unless the person goes into sudden withdraw or overdoses. Medical science has known this for years and yet we lie to the public about it. We make needles hard to get so addicts end up reusing dirty needles like I did, risk diseases like I did and so on. The prohibition causes FAR more damage than any of the drug ever could.
If someone wants to go tweak themselves to death with meth I say GO FOR IT! Just require anyone who purchases meth to also purchase a burial plot.
Problem solved!
The reason all of it's illegal is it feeds the prison industrial complex, guard unions, police unions, politicians with their phony "tough on crime" bullshit and one other inconspicuous group we all pretend are the outsiders.. the fucking cartels are in league with the cops and prison guards and politicians and the sooner Americans wake up to that simple fact the sooner the drug war comes to an immediate end. They look the other way and allow them to operate right across the border, stage a phony war and say, "See? It's all those bad brown peoples faults!" while a few thousand innocents get killed every year right in broad daylight for the daily news feeds to keep people mad at "Illegal immigrants"
I'm more pissed off that the American public is so fucking easily duped and so fucking stupid and unable to see the writing on the wall when the fucking wall is on TV every night.

are cooking up in bath tubs.

made in pharma factories in russia....

I still hate the expensive, ineffective war on drugs which spends untold amounts of money on law enforcement and imprisoning people for a medical problem while doing absolutely nothing (that's right, nada) to solve the problem.

seriously just walk up into any housing projects in any large sized town, if you are white they will ask you what drugs you want within about one minute.

I've been to trailer parks and housing complexes without being offered narcotics.

Hell it took me all of one minute to find hash in paris when i moved here and i didnt even speak french. Long hair and tie dyes help. When you were in the projects and the trailer parks did you go up and talk to the groups of men all wearing the same color clothes? If you approach the gangsters they will sell you whatever you want. I think the thing is that you were not LOOKING for drugs. When you LOOK for drugs you try to make eye contact with people who look like they are up to no good and then go ask if they have drugs (i know because i buy hash on the streets).

Sounds like it would take a great deal of effort to get them. Even if I could get them it would be insanely more difficult than if they were legal.


Hash. I thought we were talking about narcotics. Cocaine, Heroine, Meth, the narcotics. I support marijuana legalization.

actually far easier than he's making it out to be.

A year or so back a philosophical argument eventually came down to "put up or shut up" over this very thing. I hadn't bought drugs since high school a decade ago, and then I only ever did pot and acid(Only once for the LSD). Within 2 hours I had $50 worth of cocaine and $50 worth of methamphetamine. (From the same guy) I never left my house. He brought it to me. I haven't repeated the experiment since then, but I doubt anything has changed. The war on drugs has failed and it has failed miserably.

It doesn't require going round talking to gang members. If you know a pot smoker or dealer they probably know someone that's into heavier stuff. If they don't, they know someone that will. It's the only way pot is a gateway drug: The very illegality of marijuana puts you around people doing much stronger stuff. (That and so many lies were told about it in the course of the WoD that no one believes the stuff about coke or meth.) The only tool needed was a throwaway cell phone.

If you know a pillhead (And you probably do, whether you know it or not.) they can typically direct you along the right path too.

(I should add the meth and coke were tossed in a bonfire. Neither were used. I've no desire to go down that road.)

Pot isn't a gateway drug, it's a gateway to illegality because that's where they put the gate.

On the original post, I agree with the notion that legal corporate pollution making the planet uninhabitable is far worse than the drug problem. I do think we should do something about coke and meth addiction, something vastly different than what we're doing. When people mess up their lives with drugs, the damage isn't limited to their lives alone.

The 'gateway' is there due to the necessity of dealing with criminal elements to obtain drugs.

And not to mention, those who push aside inhibitions and ignore social & legal norms to pursue marijuana may have a natural tendency to due the same for other drugs.


What people don't understand is that drug "pushers" market and push other substances on their customers. When you make drugs legal, and also separate "soft" substances from "hard" substances, you have direct control to remove all marketing and pushing of the "hard" substances.

The fact of the matter is, with legal drugs, the government could have far, far greater control over the industry and supply available to the population.

Compared to legal access in a store, it is very difficult.

I have tried to buy hard drugs before and found it quite difficult. We don't all have junkie friends like you do.

doesn't sound difficult to me.

Edited to pull out the nasty insults at the end.

Obviously it is different for the vast majority of people. There are plenty of people who don't have access to hard drugs. It is prohibitively difficult for many people.

a reporter found heroin within an hour in Paris, out in the countryside they found it easy too as there are dealer addicts there too, just go into a big town and ask anyone who looks like shit, who looks dope sick, or who looks like a gangster. It is easy. for the 75 to 80 percent of the USA living near urban centers it is very easy.

I don't think legalization should allow "hard" substances to be sold in stores. It should be behind the counter of a regulated or government dispensary to licensed users only (who have taken classes on harm reduction and drug education for each substance they are allowed to buy). And the price, which would vastly undercut the black market, would make such a pathway quite viable.

There is middle-ground here, even with a full legalization approach.

So why is going to a dispensary to buy super cheap drugs going to be harder than tracking down and approaching drug gang members?

Because you have to take ONE class. That sounds down right easy.

You mean it sounds easy to force people to become educated on the drugs they are taking and well versed in harm reduction prior to purchasing?

Well fuck...if thats easy, sounds like we are on to something great!

Much easier than having to get them from illegal source.

"Force people become educated on the drugs" means sit through a short class telling them drugs are bad. As if someone was going to continue using drugs but decided not to because sitting for a couple hours was just too much, or telling them that drugs are bad really changed their mind.

If someone knows how to safely take a substance they are educated in, as an adult, in their free time, without lining the pockets of organized crime, WHY DO YOU CARE? Its not that bad of a thing, you know


"means sit through a short class telling them drugs are bad"

No, its more about talking about toxicology, lethal dosages, active time in the bloodstream, usage and sanitation practices, long and short term effects, etc.

Scaring people doesn't work. You provide the complete picture so they can best take a drug they already want to do safely. Let them make up their own mind on whether it is "bad" or "good"


"As if someone was going to continue using drugs but decided not to because sitting for a couple hours was just too much"

I have no intention of wanting to *attempt* to force people to stop using. I want force them to know how to use safe doses, in safe ways.

People currently suck cock for dope. You aren't going to stop those people with a class, but you might get them to stop needing to suck cock and stop using dirty needles with impure, crap drugs.

But by separating the access points (dealers) for soft and hard drugs, and eliminating the marketing (aka pushing), its likely you will get quite a few less people motivated to take such a class in the first place.

You advocate policies that are sure to cause there to be more addicts.

Then we will have to deal with the negative externalities caused by increased drug use. How many abused children too much? How many broken families? How much suffering is enough?

And honestly, I didn't know that by removing illegal cartels that push and market addictive drugs, that it would be "sure to cause there to be more addicts"

You know how asinine that sounds?


"How much suffering is enough? "

None. Clearly, since I want to eliminate the drug war, break the drug cartels (and their marketing that creates new addicts), stop locking up addicts and educate potential users, I CLEARLY also want children to suffer horrible childhoods. Hell, with all this Im proposing, why not just mandate abortion and seal my fate as the most evil baby-killing child-hating person ever.

