K.Snyder;469736 wrote: Yeah I know sorry...
Meant 153.Snyder, are you telling us you didn't write that post referencing wikipedia, you only quoted it, that it was all koan's? I take back the comment about you having added any fact to the thread, then.
Let's try again. You did hear me say I couldn't work out what fact you say you've added to the thread, didn't you? It's an accurate statement. It costs you very little effort to link to it. What was your peremptory phrase? "Answer my question"? Somewhat rude, you'll agree, but it is entirely your own.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
spot;469751 wrote: Snyder, are you telling us you didn't write that post referencing wikipedia, you only quoted it, that it was all koan's? I take back the comment about you having added any fact to the thread, then.
Let's try again. You did hear me say I couldn't work out what fact you say you've added to the thread, didn't you? It's an accurate statement. It costs you very little effort to link to it. What was your peremptory phrase? "Answer my question"? Somewhat rude, you'll agree, but it is entirely your own.
What question?
You guys ask the people who are opposed of legalizing Crack! Heroin, and god knows what else, to add facts...
Heres the fact...
Crack kills!
Ha...
I don't know how to be more plain than that...
ha...
Let's try again. You did hear me say I couldn't work out what fact you say you've added to the thread, didn't you? It's an accurate statement. It costs you very little effort to link to it. What was your peremptory phrase? "Answer my question"? Somewhat rude, you'll agree, but it is entirely your own.
What question?
You guys ask the people who are opposed of legalizing Crack! Heroin, and god knows what else, to add facts...
Heres the fact...
Crack kills!
Ha...
I don't know how to be more plain than that...
ha...
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
Anyone feel like talking about the legalisation of drugs?
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
koan;469759 wrote: Anyone feel like talking about the legalisation of drugs?
Are you nuts ? You want drugs legalized ?
Are you nuts ? You want drugs legalized ?
I AM AWESOME MAN
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
SnoozeControl;469716 wrote: I prefer the term "mental masturbation."It's getting overused though - somewhat tired after all these outings. You'll need an alternative eventually. You could try "phrenological frotting" next time, since we rub up next to each other so effectively.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
K.Snyder;469754 wrote: What question?
You guys ask the people who are opposed of legalizing Crack! Heroin, and god knows what else, to add facts...
Heres the fact...
Crack kills!
Ha...
I don't know how to be more plain than that...
ha...As does alcohol. As does tobacco. Crack's a loser drug that very few people would select if a wide choice were available. It was designed to hook people quickly. Widespread choice of alternatives is a perfectly reasonable counter to its current availability which only benefits the criminal dealers.
You guys ask the people who are opposed of legalizing Crack! Heroin, and god knows what else, to add facts...
Heres the fact...
Crack kills!
Ha...
I don't know how to be more plain than that...
ha...As does alcohol. As does tobacco. Crack's a loser drug that very few people would select if a wide choice were available. It was designed to hook people quickly. Widespread choice of alternatives is a perfectly reasonable counter to its current availability which only benefits the criminal dealers.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
Prohibitionist says:
One common reason given for the prohibition of drug use is a concern for the health of those using drugs. Possible detrimental effects range from altered awareness and reduced motor control to allergic reactions, poisoning and death by overdose. There are also wider effects known to impact health such as impaired educational performance, lower standard-of-living and increased incidence of depression. Many illegal drugs have been proven more dangerous than other unhealthy substances[citation needed], though there is suggestion that many illicit drugs pose comparatively fewer health dangers than certain licit drugs (e.g. alcohol and tobacco)[1].
Certainly, there is concern over further possible links between health problems and drugs: direct somatic problems such as increased accidents (bone fractures, car accidents)[citation needed]; physical addiction and substance cravings; comorbid diseases such as HIV, bronchitis and Hepatitis C[citation needed]; psychosocial problems such as increased risk of depression, paranoia and psychosis[citation needed].
(anyone feel like helping out and finding some sources? wikipedia needs you)
Pro Legalisation Advocate says:
Many cultures have used, and still use the same drugs that are illegal under prohibition for both medicine, and comfort with success.[13] It can be argued that if the benefits of a drug can be made clear then the prohibition of the drug is unfounded.
