…which is why I asked. Your harsh rantings were lending themselves to defense of the system instead of counterpoints.
FINALLY! Thank you, and I am in a pinch right now, so when should I come by?
Will just a pinch do ya? 
I hardly feel that my “harsh rantings” were in any way supportive of the current drug policy. I simply stated my opinion about some drugs and their use/abuse. Actually, I reviewed my posts and still don’t see it, but maybe that’s just myopia.
The majority of people who vote are virtually unaffected by drugs or drug issues, so these laws will continue to be passsed or stay on the books. Unfortunately, the people who are trying to enact change are painted with the liberal hippie druggie brush, whether or not they actually are, or branded as ACLU leftie commies or something.
Until the issue becomes important to the large groups who actually vote these things into law, nothing will change. I don’t know how to approach this without the whole idea being squashed or pushed aside without debate.
An example I forgot to add- with Woody Harrelson as it’s principal spokesman, hemp may be dead before it has a chance to succeed. People dismiss him as “one of those druggie actor-types” in the same way that they dismiss Ed Begley Jr.'s crusade for the environment, “oh sure, he’s a Hollywood greenie-type, he can drive around in an electric car or ride a bike all the time.”
It’s too bad, because all the things I’ve heard about hemp and it’s uses seem to make great sense. People just can’t get past the fact that it’s in the same family as dope. Educating this majority will be the hardest part of the “drug counter-reformation.”
[Sarcasm] We spend billions of dollars a year putting pesky murderers behind bars. Billions more are spent on security personnel, police, detectives, FBI,… think of all the money we could save if we just made murder legal. I’m sure it wouldn’t effect the number of murderers. [/sarcasm]
The cost issue is a crock. The only issue of merit is whether the government has a right to protect people from themselves and from others. The reason, IMHO, that drugs need to remain criminalized is that there are very FEW responsible drug addicts. Those of you who have not witnessed a four year old being left at home while their mother goes out to the local crack house couldn’t really understand. I’m sure the same thing happens with some alcoholics, but why add legal options for killing brain cells and feeding addictive behavior?
At least the illegality prevents the openness of use in most cases and indicates a level of disapproval by society. Yes, I did inhale, and I didn’t think it was so wrong, but I didn’t have steady, daily access so it never became an addiction for me. I see people on the way home from work every day, smoking their pot (I know the smell) right out at the bus station on a main street downtown. So it isn’t like the police are nailing down on drug use. However, when it is linked to criminal activity, they nail them to the wall. It becomes discretionary, as most prosecution is discretionary.
The eminent Victorian surgeon Sir William Osler was a morphine addict for his entire adult life. He pioneered many operations and procedures, and apparently did OK. Then there was Sigmund freud , who advocated the use of cocaine. Remember Sherlock Holme’s “7 percent solution”-it helped him crack those complicated cases.
Drug use was rampant in the late 19th century, without the ill effects that we seem to have!
This probably goes for damn near everyone on this board- for every drug addict you KNOW you know, theres is probably at least one more you would never suspect. A teacher, your doctor, your pastor, a cop, your personal trainer.
Alcohol is looked at differently than “hard” drugs because not everyone who drinks it gets hooked. Right or wrong.
Attacking the criminal behavior attached to the drug use might make more sense than going after the use itself, but for now, the demonization of drugs reigns supreme.
Hi fellow dopers!(pun intended)
I have an experience to share about supply and demand of Weed.
I used to be very regular smoker, ranging from daily to a few times a week. I found that I actually smoked MORE and craved for weed A LOT MORE, when there was little to be had around town, and that happened a lot!
I remember once scoring big time, I mean I had a drawer full of some MAD chronic! And what did I do? I lit one up of course, but I didn’t even touch the pile for almost a week after that, despite having smoked every day for the past few months.
Suddenly, knowing that the stuff was accessible any time I wanted it, I didn’t feel the need to even think about it, I was busy working and stuff. One of my best friends was from Belgium, where it’s practivally legal to smoke (his house was 20 minutes from the next Dutch coffeeshop!). He just didn’t see the big deal about going out all the time, trying to score. He just smoked when he wanted to, 'cause he always had access at any time.
Also, I found that living alone actually reduced my habit or at least made it less “sick”. I would usually light up any time I was home alone as a teenager but when I didn’t have to hide any more, I didn’t use weed unless I really FELT like getting high, right THEN!
Anyway, I’m sure I’ll get flamed for some of this stuff, but what the hey. I’m a little tipsy from our one legal drug so I guess I’m excused, now had I been stoned…
G. Anon J.
“My middle name is Anon”
p.s. since I moved to Beijing I must admit I haven’t smoked anything at all. Since getting shot in the head in a sports arena is not my kind of thing, I guess you could say that the death penalty could work as a deterrant for some, but that’s got to be a drastic measure in anyone’s book.
p.p.s. does anyone know if there actually IS any weed in China now a days? I’m just interested to know if the death deterrant works as well on everyone else as it does on me!
Gosh, what is the world coming to when a doper isn’t willing to be executed for the edification of the masses, all for a little toke?
No flame Morrison, come on in!
No, it’s the addictive personality that makes you jones for more.