Do you know how asinine it sounds when you say that making drugs much cheaper and easier to get for everyone is going to decrease drug use?

I must have missed the billboard, where are the drug dealers marketing? I didn't see their commercials, newspaper ads, or anything that would be considered marketing by any standard.

:rofl:

Education: You want to teach drug users how to use drugs
Eliminating Drug Pushers: No, you just put them inside a dispensary
Regulation: Making hard drugs easy to legally obtain

Your whole policy is making drugs cheap and easy to obtain. If you think that will decrease drug usage, then I've got a bridge to sell you.

But we all know that fantasy has been shattered now.

And even if drug use increases by educated, licensed adult users who buy limited quantities at a time, that doesn't mean drug *abuse* would increase. Again, I give two fucks what responsible adults do in their free time. I got bigger problems to worry about

heroin comes in 5 dollar bags and is available at the high school my friend's sister attends, the high school my sister works in, and in just about any trailer park or housing projects in the country

the usa and France, 2 countries where hash is bought on the street. The percentage of dutch cannabis users is around half of the percentage of the users in france according to stats from the EU

they have logos on bags, or stamped right on the pills, plus when people stand on a corner and say "weed rock blows" that is an ad for cannabis, crack, and heroin.

i have an idea, we should get one of these guys to volunteer to be a meth ginuea pig. they can take a before photo, use meth for 6 months, then post the after pic where they've aged 40 years and have no teeth! it'll show us all how harmless it is!

I say that adults should be free to harm themselves if it makes them happy. Evidently the happiness of the high was worth looking like shit to that person. I am an adult. If i want to pop an mdma pill, or snort a line of heroin it is my business and the state should not have the power to bust me for it. Plus the woman in that photo was probably smoking shittily made meth that you get in the USA as opposed to simply taking a meth pill like they sell here in France. Legalize meth and the users will get goods that are not cut with household cleaners

and ask, you will get offered any drug you want, that easy. I can go down to Marseille right now, go into a cité (what we call projects) and get you weed, hash, crack, cocaine, heroin, mdma etc real easy

Unless of course you aren't too bright. Then I'd have to accept your weak argument.

EDIT: There are plenty of examples by other folks that make what I said fairly accurate. Some of the dumbest people I've known have, on their own, figured out how to buy weed or other things. It isn't rocket science.

go to housing projects and ask the black guy wearing lots of jewels where to get a fix....

Criminalization benefits drug dealers and the rest of the prison industrial complex, and nobody else.

And the numbers of people that would be helped by directing a tiny percentage of what we waste trying to fight the tide, are simply overwhelming.

Legalization, regulation, and treatment is the only solution, and pretending that somehow, someday prohibition will work is just stupid.

why should a meth addict be a criminal and an alcoholic be a good citizen? besides it is fine to make money off of peoples addictions, alcohol and tobacco are perfect examples. If philip morris can legally make money off of addiction I should be allowed to sell meth to people 18 and over as well with the goal being to make myself rich off of other peoples weakness and addiction. end the hypocracy and let people make money off of all addictions and let all addicts live legally.

Yes I have dealt with Meth addicts..

And I have worked with the children of those addicts..

EDIT to add: Meth is a nightmare.

but people should also be free to pursue happiness as they see fit. I would not be happy being a meth or heroin addict, those that addict themselves made a choice and said "you know what, i would rather be an addict than have a life". It was their choice and they should not be a criminal for it, and I should be allowed to profit from it by selling them their "candy".

raped by a meth addict. He did not even remember doing it. I do no even know how to respond to some of these posts.

Try to equate marj,. and meth. does not work. And people should NOT be free to pursue happiness with something that foul, that odious..that could remove a person humanity.

they just said they forgot so the judge would go easy on them, but hey if they blacked out from legal alcohol that would be better? The sick fuck rapes babies and should be in jail for that. You can pursue happiness with alcohol which takes away any sense of right and wrong. Look at the girls gone wild movies, good old alcohol.... you should be allowed to pursue happiness with meth, heroin, crack etc. just like you can with alcohol. You black out from alcohol, do things you would never otherwise do and that is called good legal fun.

I have so many young young young toothless women in my program.. trying to find their way back.. nothing like alcohol.. There is no comparison.

What meth does to the brain, it does at such an accelerated rate as opposed to alcohol. You can have a drink or two of alcohol,not become and addict not lose your soul,

You cannot do that with meth.

You can have a joint or two, and not try and kill your mother.

They do that on meth, in the first month.

most "meth users" here just take a speed pill every once in a while, like one or two weekends a month while at parties. speed is just a pill over here. I have lived in the usa for 24 years and I did notice that meth is smoked over there. honestly I have once crushed up a speed pill and smoked it to stay up and party and had no desire to do it again the next day. the friends i have here who do speed do so a handfull of times a year. Is the meth in the usa more addictive? if so why dont the people just use cocaine instead?

I honestly think i have been mentally hooked on weed since the first time I smoked. I LOVED it. I remember saying "it would be cool to be like this all the time" well now I get high all the time when i am not at work...... at least I have a mental addiction to something that is not too harmful....

I don't think what you took was the same at all.

crystal meth is just in rock form, but i think the psycoactive part is the same as the speed pills they sell here in France, they also sell the stuff in powder as it is a lot cheaper than cocaine. that is why I am asking, when people do meth here in France it is in the form of speed pills, and rarely snorted powder. What form does it come in in the states? Is it pills? powder? rocks?

In America it is a crystal chunk made from processing cold medicine with solvents. I'm fairly certain the amphetamine pills available in France are chemically similar, but different.

legalization would at least allow addicts and abusers to obtain supplies that aren't full of unknown dangers.

If you're poor, methamphetamine in the US is something you get from a dealer or make with cold pills, drain cleaner and batteries in some DIY lab equipment or even a plastic soda bottle ("shake and bake" style, a great way to get some nasty chemical burns.) That stuff will destroy you, and it won't take real long about it, whether you smoke it or snort it as a powder.

If you're middle class or higher, you go get diagnose with adult ADD, get a prescription for Adderall, and get the purified stuff perfectly legally in a bottle of pills with your name right on it. Middle class moms used to get speed prescriptions for weight loss- my aunt had one for years.

When people talk about the ravages of meth, they're talking about the skinny toothless rural poor, not the urbanite taking somebody else's pills to stay up all night and party. But it's the same drug, only the poor people get it mixed with all sorts of delightful poisons. It's the poisons killing them.

So fuck yeah, legalization would help meth addicts too. And before anybody wants to give me the "you don't even know" speech, my own fucking mother is a recovering meth addict, I didn't know where she was for half of my childhood, and I worked in the foster care system in Northern California. I know. And criminalization kills addicts faster than any drug.

Well stated friend.

why does the govt bust the labs producing the safer meth?

backstory of it being made illegal. it was handed out like candy in the 1950s, perhaps there were a lot of health problems because of it. i don't know.

I can't imagine dealing with what you describe. :hug:

Julie

This is exactly the sort of negative externalities which will only increase with legalization. Thank you for making right one of the wrongs caused by hard drug use.

how does throwing an addict in jail rank as productive?