If drugs were legalized, drug addiction and abuse would become a health issue, and public health would be enhanced. For one, cleaner drugs would lead to improved health. By selling drugs in state clinics or stores, the government would be able to maintain quality control over drug sales. As with alcohol, the Food and Drug Administration (in US) would guarantee purity and safety (Wink 111-113). Steven B. Duke and Albert C. Gross conclude that drug legalization would result in a reduced risk of drug poisoning or overdose. Producers and traffickers currently sell poisonously diluted drugs because they are cheaper and easier to import. Legalization would allow a control of the diluted form and extent.
"If drug purities were standardized and clearly and accurately labeled, the likelihood of a person accidentally overdosing would be much less than it is under the present regime" (37-38). Administration of clean hypodermic needles would lessen disease transmitted by drug abusers, including AIDS. Pregnant women with drug problems would receive better prenatal care (Duke 116-117). Furthermore, the introduction of addictive agents added into the drug can also be regulated.
Judge James P. Gray, an advocate of drug legalization, believes that the only way to solve a progressively unsuccessful war on drugs is to decriminalize it and make it a health issue (Luna). Currently, it is difficult for drug users to ask for help or seek treatment because of the criminal status of drugs; drug abuse should be considered an illness. Peter J. Riga believes "it is shameful and irrational that users of cocaine and heroin are labeled criminals and go to jail—with almost no hope of therapy or rehabilitation—while the users of the powerful drug alcohol are considered sick and given therapy". The government provides very little funding for drug treatment (53), resulting in the abuse of addicted people. New York City imprisons one drug abuser for more than 150 dollars per day, but ignores the need of the user. Convicted addicts without money have to wait at least four months for therapy (Kane 155). Treatment is "available for only about 15 [percent] of the nation's drug addicts". Recurrently, judges have to follow mandatory sentencing guidelines when prosecuting drug users. The New York Times mentions that in New York in April 1993, two federal judges were fed up with the guidelines and refused to hear any case that was drug-related (Riga 53).
Drugs cannot be used for medical purposes because of prohibition. Cannabis is a Schedule I drug, which means that it has no accepted medical uses. The benefits of its use include easing the pain of terminally ill patients. For chemotherapy and AIDS patients, cannabis increases their appetite and counters nausea. The American Medical Association protested the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act due to its interest in cannabis for medical purposes (McGrath 123+).
The rationing out of medicines often creates the situation where a patient with legitimate analgesic needs is provided with an inadequate supply. As many physicians are wary of being placed on law enforcement watchlists, newer and relatively untested non-narcotic pain relievers are frequently prescribed instead of opioids.[14] One such medication was Vioxx, which was later found to be connected with an increased risk of heart attack and stroke.
The Netherlands government treats drug use as a health problem, not a criminal problem (although there is criminal punishment for trafficking in some "hard drugs"). Because of the country's decision, treatment for drug addiction is widely available in the Netherlands. In Amsterdam 75 percent of heroin addicts are on treatment. HIV infection rate among injective drug users in cities like Amsterdam has dropped from 11 percent to 4 percent and is now one of the lowest in the world.
A key component of this argument is that many of the health dangers associated with recreational drugs exist precisely because they are illegal. The government cannot enforce quality control on products sold and manufactured illegally. Examples would include: heroin/cocaine overdoses occurring as users don't know exactly how much they are taking, heroin users unintentionally injecting brick dust, quinine, or fentanyl with which their heroin had been cut, the more toxic (and easier to make) derivative MDA sold as MDMA [citation needed], etc.
(I'll go work on getting some sources for wikipedia)
One common reason given for the prohibition of drug use is a concern for the health of those using drugs. Possible detrimental effects range from altered awareness and reduced motor control to allergic reactions, poisoning and death by overdose. There are also wider effects known to impact health such as impaired educational performance, lower standard-of-living and increased incidence of depression. Many illegal drugs have been proven more dangerous than other unhealthy substances[citation needed], though there is suggestion that many illicit drugs pose comparatively fewer health dangers than certain licit drugs (e.g. alcohol and tobacco)[1].
Certainly, there is concern over further possible links between health problems and drugs: direct somatic problems such as increased accidents (bone fractures, car accidents)[citation needed]; physical addiction and substance cravings; comorbid diseases such as HIV, bronchitis and Hepatitis C[citation needed]; psychosocial problems such as increased risk of depression, paranoia and psychosis[citation needed].