A link has already been posted to the Drug Library, I suggest you check out the Stanton Peele page. Also, check Stanton’s book The Diseasing of America, for a good perspective on the “disease model” of addiction.
BTW, I’ve known plenty of people who used cocaine and even heroin on an occasional recreational basis and not gotten hooked. I’ve never known a heroin addict. I’ve known a few crackheads and coke addicts, when I was working in a strip bar, but even they were the minority of the people working there who used drugs.
I even know one guy who got addicted to cocaine, realized he had a problem, and quit using it. No rehab, no nothing. Just flat out quit.
And if pot was legal, I would start smoking again. Probably not everyday, just a weekend thing. I have beer in the fridge right now, I don’t drink everyday.
I don’t understand people who think that drug legalization would lead to mass addiction, when it’s already well known that only a minority of drug users become addicts, and that an addict with legal access to drugs will most likely maintain his/her habit in such a way as to keep off withdrawl symptoms, but still remain a functioning, productive member of society.
I’ll say it again. It’s not the drug that causes the jones, it’s the addictive personality.
What is the Reefer Madness movie?
Ask, and ye shall receive.
If you don’t click on the link, you will never know of the movie that attempted to educate the public on how marijuana is the “devil’s weed”, but ended up being classified as a comedy. It didn’t mean to, it just worked out that way.
~~Baloo
All of the harm that drugs do to society is either caused by, amplified by, or cannot be hepled because of the laws against them.
If drugs were legal, drug violence would pretty much disappear altogether, and organized crime would lose a major source of income.
Intravenous drug users would be far more likely to use clean needles if they were readily available, and far more likely to properly dispose of them if they could do so without fear of prosecution.
Are you saying that if drugs are legalized that people will learn how to use heroin and crack in a controlled fashion.
Maybe. If drugs were legal, the government could require manufacturers to label them with information on what they do to your body and how much is too much.
The only issue of merit is whether the government has a right to protect people from themselves and from others.
The government has every right to protect people from others, and no right whatsoever to protect people from themselves.
People whose drug use causes harm to others should be held responsible for the harm they do. We have absolutely no right to villify people who are hurting nobody but themselves.
Those of you who have not witnessed a four year old being left at home while their mother goes out to the local crack house couldn’t really understand.
I understand perfectly. If drugs were legal and therefore could be sold in places where one wouldn’t be afraid to bring a child, the scenario you describe would be far less common. Besides, we already have laws against child neglect.
The reason, IMHO, that drugs need to remain criminalized is that there are very FEW responsible drug addicts.
What about the addicts who would like to quit, but can’t do it by themselves and are are too afraid of being prosecuted to seek treatment? Shall we just let them keep destroying their lives?
At least the illegality prevents the openness of use in most cases and indicates a level of disapproval by society.
Sure, just sweep it under the rug. We may be doing them far more harm than good, but at least we don’t have to look at it! :rolleyes:
I hardly think that justifies telling people what they can and cannot do in the privacy of their own homes and upholding a policy that has amplified the very problem it was intended to solve.
The drugs I would legalize:
- Pot. Same legal status as alcohol. Exactly.
- Mushrooms, LSD. Hallucinogens are very rarely “abused” because they are stressful experiences. I remember reading about this is health books and sociology books. The dangers of hallucinogens setting off episodes of mental instability really isn’t an issue to me. See below for why.
- MDA and MDMA, and perhaps study on other methamphetamines. They aren’t addictive as such, and stimulants are, from what I’ve read(and from cecil!), difficult to overdose on. There is a “psychosis” associated with extended habitual use which is similar to amphetamines, and withdrawl symptoms of a sort as well. However, there are vomiting effects from alcohol which I have learned to avoid gracefully. The dangers of byproducts in meth manufacture is likely to vanish with legalization.
Below::laughs::
All drug use, to me, including alcohol and tobacco, should be restricted to the home. The crime is use outside of the home in any way. Because of the extended effects of many drugs, using at a friends house is still legal but be prepared for tough DUI laws which are justifiable IMO.
Understand, I’m not going to discuss individual illegal drugs, and all of what follows doesn’t apply equally to all.
But I have the following Random Thoughts about drug legalization generally:
RT #1: The need to prohibit drugs, among other reasons, seems to be rooted in the notion that they are so attractive
yet so addictive to weak-willed people that they must be illegal. But if this is so, why is it that during the era of legal coke and opium, by far the most popular drug of escape was alcohol.
RT #2: Drug use, should be discouraged, yet prohibition, criminal prosecution, imprisonment, etc., are
expensive and counterproductive. I think it would be more
effective to approach it as we now approach the tobacco situation. No one is talking seriously about prohibition, at least not yet, but publicly funded anti-tobacco campaigns
are proving quite effective, as are limits on where one may
smoke. We no longer have tobacco billboards. Socially, tobacco smoking is almost completely unacceptable, and the numbers of smokers generally (though perhaps not across all
gender, social, or ethnic categories) is declining. This
shows that real progress can be made in reducing overall consumption of something without banning it outright. In this way the individual’s freedom is preserved, yet a social and cultural stand against the product is effectively maintained.
RT #3. So for most currently illegal drugs, I advocate a
regulated distribution system, with sales being taxed, sans
advertising. Plus if someone wants to grow pot or crude
coca in their back yard, I think that should be OK.