I'm not sure. The thing is that decriminalization has worked in Portugal: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization

so the mafia keeps their profits and their is no purity control. legalization would imply fda approval, sales in stores, and legalized production of drugs.

in a civilized world not hell bent on punishment, leaders would seek to reduce harm rather than set the framework for a flourishing black market trade.

and meth is its own worst advertisement. People who do meth are walking billboards on why not to do it. They age at warp speed, burning our their bodies within a couple of very short years. Yes, some fools will always choose it as their drug of choice, but perhaps their purpose in life is to dissuade the rest of us.

Oxy addicts are generally lethargic and peaceful unless they are desperate for a hit, and I do mean desperate. Needing to depend on an overpriced and dangerous black market is the problem, not the drug itself. You want to reduce street crime, give them a clean and safe supply at prices that undercut the black market.

Undercutting the black market is really the point here, as the greatest benefit to legalizing it all is busting the drug gangs by removing their source of income. In the meantime, putting drugs behind a counter and requiring ID will discourage children, something the black market does not do.

The war against drugs, even the demonstrably bad ones like meth, has been a complete failure, depriving us of our civil rights as it enriches the worst people on the planet, the drug gangs.

What we are doing now is not working. Time to treat it like alcohol.

Nobody wants to encourage anyone to use meth. Far from it. But criminalization doesn't stop meth use, or any OTHER drug use. It just puts people into prison, helps to disenfranchise minority and low-income voters, and feeds the police state machine.

Treat it like alcohol, where use is not a crime unless you hurt other people, and abuse is considered a medical problem--not an imprisonable offense. As for "Oxys"--ha. I've known more pain pill users than I could count on all the hands in the US Senate, and 99% of them are people who started out trying to self-treat pain that their doctors were NOT treating. My sister's domestic partner was checked into a mental facility last night because of this. She has benign but inoperable tumors on her brain and upper spine that cause her enormous pain, but because she had a positive marijuana screen while being treated at a pain clinic a couple of years ago (yes, she was using weed to try and kill the nauseating headaches so she could eat), she is now pretty much banned from EVER receiving opiates again. She'll get morphine from hospice when she's literally dying, but that's it. THAT is how fucking draconian and cruel our controlled substance laws are. Even people who live with legitimate, verifiable PAIN are being denied medications.

Since then, she'd been buying a few pain pills from shady sources to try and deal with the pain of living, which I don't blame her for one bit. But the guilt over breaking the law and wasting some of what little money she gets in Disability on those pills (which are expensive) has been eating her up. She called me crying the other day, saying that it kills her to spend $100 on pills that would only cost $5 with an actual prescription, but it's just too much pain to bear. Last night, between the guilt and the pain, she finally fell apart and threatened suicide. My sister took her to the hospital, and after 14 hours in the ER, they finally admitted her to the mental ward, where I assure you, they will give her every kind of medication imaginable EXCEPT for the pain medication she actually NEEDS. I'm so angry about this that I can hardly put the intensity of my rage into words. This poor girl is 35 years old with an 8-year-old daughter, and she is almost certain to end up killing herself over this, because our dumbass drug laws won't LET her doctors back down. She's on the "drug abuser" list now, a list shared between all local hospitals and doctors. You have about as much chance of getting off of THAT as you do of sprouting wings and flying to Jupiter.

You have no effing IDEA what it's like to be a genuine pain patient these days, thanks to the paranoia and moralizing bullshit that keeps the Drug War churning out new prisoners and victims every day. YES, people with actual, verifiable medical conditions ARE being denied pain relief--and all because of the fucking drug war. My Mom's going through it. My sister's partner. *I* have gone through it. Other friends and people I've met through support groups are dealing with it. It seems like EVERYBODY knows someone who's in genuine pain, and who cannot get pain relief thanks to these bullshit laws.

You know what? I would rather see a thousand meth heads go slap-happy free than to see ONE more innocent person suffer unrelieved, agonizing pain and end up suicidal because of the fucking drug wars. Maybe your priorities are different; I really don't care. You have your experiences and I have mine, and I have seen FAR more suffering from the unavailability of opiates to people who NEED them than I have EVER seen from meth heads. FAR more. The vast majority of the worst problems associated with drug use are because it's ILLEGAL--things like robberies to fund expensive drug habits, tainted drugs, gang violence, the cartels shooting competitors in the streets. Hell--let the tweakers have their meth, manufactured safely in a factory and sold cheap. Let the people who want opiates to get "high" do it with safe, clean pharmaceuticals and sterile needles in a secured setting with medical staff available. Put the freaking cartels out of business. If it means that pain patients can get what they need to lead functional lives WITHOUT being hassled, accused of "abuse", or denied pain relief altogether? Hell yes, let it happen. I'm ALL for it.

:sarcasm:

I don't think you can find any evidence that that would be the case.

To get it

So just legalizing that would end a great deal of the corruption and other nightmares associated with the Drug War.

during prohibition, people drank rotgut alcohol because thats' what they could get easily. By and large, they don't any more. I think the same thing would happen with other drugs. Give the users a reasonably safe way to get high, and they'd shun the nasty stuff. I'm not saying it would solve all our problems, far from it. But it would eliminate the criminal aspect. Then we could put our resources into keeping people off the stuff.

He is just as evil on or off illegal oxycontin. While that hypocrite was savagely attacking Roger Clinton's drug problems Rush Limblah was an addict himself. At least Roger Clinton was trying to overcome his problems. Rush was dishonestly obtaining his in a variety of illegal ways, all of which were felonies. I remember a story about a guy in a wheelchair who needed pain medication to just relieve his pain. He 'doctor shopped' to get medication and ended up in prison for 30 years. Compare that guy who had no money and no resources to what Limblah did. It's disgusting. The guy in the wheelchair had a legitimate excuse for what he was doing. But Rush Limblah was just a dishonest drug addict, with no compassion or empathy for anyone else.

Stop thinking that Rush is still using. He is not. However, Rush is not worked steps yet. He is avoiding NA meetings and not working the program. I know because I am recovered alcoholic and I know when somebody is not doing steps.

He has offended or lied about thousands of people. He would spend all of his time trying to get through the 8th step of recovery, where he had to sincerely apologize to others he harmed. It's been a few years so he has had plenty of time to have worked up to the 8th step. But as you suggested, he isn't even working on the 12 step program, and by not doing so has probably violated the terms of the legal agreement he made to stay out of jail.

The 8th Step: Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all. Since Limbaugh's words of hatred have so polluted the political discourse he should have to apologize to everyone affected by his hate, whether it was directly or indirectly. He should even apologize to everyone in his audience since his lies are harming them by causing them to hate even more. (Even though they are willing participants in the process they are nevertheless witless victims to Limbaugh's vulgar attacks)


I wish you the very best in our quest at sobriety. And I'm proud of you...

Meth, for example, is quite harmful, whereas marijuana merely robs ambition. One problem - our issues with the oil industry - does not justify a reckless solution to an unrelated problem.