(anyone feel like helping out and finding some sources? wikipedia needs you)
Pro Legalisation Advocate says:
Many cultures have used, and still use the same drugs that are illegal under prohibition for both medicine, and comfort with success.[13] It can be argued that if the benefits of a drug can be made clear then the prohibition of the drug is unfounded.
If drugs were legalized, drug addiction and abuse would become a health issue, and public health would be enhanced. For one, cleaner drugs would lead to improved health. By selling drugs in state clinics or stores, the government would be able to maintain quality control over drug sales. As with alcohol, the Food and Drug Administration (in US) would guarantee purity and safety (Wink 111-113). Steven B. Duke and Albert C. Gross conclude that drug legalization would result in a reduced risk of drug poisoning or overdose. Producers and traffickers currently sell poisonously diluted drugs because they are cheaper and easier to import. Legalization would allow a control of the diluted form and extent.
"If drug purities were standardized and clearly and accurately labeled, the likelihood of a person accidentally overdosing would be much less than it is under the present regime" (37-38). Administration of clean hypodermic needles would lessen disease transmitted by drug abusers, including AIDS. Pregnant women with drug problems would receive better prenatal care (Duke 116-117). Furthermore, the introduction of addictive agents added into the drug can also be regulated.
Judge James P. Gray, an advocate of drug legalization, believes that the only way to solve a progressively unsuccessful war on drugs is to decriminalize it and make it a health issue (Luna). Currently, it is difficult for drug users to ask for help or seek treatment because of the criminal status of drugs; drug abuse should be considered an illness. Peter J. Riga believes "it is shameful and irrational that users of cocaine and heroin are labeled criminals and go to jail—with almost no hope of therapy or rehabilitation—while the users of the powerful drug alcohol are considered sick and given therapy". The government provides very little funding for drug treatment (53), resulting in the abuse of addicted people. New York City imprisons one drug abuser for more than 150 dollars per day, but ignores the need of the user. Convicted addicts without money have to wait at least four months for therapy (Kane 155). Treatment is "available for only about 15 [percent] of the nation's drug addicts". Recurrently, judges have to follow mandatory sentencing guidelines when prosecuting drug users. The New York Times mentions that in New York in April 1993, two federal judges were fed up with the guidelines and refused to hear any case that was drug-related (Riga 53).
Drugs cannot be used for medical purposes because of prohibition. Cannabis is a Schedule I drug, which means that it has no accepted medical uses. The benefits of its use include easing the pain of terminally ill patients. For chemotherapy and AIDS patients, cannabis increases their appetite and counters nausea. The American Medical Association protested the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act due to its interest in cannabis for medical purposes (McGrath 123+).
The rationing out of medicines often creates the situation where a patient with legitimate analgesic needs is provided with an inadequate supply. As many physicians are wary of being placed on law enforcement watchlists, newer and relatively untested non-narcotic pain relievers are frequently prescribed instead of opioids.[14] One such medication was Vioxx, which was later found to be connected with an increased risk of heart attack and stroke.
The Netherlands government treats drug use as a health problem, not a criminal problem (although there is criminal punishment for trafficking in some "hard drugs"). Because of the country's decision, treatment for drug addiction is widely available in the Netherlands. In Amsterdam 75 percent of heroin addicts are on treatment. HIV infection rate among injective drug users in cities like Amsterdam has dropped from 11 percent to 4 percent and is now one of the lowest in the world.
A key component of this argument is that many of the health dangers associated with recreational drugs exist precisely because they are illegal. The government cannot enforce quality control on products sold and manufactured illegally. Examples would include: heroin/cocaine overdoses occurring as users don't know exactly how much they are taking, heroin users unintentionally injecting brick dust, quinine, or fentanyl with which their heroin had been cut, the more toxic (and easier to make) derivative MDA sold as MDMA [citation needed], etc.
(I'll go work on getting some sources for wikipedia)
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
Keith W;469768 wrote: This just shows that you are not taking any notice or reading whats been posted.
If you had of been you would have known it was Koan that posted it originally and you would have noticed that it said in the post it was a quote by Koan
And the last part of references me not K.Snyder.
Just goes to prove your full of bull and only out to cause trouble and goad people.
Idiots that do what you have done always slip up in the endYou do remember that you screwed up your quotemarks on it presumably, and only went back later to tidy them and make the post now say what you're describing. It started as a shocking mess.