I'm for getting control of controlled substances, and to that end I'd support legalizing and taxing marijuana. But not coke, heroin, PCP, meth, or a host of other substances.

:rofl:


This is precisely why marijuana smokers never amount to anything in life

Some of the best video gamers I've ever known were World Champion pot smokers.

It takes a lot of couch time and a grip o' bonghits in order to get to that highest level of the latest shoot-em-up video game.

So the next time you walk past the Game Stop at the local mall and see the pasty-faced teenagers with oily hair buying the latest version of Grand Theft Auto, think about all the good pot as done them and what fine people they'll grow up to be someday.

...where on earth do you get the notion that "marijuana robs ambition?" I've enjoyed a fulfilling and rewarding career in academic science-- a pretty competitive and stressful field-- while being a lifelong stoner. If anything, I'd argue the opposite-- regular marijuana use helps relieve stress, which frees us to work toward realizing our ambitions.

If unambitious people smoke pot, they might enjoy their slackerhood more. That does not make pot responsible for their lack of ambition!

marijuana at most robs ambition.

Where I got it was personal observation, but I admit I may have been unfair, and perhaps the individuals were lacking ambition in the first place.

I do know firsthand that it's hard to stay angry smoking the weed (for I smoked it for a time). I think people should be angry, good and angry, and I wonder if the weed has been so prevalent for the "soma"-like qualities it possesses.

soma is more like MDMA but yeah, the hash i smoke is to help me stay calm and not be angry about the shitty world.

And the list of accolades and piles of cash they have accumulated would tend to argue against your point. To an absurd extent.

But so would anything else.

And that ain't a pot problem. That's a people problem.

Drugs don't make you an addict.

so that whole drive to get an MA, that whole drive to get a job as a teacher, my drive to go biking for 2 to 4 hours in the hills a few days a week??? how do i still have that with all the hash I smoke???

Did you get high while you were studying for the MA?

Do you get stoned before your 4 hour bike rides?

Do you smoke before you step in front of a class?

If you're like me, you know how to manage your enjoyment. Lots don't. It took me a very long time before I was able to resist the urge to get high until after my workday was over, or after the household chores/repairs were done.

I got high before class doing my BA and my MA, i got high before coming in to do written exams, I was stoned when I did my oral exam at the end of grad school in front of a panel of 3 profs.

I get stoned before I go biking, stop when I get to the top of the climb and get high again, ride down the hill and then get high again when I get home (actually I may try cutting down on my smoking a bit)


I never smoke before teaching at the high school as I dont want to risk losing my job, I do prepare lessons and grade homework stoned.

I honeslty get high then go outside and cut up firewood.

Having said that I also have a suspected case of ADHD and perhaps the cannabis lets me focus all that energy.

The one thing I'd disagree with about what the poster said concerning ambition is that for me, pot robs me of motivation, not ambition. I'm ambitious as hell when I'm stoned, and can sometimes think through the world's problems (many times I've solved the world's problems while high, but neglected to write those solutions down), but doing something about them is a different story altogether.

When I first heard the word faded used by a teenager to describe getting stoned, I thought to myself that it was the PERFECT word for what being stoned is like for me.

my ambition should be gone.

Let's start with the quantifiably harmless drugs like weed first and see how that goes. I see no need to encourage tweakers.

While them being illegal certainly does help those in the market, legalizing stuff like meth would NOT decrease our problems. Keep meth and heroin illegal but treat it as a health issue, not a criminal one. We shouldn't put users in jail...we should help them. It's called addiction for a reason.

I'm honestly not sure what the difference is between legalizing it if you aren't going to arrest users for possession (but rather treat them).

If you don't want these scary terrible drugs to be treated as a criminal issue, it seems like one of the first steps is to remove their usage/possession as a crime from the criminal code.

Yes, I am all for treatment and harm reduction.

Make the "penalty" treatment instead of jail time. Legalizing it gets them no help, unless we mandate that any buyer enters into a treatment program at the same time as they score a fix. And how do we mandate that without miles of red tape and ridiculous hoops that most users would ignore anyways? We can't, and it would be dumb to try. So there has to be a middle ground, and for me decriminalization is that middle ground.

I am open on this debate though. There's no tidy answers on this one (which pisses me off! ;) )

They already do that for alcohol DUIs. Its a joke.


Regardless, its a better approach than just locking them up

Exactly.

You think just letting anyone do meth whenever and wherever they want will work any better? :shrug:

and would not CHOOSE sobriety over them simply because being sober is too painful for them, their lives are so shitty that they actually PREFER heroin or meth, they should not be criminals for this, and should not be forced to quit. They should be free to pursue their own happiness as they see fit.

Is your experience with meth users one of them hurting no one else? It's not in my experience, and that of too many others I know. I totally agree that they shouldn't be criminals, and said so in my previous post.

meth comes in pill form here in France, people pop speed pills at all night parties and generally dont do the shit during the week. in the usa i have one old high school friend who is a tweeker but he and his mother make their own and life off of selling it to other grown adults so they only hurt themselves and dont steal or anything.

:shrug:

then they should be taken from them. I know people who use cocaine, marijuana, mdma etc. and raise their kids fine. I know alcoholics who raise their kids shitty but they get to keep their kids. Let the addicts raise their kids all fucked up and then my kids will have an easier time competing for jobs with the kids of the losers who chose to shoot speed instead of spending time with their kids.

Let the addicts raise their kids all fucked up and then my kids will have an easier time competing for jobs with the kids of the losers who chose to shoot speed instead of spending time with their kids.

Way to think of your fellow man!

i can be so selfish sometimes, of course we should do all we can to help kids in those kinds of situations.

:toast:

That you recognize yours puts you ahead of the pack. And normally I'm pretty glib on all matters. On most days I'd see humor in what you said. Just not today. Hats off to you for realizing what you said was wrong.

:toast:

They will be getting YOUR children hooked on drugs too. The drugs easily available to their parents, will be available to them.

that was a dumb post i made, but the drugs will surely be available where my daughter goes to school so I will just educate her about them

"I know people who use cocaine, marijuana, mdma etc. and raise their kids fine..."

I have few doubts it may appear that way....

We need social services to deal the family toll of addiction, regardless of the source. And I'm convinced that we could provide cadillac services for considerably less than the cost of the war on drugs, incarceration, etc.

Americans have an obsession with rule making and punishment, even when decades of experience demonstrate the utter ineffectiveness and out-of-control monetary and social cost of persecuting drug users. A rational approach would be to determine what causes drug addiction, work with the social causes where we can, and with the consequences where we must, but in a reasoned and productive way. Criminalizing what we cannot change is neither rational nor productive. If it were, our prisons would be empty.

We need social services to deal the family toll of addiction, regardless of the source.

That's pretty much where I stand. I don't think, however, that legalizing ALL drugs as if they were all equal in damage done is the answer though. I just don't think users should be treated as lepers of society unworthy of care or consideration. I don't see how legalizing meth would make meth users more likely to get help though. I suspect just the opposite would happen. Regardless of the source of the addiction, most addicts don't go out of their way to seek help unless made to.