You're telling us you didn't post any facts in the thread after all?
If you had of been you would have known it was Koan that posted it originally and you would have noticed that it said in the post it was a quote by Koan
And the last part of references me not K.Snyder.
Just goes to prove your full of bull and only out to cause trouble and goad people.
Idiots that do what you have done always slip up in the endYou do remember that you screwed up your quotemarks on it presumably, and only went back later to tidy them and make the post now say what you're describing. It started as a shocking mess.
You're telling us you didn't post any facts in the thread after all?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
spot;469770 wrote: As does alcohol. As does tobacco. Crack's a loser drug that very few people would select if a wide choice were available. It was designed to hook people quickly. Widespread choice is a perfectly reasonable counter to its current availability which only benefits the criminal dealers.
So make tobacco illegal...
I like alcohol and when used occasionally is not a health risk.
As for "wide variety of drug selection", just for the simple sake of it, is completely mad.
So make tobacco illegal...
I like alcohol and when used occasionally is not a health risk.
As for "wide variety of drug selection", just for the simple sake of it, is completely mad.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
Just following on from what diretic was just saying to look at each thing by itself.
Tobacco, nicoteen is a highy toxic stimulant in its pure form its poisonous (people do not smoke it for their nerves, it is not a sedative) it has no redeeming features, its simply a highy addictive toxic substance that is very easy to become addicted to, and it certainly kills an awful lot of people as well as causing chronic health problems. If it had been discovered last week there is no way it would be legally available, however, thats not the case its here and will be with us until culturally we move away from using it, which is slowly happening.
Alcohol. Pharmalogically alchohol is a depressant sedative and a toxin that works on the central nervous system, with obviously the symptoms ranging from mild inebration to complete intoxication and unconciousness and if enough if consumed death. People believe it or not, alcohol is the number one problem drug in the world, there are no reliable estimates on how many murders, broken lives, abuse, car accidents, violence, depression, alcoholism, suicide, long term health problems and general misery the abuse of alcohol is responsible for, but its massive, and accounts for more problems than all the others put together, but again alcohol is such a part of our culture for so long that we don't even really realize how many of the everyday problems we see are directly caused by alcolhol and drunkeness. Its also true that trying to prohibit alcohol from a culture that it has been a instinstic part of for thousands of years is pretty much impossible and counterproductive. Also, to be fair it is used responsibly by most people as they get older, though its usage varies from culture to culture, with I'm afraid to say ourselves and the Brits being pretty hard drinkers and paying the social consequences (as for the Russians, what can I say). However, its here to stay and the need is to develop a more healthy attitude to its use, though how that can be done is anyones guess.
Cannabis, THC its active component is a phychoactive compound that affects perception and reacts on the central nervous system causing a variety of effects such as mild euphoria, intoxication, or sometimes paranoia, and it is also a mild sedative and pain reliever (as is alcohol) its potentcy varies quite a lot depending on the form in which it is taken and the amount of THC-9 in it. Phycological effects can vary from individual to indivdual (as a recent poster pointed out), and long term heavy usage certainly has a pronouced effect on people and can effect them very seriously causing depression, emotional problems, and in extreme cases phychosis, its certainly not harmless by any means, though again its considered to be somewhere in the same range as alcohol. Many people seem able to use cannabis in a fairly responsible way and can manage the side effects it causes (but not everyone, and as its not as widely used as alcohol we know less about it).
Diazepam, or Valium as its better know, also a sedative and a depressant, it acts as an inhobitor on the central nervous system like alcohol. Thats one of the reasons that in general its not recommended during the treatment of alcolohics. Its legal and widely prescribed, though it can be safely used by a resonable person, it is also highly addictive and in large enough doses it is toxic causing death, and its prolonged heavy use also has very detrimental effects on a person both physically and pyscologically, and can cause cause severe depression, its also one of the most widely prescribed medicines in the world.
LSD, or acid, acid is a hallucenogenic drug discovered by a swiss chemist, it is extremely potent and has a pronounced effect on peoples conciousness, heavy or prolonged use of acid is generally though to be extremely dangerous and very likey to induce problems such as shitzophrenia, or paranoid delusions, other well known hallucenogenics include a particular variety of mushroom (the magic ones) and peyote, they are less potent than LSD, and their use has been documented for a long time, they are however also considered to be potentially dangerous and damaging to long term physcoloigal health. There are many others natural hallucenogens and their effects and potency vary greatly.