A rational approach would be to determine what causes drug addiction,

No need...the biggest cause is already well known. Poverty. And we aren't eliminating that anytime soon. In the meantime, we can only deal with poverty's after effects as humanely as possible, in such a way that harms the fewest people, users and those around them alike.

They frequently end up stealing, for one thing; they have tremendous medical and other needs, they do get behind the wheels of cars, and they sure as hell hurt all the people who love them.

and let non stealing heroin users go on with their lives.

and who knows how many times they steal or rob before they are caught as "thieves."

The effects of heroin addiction exact a very high cost not only on the addict, but on all the people around them.

for every famous musician or actor that is able to keep producing despite a heroin habit there are many more doing the same outside of the spotlight.

Look, the average heroin addict in the US today is a teenager. Most teenagers can hardly deal with "normal" life.

I agree that it should be decriminalized and treated as mental illnesses are, as long as the law can enforce having them committed -- taking away their freedom -- without the criminal processes.

Do you really think the situation of one multi millionaire is representative of the poor people suffering through addiction?

I've known a number of heroin addicts in my life. Some, I presume, are still functioning addicts. Some have indeed stopped and "gone on with their lives." One that comes to mind immediately is a teacher and the adopted parent of half a dozen kids, several of whom suffer from the effects of fetal alcohol syndrome.

"I've seen the needle and the damage done." It can be pretty grim, but I know LOTS of alcoholics who are worse off.

I don't believe there ARE "functioning heroin addicts."

The actual retail cost of heroin or methadrine ridiculously low. The medical consequences of heroin addiction are relatively minor. Drug purity, dosage regulation, clean needles, etc. would eliminate most of the social costs and do far more to reduce harm than anything the stupid drug war does.

As for operating under the influence, that is a problem for all intoxicants. We accept the cost for alcohol, raising it here as a reason to throw people in jail for using other drugs is silly.

Finally we have 'they hurt the people who live them', for which the solution is apparently to toss them in jail. Really? That helps how?

:wtf: I'm speechless.

That is flat out FALSE.

My assertion is not even controversial outside of the brainwashed drug war culture of the US. Heroin is a prescription drug in many countries outside of the USA, widely prescribed for pain relief, for palliative care of cancer patients, and as a far more effective 'methadone treatment approach' to heroin addiction. It is a better medical drug choice for pain relief than oxycodone (oxycontin), but of course doctors are not allowed to prescribe heroin here.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin#Usage_and_effects

From the section on risks of use:

For intravenous users of heroin (and any other substance),
the use of non-sterile needles and syringes and other related equipment leads to several serious risks:
the risk of contracting blood-borne pathogens such as HIV and hepatitis
the risk of contracting bacterial or fungal endocarditis and possibly venous sclerosis
abscesses - all caused by stupid WOD policies.

Poisoning from contaminants added to "cut" or dilute heroin - another direct result of stupid WOD policies.

Chronic constipation. - the most common adverse consequence of chronic use.

Addiction and increasing tolerance. - obviously.

Physical dependence can result from prolonged use of all opioids, resulting in withdrawal symptoms on cessation of use. - another given.

Decreased kidney function (although it is not currently known if this is due to adulterants or infectious diseases)<47> - an unknown.

Please educate yourself. You have been lied to.

http://www.drugfree.org/portal/drug_guide/heroin

"Long-term effects of heroin appear after repeated use for some period of time.Chronic users may develop collapsed veins, infection of the heart lining and valves, abscesses, cellulites, and liver disease. Pulmonary complications, including various types of pneumonia, may result from the poor health condition of the abuser, as well as from heroin's depressing effects on respiration."

That's just a start.

All of the infections, liver disease, etc are a consequence of impurities, unsanitary facilities, dosage uncertainties, etc.

The 'liver disease' clause there is especially dishonest, as what they are actually referring to is HepC infection, a heroin related problem that is caused by the WOD and would go away immediately with legalization of heroin.

What is needed is a good study that examines and separates adverse effects of illicit vs legal use of heroin. It would be best if the study focused on recreational use, as that would get at the issue of harm reduction. In other words, if the goal here is harm reduction, and it can be shown that legalization, at least for those addicted, would reduce harm, then harm reduction can be best achieved by providing heroin addicts with a safe legal supply of heroin. Lucky for us we have two such studies, one from Switzerland and a follow on study from The Netherlands. The Dutch study is very interesting:

Summary conclusions of results of Dutch Heroin Trial

Conclusion 1.

The study was conducted and analyzed successfully.

Conclusion 2.

Supervised co-prescription of heroin to chronic, treatment-resistant heroin dependent and methadone treated patients is more effective than the continuation of methadone alone.

Conclusion 3.

Supervised co-prescription of heroin to chronic, treatment-resistant heroin dependent and methadone treated patients yields clinically relevant health benefits.

Conclusion 4.

The beneficial effects of supervised co-prescription of heroin are linked to the continuation of treatment.

Conclusion 5.

Supervised medical co-prescription of heroin is practicable with no excess of serious medical adverse events and with a limited number of controllable public order problems.

Conclusion 6.

The costs of the medical prescription of heroin are dependent on the type of treatment implementation.

http://www.ffdlr.org.au/archives/Media%20Releases/Dutch%20trial%20of%20prescription%20heroin%20strongly%20endorses%20benefits.htm

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/bmj;327/7410/310


The adverse effects of legal use of opiods outside of addiction treatment is another way to get at the adverse consequences. Addiction itself is obviously one adverse consequence, as is overdose, the remaining side-effects are not terribly impressive. For example:

Side Effects of Opioid Pain Medications

Like other medicines, opioid pain medications have side effects, even when used as directed. The short-term effects may include:

drowsiness
constipation
light-headedness and dizziness
mild anxiety
dry mouth
headaches
nausea
reduced appetite
confusion
In addition, a person taking opioid pain medication may experience the following:

vomiting
rash and itchiness
pinpoint pupils
difficult urination
burning sensation on the skin
cold clammy skin
trouble with breathing, such as slow or shallow breathing

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/med/ana-opioid-med-eng.php

Then again, opiods like heroin have been used for medicinal purposes for the entirety of human history. They are in general no more dangerous than the rest of our pharmacopoeia.

:thumbsup:

causes more harm than the actual drug use itself. Why should it be legal to be an alcoholic but illegal to be addicted to heroin or meth??? how is an alcoholic so morally superior to a heroin addict or a meth addict that the alcoholic can live free and have no fear of jail while the other addicts have to hide in shadows and fear prison?

You cannot drive while drunk on alcohol

You cannot be in public while drunk on alcohol

You cannot drive with an open container of alcohol

and so on and so on... alcohol does not get a pass, although I do agree it is much more morally accepted unfortunately.

just stay at home, dont drive, and only go to the liquor store first thing when you wake up.

just don't get caught?

I can get busted smoking grass at home, it is illegal, you cannot get busted drinking alcohol at home, it is legal. not to mention coming home from where you buy, as well as drug testing.

But some jobs also test for alcohol too...bus drivers, pilots etc..

I hear what you are saying though. Alcoholism is a nasty disease that needs to be looked at more critically.

open question

it's not an open question for me,
decriminalize, at the least,
it should be obvious.