Cocaine, Cocaine is a potent stimulant that acts on the central nervous system and produces feeling of euphoria and excitment, it is very physcologically addictive and has unpleasant withdrawl symptoms, in large doses it is highly toxic. It has a very detrimental effect on the body particularly the heart and the circularory and nervous system and its prolonged use is very dangerous. Other drugs such as ampetamines and E have a similar pharmacology and in some ways worse than cocaine, the long term effects of the heacy usuage of any of these substances causes depression, aniexity, and personality disorders.
Heroin, heroine is an opiate like morphine but is more potent in its effects. Heroine acts as an analgesic (it was invented as a substitute for morphine as a pain reliever) as well as acting as as a respiratory depressent, the creation of a state of euphoria and a very stong physical dependence. Chronic administration of heroin results in the development of tolerance. It is very easy to die from a heroin overdose as the bodies ability to tolerate changes dramatically with useage, and people radily require larger and larger does to achieve the same effect. It is a highly additive substance and it seems to inhibit peoples reasoning, particularly during withdrawl inducing violent and amoral behaviour, this is one of the reasons why heroine is responsible for many social crime problems and why governments generaly use methadone in treatment or in the attempted control of addicts, although morphine itself is actually extremely dangerous itself. Respiratory arrest is the most common reason for death among heroin addicts.
Okay thats a long post, and some is a bit editoralized, I would make a general point here though, that all compounds or substances whether natural or sythetic that have a pharmacolgical effect tend to be very dangerous if misued, (consider paracetmol and aspirin and how easy it is to overdose on them). It is also true that the misuse of any such substance is by definition a social problem and a question of personal responsibility, it is also true that some substances are so socially detrimental (heroine is the obvious one there) that any policy that would result in their widespread availability and usage would be a diaster for any society, its also true that many medical professionals are linking the current and ongoing huge increase in depression in the population as being linked to the patterns of use of primarily alcohol, but also other drugs such as cocaine and extascy whose use has become widespread in recent decades, all of these things need to be considered when trying to frame a policy about drugs, both legal and illegal, I'm sorry this post is kinda long, but I actualy left out quite a lot of commonly used drugs, especially prescription ones, I'm just trying to give some information on what these things are and what they do.
Tobacco, nicoteen is a highy toxic stimulant in its pure form its poisonous (people do not smoke it for their nerves, it is not a sedative) it has no redeeming features, its simply a highy addictive toxic substance that is very easy to become addicted to, and it certainly kills an awful lot of people as well as causing chronic health problems. If it had been discovered last week there is no way it would be legally available, however, thats not the case its here and will be with us until culturally we move away from using it, which is slowly happening.
Alcohol. Pharmalogically alchohol is a depressant sedative and a toxin that works on the central nervous system, with obviously the symptoms ranging from mild inebration to complete intoxication and unconciousness and if enough if consumed death. People believe it or not, alcohol is the number one problem drug in the world, there are no reliable estimates on how many murders, broken lives, abuse, car accidents, violence, depression, alcoholism, suicide, long term health problems and general misery the abuse of alcohol is responsible for, but its massive, and accounts for more problems than all the others put together, but again alcohol is such a part of our culture for so long that we don't even really realize how many of the everyday problems we see are directly caused by alcolhol and drunkeness. Its also true that trying to prohibit alcohol from a culture that it has been a instinstic part of for thousands of years is pretty much impossible and counterproductive. Also, to be fair it is used responsibly by most people as they get older, though its usage varies from culture to culture, with I'm afraid to say ourselves and the Brits being pretty hard drinkers and paying the social consequences (as for the Russians, what can I say). However, its here to stay and the need is to develop a more healthy attitude to its use, though how that can be done is anyones guess.
Cannabis, THC its active component is a phychoactive compound that affects perception and reacts on the central nervous system causing a variety of effects such as mild euphoria, intoxication, or sometimes paranoia, and it is also a mild sedative and pain reliever (as is alcohol) its potentcy varies quite a lot depending on the form in which it is taken and the amount of THC-9 in it. Phycological effects can vary from individual to indivdual (as a recent poster pointed out), and long term heavy usage certainly has a pronouced effect on people and can effect them very seriously causing depression, emotional problems, and in extreme cases phychosis, its certainly not harmless by any means, though again its considered to be somewhere in the same range as alcohol. Many people seem able to use cannabis in a fairly responsible way and can manage the side effects it causes (but not everyone, and as its not as widely used as alcohol we know less about it).
Diazepam, or Valium as its better know, also a sedative and a depressant, it acts as an inhobitor on the central nervous system like alcohol. Thats one of the reasons that in general its not recommended during the treatment of alcolohics. Its legal and widely prescribed, though it can be safely used by a resonable person, it is also highly addictive and in large enough doses it is toxic causing death, and its prolonged heavy use also has very detrimental effects on a person both physically and pyscologically, and can cause cause severe depression, its also one of the most widely prescribed medicines in the world.
LSD, or acid, acid is a hallucenogenic drug discovered by a swiss chemist, it is extremely potent and has a pronounced effect on peoples conciousness, heavy or prolonged use of acid is generally though to be extremely dangerous and very likey to induce problems such as shitzophrenia, or paranoid delusions, other well known hallucenogenics include a particular variety of mushroom (the magic ones) and peyote, they are less potent than LSD, and their use has been documented for a long time, they are however also considered to be potentially dangerous and damaging to long term physcoloigal health. There are many others natural hallucenogens and their effects and potency vary greatly.
Cocaine, Cocaine is a potent stimulant that acts on the central nervous system and produces feeling of euphoria and excitment, it is very physcologically addictive and has unpleasant withdrawl symptoms, in large doses it is highly toxic. It has a very detrimental effect on the body particularly the heart and the circularory and nervous system and its prolonged use is very dangerous. Other drugs such as ampetamines and E have a similar pharmacology and in some ways worse than cocaine, the long term effects of the heacy usuage of any of these substances causes depression, aniexity, and personality disorders.
Heroin, heroine is an opiate like morphine but is more potent in its effects. Heroine acts as an analgesic (it was invented as a substitute for morphine as a pain reliever) as well as acting as as a respiratory depressent, the creation of a state of euphoria and a very stong physical dependence. Chronic administration of heroin results in the development of tolerance. It is very easy to die from a heroin overdose as the bodies ability to tolerate changes dramatically with useage, and people radily require larger and larger does to achieve the same effect. It is a highly additive substance and it seems to inhibit peoples reasoning, particularly during withdrawl inducing violent and amoral behaviour, this is one of the reasons why heroine is responsible for many social crime problems and why governments generaly use methadone in treatment or in the attempted control of addicts, although morphine itself is actually extremely dangerous itself. Respiratory arrest is the most common reason for death among heroin addicts.
Okay thats a long post, and some is a bit editoralized, I would make a general point here though, that all compounds or substances whether natural or sythetic that have a pharmacolgical effect tend to be very dangerous if misued, (consider paracetmol and aspirin and how easy it is to overdose on them). It is also true that the misuse of any such substance is by definition a social problem and a question of personal responsibility, it is also true that some substances are so socially detrimental (heroine is the obvious one there) that any policy that would result in their widespread availability and usage would be a diaster for any society, its also true that many medical professionals are linking the current and ongoing huge increase in depression in the population as being linked to the patterns of use of primarily alcohol, but also other drugs such as cocaine and extascy whose use has become widespread in recent decades, all of these things need to be considered when trying to frame a policy about drugs, both legal and illegal, I'm sorry this post is kinda long, but I actualy left out quite a lot of commonly used drugs, especially prescription ones, I'm just trying to give some information on what these things are and what they do.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
K.Snyder;469777 wrote: So make tobacco illegal...
I like alcohol and when used occasionally is not a health risk.
As for "wide variety of drug selection", just for the simple sake of it, is completely mad.In order to destroy the economic basis of criminal dealing, and to reduce the prison population by removing criminalized users from the justice system, not "just for the simple sake of it".
I like alcohol and when used occasionally is not a health risk.
As for "wide variety of drug selection", just for the simple sake of it, is completely mad.In order to destroy the economic basis of criminal dealing, and to reduce the prison population by removing criminalized users from the justice system, not "just for the simple sake of it".
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
Here are two teenagers now dead because they took whatever they could get.