1. Prohibition doesn't work. It never has.
2. Because of the black market created by prohibition, it creates criminals of dealers who then become dangerous to communities.
3. Valuable community resources are spent on locating and imprisoning drug addicts. Those resources can and should be focused elsewhere.
4. Minorities are disproportionately targeted by law enforcement when it comes to the drug war.
5. If prohibition were ended, the drugs could then be sold legally and become taxable commodities.
6. Rather than imprisoning drug addicts, taxes raised from drug sales could then be used to make them as safe as humanly possible, search for ways to combat addiction, and offer rehabilitation services.
7. It is a misconception to believe that making drugs legal will encourage widespread use - there is already widespread use - it is just more dangerous, not only to the addicts, but the community at large due to the criminal elements involved.

"When Prohibition was introduced, I hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would soon come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognized. I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result. Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before." - John D. Rockefeller, Jr. in a 1932 open letter

Our last two (and current) presidents have publicly and openly admitted to drug use. Prohibition has never worked and never will.

but I will never support allowing a drug like meth to be legalized. That shit is pure evil and I've seen it cause good people to become insanely violent and paranoid. It hurts more than just the user.

I think drug policy should certainly focus much more on treatment and rehab and less on jail and prison (for cases of simple possession) but outright legalization of meth would be a very bad move in my opinion.

Legalize weed and soft drugs (E and DMT). Do not legalize hard drugs. (Meth, Heroin, and Coke)

When in reality we all know that drug users are a major problem from drug use. This is a fantasy I have no intention in taking part in.

What you really mean is that the cost of making things better is more than you wish to pay.

The only real solution is to reform our prison system so it rehabilitates people.

yet alcohol users get to have cool ads selling their dope during sporting events?

They don't have the same effects. Are you surprised they are treated differently?

yet I am a crook because I like cannabis, lsd, magic mushrooms, and mdma.....go figure.....

It is a drug that actually does very little harm.

Mushrooms and LSD I believe should become a less restricted class because they are less addictive. They should be restricted more than alcohol but still remaining available.

Arguably, MANY modern behaviors, including many of our most cherished accomplishments, result from the same psychological drives that give rise to addiction. Alcohol is MORE harmful than most narcotic abuse, certainly in terms of scale, if nothing else. The truth is that we only want to criminalize CERTAIN drugs and certain behaviors, not because they are the worst or otherwise more deserving of legal assualt, but because they aren't the ones the pillars of the community are addicted to.

One shot of tequila won't kill you; one shot of heroin might.

You drink alcohol; you quickly screw up veins shooting heroin.

Hard drugs have quick and terrible consequences that don't compare with alcohol or pot.

If you want to equalize things, then you'll have to go on a new temperance campaign for another alcohol prohibition, so that all recreational highs are illegal. I think the better course is to legalize pot. Heroin should be treated as a medical issue, but most people must be arrested and forced into rehab in order to get well.

One dose of tequila will certainly kill you if it exceeds your body's tolerance for alcohol. Likewise, one dose of heroin will not harm you if it does not exceed your physiological tolerances. We serve alcohol in small enough doses to be recreational, usually-- although people DO die of alcohol poisoning all the time. The acute kind, just like the junkie who ODs.

Your comments about deliver methods miss the truth that it's the user's veins at risk, not anyone elses. Who are you and I to tell people what they can and can't put in their own veins?

Your least informed statement is that "hard drugs have quick and terrible consequences that don't compare with alcohol" Again, it's all a matter of dosage. I've known people who were heroin users for many, many years. Believe it or not, a junkie's worst risks are not from narcotics, but rather from the criminal activity that we've surrounded it with, law enforcement, and utter lack of standardization in packaging and dosage.

I would probably agree with you with respect to meth and some similar drugs, but again, criminalization has had no apparent affect. If it did, the prisons would be empty of drug users.

We're their mothers and fathers, primarily.

Nobody shoots up with the plan to become an addict. But once they get there, you aren't dealing with a rational human being anymore.

No, I do NOT believe the junkie's worst risks are from law enforcement. The drug does terrible things to their bodies and minds, period. I have known people who've died -- "overdoses" seem more often to be combining opiates with alcohol, by the way. And they don't know what's in the stuff, and they are at high risk for HIV.

It's easy to say, "Their choice, don't bother them." But that's like shrugging your shoulders at a schizophrenic or for that matter, someone with a dire physical illness who is in danger every day.

Criminalization is sometimes the only thing that has an effect. They're forced into detoxing and thinking more clearly, and the "bad" may start to outweigh the "good" so that they decide to pursue life again.

Ultimately, my point is that criminalization has NOT had the desired effect. If it had, our prisons would not be full of drug users.

I'm confused-- have you had any direct experience with people who use narcotics? I'm thinking specifically about heroin and other opiate derivatives. You make it sound like they turn into raving monsters who'll kill their grandmothers for their next fix. That is, unfortunately, the cartoon version that law enforcement and national policy makers have promulgated for decades, but it isn't true, by and large.

SOME heroin users are party animals who get in way over their heads. Exactly the same thing happens with drinkers. Some are social drug users who do it occasionally, more like raver types (the general phenomenon, not any specific connection between raves and narcotics-- just an analogy). Ditto for drinkers. Some are quite, functioning junkies, using their dope and then going to work in the morning, just like everyone else. Some are what I think of as wastoids from the beginning, the sort of people who don't so much fall into the bottle-- or the dime bag-- so much as propel themselves full force into the most degraded state they can achieve. Junkies don't have any lock on that franchise. My ex was an alcoholic who did far more damage to her "body and mind" than most "hard" drug users I've known.

The truth is that most drug users are just like most drinkers, a circumstance that makes sense because they're ALL drug users. We look the other way, for the most part, when their drug of choice is alcohol, but like you, many people construe that to mean that there is some massive qualitative difference between skin-poping a little horse after work and having a few stiff drinks every night. I mean, sure, the experience is different, but the long term effects, the social effects, etc are not very different at all-- or they wouldn't be, if not for law enforcement and the criminalization of whole segments of society. And marijuana, the drug that is largely fueling this debate currently, is downright benign. Know anyone who abuses their prescription narcotics? You probably know several. Have they turned into raving maniacs?

"Ultimately, my point is that criminalization has NOT had the desired effect. If it had, our prisons would not be full of drug users."

It's full of addicts in SPITE of criminalization, not because of it. It may save only a small percentage, but every day they're in jail or mandatory rehab, there's some hope for their recovery.

As I've said, I could see decriminalizing hard drugs as long as addiction were treated as a mental illness in the sense that people would be "committed" against their will. If you know "functional heroin addicts," then fine -- leave them be. (I still have a really hard time believing it, though.)

As it is, people who are a danger to themselves or others can be institutionalized, but it's a very high bar to prove it in cases of addiction, and it does have to go through the criminal justice system before treatment. That, I agree, is totally wrong.

I disagree that all things are equal. There's a difference between recreational use and addiction; there's also a difference between caffeine and cocaine, though. There's a difference between alcohol and crack. There's a difference between pot and heroin.

Again, the average heroin addict in this country is not some rock musician or "functional" employed adult -- the average addict is a TEENAGER. (For the record, a white, middle-class teenager.) They're not necessarily "party animals" or "wastoids" or some "sort of people." They started out as normal kids, "experimenting" the way most of us did, with one difference: somebody persuaded them to try heroin, and persuaded them that there's such a thing as a "recreational user" who can function.

And you think *I've* bought into a load of goods?! Go to an NA meeting and just listen.

The obvious fact that fewer people abused some of these drugs when they were legal does not prove criminalization didn't work to the degree you assume, but it sure doesn't argue for the other side of the proposition.

You assume criminalization has reduced drug addiction but you'd be hard pressed to provide any evidence of cause and effect.

You simply assume it.

I do not assume criminalization has reduced drug addiction.

However, getting addicts away in a place where they can't use for a while CAN turn lives around, or at least provide a temporary respite from its dangers and give them a chance to think. Again, I don't think addicts should be punished, but absolutely need to be helped including through mandated treatment (as a danger to themselves).

When such drugs were legal, they were not nearly as available. So that's a false equation. Heroin and meth are the Boones Farm Apple Wine of today -- cheap and easy to get.

I think you're assuming about what I assume.

So what do you do with the ones who don't go along with it? Keep throwing them into rehab every time they relapse the day they get out?

And I really don't see how forcing somebody into a rehab facility against their will doesn't qualify as a punishment.

IMO, treatment should be made available for anyone who is at the point in their life where they feel it would benefit them. Forcing people who don't want to stop into treatment is just a waste of time.

I'd really like to see some data that supports your assertion that locking somebody up to 'clear their mind' is actually effective in people who aren't willing to seek help.

Yes, you "throw them into rehab" = try again to save their lives.

It's a "punishment" to the part of them that's an addict -- it's a chance to save their lives.

Every day they are locked up is a day they're far more likely to stay alive than on the street.

They look at it as a joke, and rightfully so. It *is* a joke to put people there unless they actually have the desire to be there. The 'treatment' is useless, because in the end it is the addict who will get him or herself clean. You can't *make* someone want sobriety.

You can show someone another way of being.

You can make them go through detox.

You can show them a mirror.

You can get them away from the drug for a day, or five, or more. It's not a lot of hope, but it's SOME hope.

Allow the police to force them from their homes and take them into custody?

Do you know how some people are treated by the authorities simply for being drug users?



I suggest that treatment be offered as an option to everybody who has a problem with addiction. Taking a person into custody by force and throwing them into a treatment program that they do not even agree with is the wrong answer, imo. Especially when there is a serious lack of evidence indicating that current treatment options are even effective.

Yes, you allow the police to force them from their homes and take them into custody.

That is the reality of it. It's horrible and painful, but when there's no other hope, that's what's left.

It's not enough to "offer an option." The addict's mind is focused on nothing but the next fix. They will do ANYthing for it and lose everything for it. They are not thinking rationally. Until they "hit bottom" or get a "wake-up call," they aren't going to say, "Oh, I think I'll take that option." Sometimes being arrested and kept from drugs is that call.

Sometimes it's a choice between jail or the morgue.

Plenty of addicts decide to take that option. They're the ones who succeed. It's the people you arrest, throw into jail and turn into criminals that go home and relapse immediately and/or become more entrenched in the criminal world.

It's obnoxious that you think you have the right to determine when a person is such a harm to him or her self that it's up to you to remove them from their home against their will. Where does it stop? Why is it only a select few drugs that qualify?

When someone you love is facing a life-threatening illness, you don't sit around worrying about their "rights."

When it's your child, in your home, and there's no other hope, you do the hardest things imaginable.

"Obnoxious" indeed.

Please don't reply to any more of my posts.

Why you wish to extend that authority to the general population is beyond me.

Sorry if that offends you, that is not my intention.

Paregoric (anhydrous morphine) was available over the counter in every general store in the United States and took a terrible toll on some, but nearly as many as we would assume from today's perspective.

Of course legalizing drugs today would increase drug use today but that doesn't mean it would pose a greater problem tomorrow.

A free press would be a crisis in some nations but isn't a crisis here. When you have a free press you develop a society that can deal with a free press.

If all drugs were legal society would change in the context of that reality to ameliorate the effects. (A generation from now very few Americans will smoke cigarettes without ever outlawing cigarettes.)

To some --I hope to most-- things the government does are more odious than comparable things people do to themselves, or do individually. A law forcing people to smoke cigarettes is more odious than people choosing to smoke cigarettes.

Putting people in the criminal justice system for drugs is a completely optional act of government. The government destroys lives so dope won't have to.

Ethically legalization could do substantially more harm than criminalization while still being the right answer.

And I am in no way persuaded that it would even do substantially more harm than criminalization does.

I consider depriving a person of liberty an extraordinary act of government, not a vanilla policy-option. To justify such an extraordinary and malign act of government the benefits should be overwhelming and indisputable. The benefits of outlawing murder, for instance, are overwhelming and indisputable.

Are the net benefits of drug criminalization overwhelming and indisputable?

This thread suggests they are not. Not everyone disputing here is a lunatic or ignoramus. The benefits are hardly unambiguous.

And the fact that government policy strikes particularly at the poor and ethnic minorities adds an additional layer of burden to the anti-legalization side. (Do you know for sure that drug laws contribute less to black poverty and second-class-citizenship than drugs themselves do?)

Excellent post. Lost on those who need to understand what you wrote.

but again, not all drugs are the same, and fine to decriminalize IF addicts can be committed as dangers to themselves as mentally ill people are.

"And the fact that government policy strikes particularly at the poor and ethnic minorities..." I repeat again: The average heroin addict in the US today is a white middle-class teenager. It is epidemic where I live.

only because dosage is completely unregulated due to its black market state. Booze routinely killed people during prohibition for similar reasons. If your concern is dosage lethality, then certainly your should support legalization so that heroin users could get their supplies from reputable manufacturers. But of course all the excuses like this raised for criminalization are devoid of actual reason or logic.

"Hard drugs have quick and terrible consequences that don't compare with alcohol or pot" - that is close to being accurate, but only because you tossed pot into the mix. Here, I'll fix it for you:

"Hard drugs like alcohol have quick and terrible consequences that don't compare with pot".

Heroin is deadly.

No problem with your last sentence re: alcohol and pot. Nice try at changing the subject though, Mr. Stupidity.

So is Nicotine; 40–60 mg (0.5-1.0 mg/kg) can be a lethal dosage for adult humans

It is more toxic & deadly than heroin on a milligram to milligram basis.

Maybe a regulated market would ensure heroin is delivered at safer doses through a safer medium than what we see today. At least people would know exactly what they were getting and could dose appropriately.

to people who were trying to kill themselves.

You have to subtract all effects of criminalization when discussing safety.

Drug criminalization is probably responsible for a 1/3 of all HIV (and Hep C) in America. Is HIV deadly?

What effect would commercial standardized dosing have on overdoses, for instance?

I have known a few people who died from heroin, shooting mystery quantities of mystery powders in a stairwell. I also knew a very wealthy junkie who was approaching the world record for acquired tolerance yet never OD'd in a 20+ year career. Rich junkies have the option of cooking dilaudid and always using new needles. (Things all junkies could afford if legal.)