Contaminated drugs kill two boys
Two teenage boys have died in Hull after taking drugs which are believed to be contaminated, police have said.
Officers said the drugs, known as "subbies", were being distributed across the city and issued an urgent warning to people not to take them.
A 17-year-old boy died on Tuesday after being rushed to hospital from a house in Sandringham Street.
On Friday, a 15-year-old boy was taken from a house in Stanley Street in a critical condition, but later died.
Police said both boys took the drugs, believed to be a form of opiate derived from a painkiller called Subatex.
A spokeswoman said: "Police believe the two teenagers' deaths are closely linked and are very concerned that contaminated tablets are being distributed in the Spring Bank area of Hull and elsewhere in the city.
"Officers are urging people not to take these drugs. They should be disposed of immediately and not consumed."
BBC
Contaminated drugs kill two boys
Two teenage boys have died in Hull after taking drugs which are believed to be contaminated, police have said.
Officers said the drugs, known as "subbies", were being distributed across the city and issued an urgent warning to people not to take them.
A 17-year-old boy died on Tuesday after being rushed to hospital from a house in Sandringham Street.
On Friday, a 15-year-old boy was taken from a house in Stanley Street in a critical condition, but later died.
Police said both boys took the drugs, believed to be a form of opiate derived from a painkiller called Subatex.
A spokeswoman said: "Police believe the two teenagers' deaths are closely linked and are very concerned that contaminated tablets are being distributed in the Spring Bank area of Hull and elsewhere in the city.
"Officers are urging people not to take these drugs. They should be disposed of immediately and not consumed."
BBC
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
SnoozeControl;469780 wrote: I dunno Spot, I think it's still got some legs. 
And your view on legalizing the regulated sale of recreational drugs on the same basis as alcohol and tobacco is what?
And your view on legalizing the regulated sale of recreational drugs on the same basis as alcohol and tobacco is what?Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
Galbally;469778 wrote: I'm sorry this post is kinda long, but I actualy left out quite a lot of commonly used drugs, especially prescription ones, I'm just trying to give some information on what these things are and what they do.Perfect, honest. I'm delighted to find the subject being taken seriously. Thank you.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
Galbally,
There is no dispute that drugs are harmful. If they were legalised tomorrow I wouldn't be spending my money on them.
It is precisely because of how harmful they are that the movement to decriminalize them has gained momentum. Prohibition makes the problems worse. It is proven. Legalising doesn't condone the use. Look at tobacco. It is legal but huge resources are spent to educate people about its use. Society does not condone the use of tobacco. Period. But it is legal.
There is no dispute that drugs are harmful. If they were legalised tomorrow I wouldn't be spending my money on them.
It is precisely because of how harmful they are that the movement to decriminalize them has gained momentum. Prohibition makes the problems worse. It is proven. Legalising doesn't condone the use. Look at tobacco. It is legal but huge resources are spent to educate people about its use. Society does not condone the use of tobacco. Period. But it is legal.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
spot;469782 wrote: In order to destroy the economic basis of criminal dealing,..
That wont happen...there will always be someone trying to profit from it,..only legalizing all drugs will reduce the market value, thus increasing the amount of drugs being produced as a means to keeping up with original profits.
spot;469782 wrote:
...and to reduce the prison population by removing criminlaized users from the justice system.
Same criminals who would rob and shoot people to get the money to support their habit...
Legalizing marijuana would help dramatically at the same time not pose near the amount of risk as far as being detrimental to society...there will be some health and psychosis risks as Galbally pointed out, but for the most part its relatively harmless...(Perspective -- People have psychotic episodes without the use of drugs, but the point is, is that the major drugs in Heroin, Ecstasy, Meth, and Crack to only name a few increases that risk in a short period of time in comparison to the long term affects of alcohol and tobacco)(Also -- Alcohol and tobacco have been apart of society for centuries, as Galbally pointed out as well, and upon any regulation it was unknown of what these long term affects were)
That wont happen...there will always be someone trying to profit from it,..only legalizing all drugs will reduce the market value, thus increasing the amount of drugs being produced as a means to keeping up with original profits.
spot;469782 wrote:
...and to reduce the prison population by removing criminlaized users from the justice system.
Same criminals who would rob and shoot people to get the money to support their habit...