Cocaine, meth and alcohol are, in the abstract, more dangerous than opiates. (Opiates are more addictive than alcohol but given the proportion of recent alcohol use among suicides, murders AND murder victims, rapists AND rape victims and vehicular accident fatalities is hard not to identify alcohol as a remarkably dangerous drug.)

In criminalized practice, however, opiates are quite dangerous.

That sounds downright fascistoid to me.

I'm assuming you're adhering to the disease model of addiction, right? Are you going to arrest diabetics, too, to keep them away from sweets?

Also, you might want to look into the literature on drug use careers. Many, many drug users eventually quit using without getting abused by the criminal justice or sent to the druggie gulags.

But pot is not a narcotic, nor is it a gateway drug. The drug war is the gateway; pot is actually the safety valve in a hydraulic system/model.

Just as I don't pretend necessary, accepted, legal private industry is all safe (yet, its still allowed).

Simply criminalizing it is creating more problems than naught, and its a waste of massive resources that could be put into prevention and harm reduction.

No, reforming the prison system is a bullshit idea--it still requires you lock people up for their non-violent addictions (some of which become integrated with violence due to its very illicit nature)

The failures of the justice system are responsible for the problems associated with legalization. Prison reform is the only solution that actually addresses the problems associated with addiction. Do you want to actually reduce street crime and help addicted people? Reform the prison system.

Many of those problems are caused as much by the failures of our penal system as by prohibition of hard drugs.

Fuckn absurd.

Your statement is hyperbole and logically inconsistent. It is akin to me declaring that anyone who supports legalization supports child abuse.

And without changing the legal status of illicit substances, you cannot alter that status quo.

Attacking it with a "war" has only bolstered it and driven up drug prices, thereby increasing cartel's profits.

It is anything but a false dilemma.

You are creating the arbitrary choice between the status quo and your position.

I offer a different alternative. We reform the penal system, which will reduce crime. We offer a path to rehabilitation while hard drugs remain illegal. Drug user get treated differently to reflect their different needs; we can't expect one penal system to be appropriate for all the different crimes. Criminals should be reformed as opposed to hardened, addicts should be helped as opposed to abused. We have a system which breeds criminality and addiction. Hard drugs use should be a crime and the punishment should be getting clean, not being systemically abused by the prison system. Drug users needs special prisons to reflect their special needs.

By decreasing the restriction on marijuana and mushrooms resources could be made available to fight drugs which are actually dangerous.

:rofl:

And somehow that won't make it lucrative for drug pushers to arm themselves, capture market territory through violence and guard their stash accordingly.




See...your problem is that you keep talking about reforming the penal system to reform these drug users, to make them non-violent and not-addicted...thats correct, right?

You keep looking at the drug users as the big source of violence...not the drug dealers.

Reform away. The black market drug business will always be lucrative. As long as it exists, it will always be dangerous and a haven for crime.

And frankly, there will always be people looking for a fix...and diving straight into that market to get it.

The sooner we, as a society, accept the fact that drugs have been and always will be a part of our culture, the sooner we'll be able to appropriately address the situations where their use is a serious problem. Throwing people in prison for making the choice to put a substance into their own body is absurd.
The circumstances created by this phony war on drugs make the drugs so much more harmful than if the government would spend those resources on harm reduction, education, and treatment.

the violence is made by the sellers, the bigger the dealer the more violent they will likely be in defending their market share.

You seem to pretend that this is impossible. I contend that it is a worthy effort.

Your position reflects your lack of resolve to make the world a better place. You are content to deal with the negative externalities of hard drug use rather than try to help addicts. Yeah, it is easier to do nothing but something has to be done. Maybe you are content to ignore the human suffering caused by hard drugs, but I have a conscience.

I don't care how much you reform the penal system...you are sort of missing the point...

Prior to being put in jail to be rehabilitated the have to first become a user (and therefore, first buy from the black market). So even with that amazing approach, you still have a lucrative market controlled by violent cartels (which creates the vast majority of the problems). Yeah...forcing people to be locked up and attend rehab may stop the flow somewhat...but really...you are ignoring the overall problems by focusing on a couple of individuals' success. And with that approach, you are still throwing a ton of money at it, which could be spent better, and allowing the black market to flourish and spread their problems.

Punative "rehab" on drug using "criminals" is a bridge to no where in the grand scheme of things


"You seem to pretend that this is impossible"

No, I seem to think that there are easier and better ways to prevent drug use. Firstly, shift funds from finding, apprehending, prosecuting, and locking up users to educating them and early intervention. Secondly, make sure that when people go to buy "soft drugs", they aren't buying from an armed thug trying to also push the latest and greatest poison on them too (currently, many marijuana dealers also have some heroin to sell you too in the inner city). By requiring education and licensing to buy illicit white label substances, its surely something that people cannot go out and do on a whim (unless of course they turn to a crippled black market that will be selling it at a far, far higher price).

My problem with your approach is that you are focusing on treating the symptoms of a cancer while letting it fester and grow, rather than removing the cancer completely. Thus far, many variations of this approach have been tried (and failed)

That and you are going to warn them about the drugs before you give them drugs. I'm sure you are going to decrease the amount of drug addicts by making drugs easily available.

A key step in my vision is the legalization of soft drugs like marijuana.

Your approach is like feeding the cancer in the hopes that it will stop on it's own. The cancer is the drug users, the symptom is the drug dealers. We have to stop addiction by offering special detox prisons where inmates have a chance to recover and reform. The penal system is the carcinogen, breeding criminality instead of preventing it. Reform the prisons, detox the addicts, and the problems are gone.

"The cancer is the drug users, the symptom is the drug dealers"

Thats absurd. Checkout Miamin...LA...its a laughable assertion. Its the cartels causing the problems. Go to your library and rent the documentary "Cocaine Cowboys"....you'll dig that (and BTW, much of the hired men in operations covered were not users themselves because users were not seen as reliable and trustworthy. The bloodthirsty fucks were oftentime very sober, cold-hearted business men.)

"Reform the prisons, detox the addicts, and the problems are gone."

Except something must first make normal people addicts and black market buyers previously to being arrested, which is something you simply will not address.

Honestly, with my approach, I believe drugs will be less easily available. By regulating and controlling them, and requiring classes prior to licensing a purchaser (as well as limiting purchasable quantities), you will be making people jump through quite a few hoops just to be able to go out and get a fix (a fix, mind you, that isn't going to be marketed to them by a drug pusher looking to get rich). And while some people would want to bypass those steps with a black market, the prices of black market drugs simply wouldn't justify that route (and the business structure would eventually implode). Hell, it would be easier to buy a gun (unless you live where I do, in Canada, where they require safety classes prior to issuing a possession permit)

That assertion is laughable.

First time users get drugs from their friends. Making drugs dramatically easier to get means they will just get them from a licensed purchaser, who will have enormous financial incentive to sell the drugs and get people addicted. The more onerous the licensing the more incentive to sell the drugs. We stop first time users by limiting the availability of drugs, not making them easier to obtain. We limit access by keeping dangerous drugs illegal.