Legalizing marijuana would help dramatically at the same time not pose near the amount of risk as far as being detrimental to society...there will be some health and psychosis risks as Galbally pointed out, but for the most part its relatively harmless...(Perspective -- People have psychotic episodes without the use of drugs, but the point is, is that the major drugs in Heroin, Ecstasy, Meth, and Crack to only name a few increases that risk in a short period of time in comparison to the long term affects of alcohol and tobacco)(Also -- Alcohol and tobacco have been apart of society for centuries, as Galbally pointed out as well, and upon any regulation it was unknown of what these long term affects were)
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
koan;469798 wrote: Galbally,
There is no dispute that drugs are harmful. If they were legalised tomorrow I wouldn't be spending my money on them.
It is precisely because of how harmful they are that the movement to decriminalize them has gained momentum. Prohibition makes the problems worse. It is proven. Legalising doesn't condone the use. Look at tobacco. It is legal but huge resources are spent to educate people about its use. Society does not condone the use of tobacco. Period. But it is legal.
Tobacco doesn't make people go out and rob and shoot people when ones needs are not met by addiction. People have the right to destroy there own bodies, they don't have the right to go around killing people to get another fix.
There is no dispute that drugs are harmful. If they were legalised tomorrow I wouldn't be spending my money on them.
It is precisely because of how harmful they are that the movement to decriminalize them has gained momentum. Prohibition makes the problems worse. It is proven. Legalising doesn't condone the use. Look at tobacco. It is legal but huge resources are spent to educate people about its use. Society does not condone the use of tobacco. Period. But it is legal.
Tobacco doesn't make people go out and rob and shoot people when ones needs are not met by addiction. People have the right to destroy there own bodies, they don't have the right to go around killing people to get another fix.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
K.Snyder;469799 wrote: That wont happen...there will always be someone trying to profit from it,..only legalizing all drugs will reduce the market value, thus increasing the amount of drugs being produced as a means to keeping up with original profits.Why on earth do you think anyone would buy from a criminal source if these drugs were available over the counter in the same shops which currently sell alcohol and tobacco? Of course the criminal dealing would disappear. The only criminals left in the business would be those avoiding any government-imposed sales tax. It's a vastly different problem to what's out there now with gang warfare over distribution rights.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
Koan did you not read what Galbally posted please see below. Do you read any posts other than your own.????
[QUOTE]It is also true that the misuse of any such substance is by definition a social problem and a question of personal responsibility, it is also true that some substances are so socially detrimental (heroine is the obvious one there) that any policy that would result in their widespread availability and usage would be a diaster for any society, [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]It is also true that the misuse of any such substance is by definition a social problem and a question of personal responsibility, it is also true that some substances are so socially detrimental (heroine is the obvious one there) that any policy that would result in their widespread availability and usage would be a diaster for any society, [/QUOTE]
ALOHA!!
MOTTO TO LIVE BY:
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.
WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"
MOTTO TO LIVE BY:
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.
WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
K.Snyder;469805 wrote: Tobacco doesn't make people go out and rob and shoot people when ones needs are not met by addiction. People have the right to destroy there own bodies, they don't have the right to go around killing people to get another fix.Anyone doing such a thing would still be prosecuted wit the full force of the law. The enforcement agencies would have a lot more freed-up resources to catch them, too. Your notion that only poor people buy drugs is laughable - maybe your first off-site investigation of the evening might be to support this contention of yours that poor people form the overwhelming majority of criminalized users. It's certainly not the case in the UK.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
CARLA;469808 wrote: Koan did you not read what Galbally posted please see below. Do you read any posts other than your own.????
Yes. I read his entire post. Then thought about it, then constructed my own. We are basing our comments on apparently contrasting facts.
Yes. I read his entire post. Then thought about it, then constructed my own. We are basing our comments on apparently contrasting facts.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
spot;469806 wrote: Why on earth do you think anyone would buy from a criminal source if these drugs were available over the counter in the same shops which currently sell alcohol and tobacco? Of course the criminal dealing would disappear. The only criminals left in the business would be those avoiding any government-imposed sales tax. It's a vastly different problem to what's out there now with gang warfare over distribution rights.
The same reason people take over the counter drugs and brew them to make meth...one of the harshest drugs known to man. Tolerance.
You can give a kid a chocolate chip, but you can bet your arse hes going to want the whole cookie.
The same reason people take over the counter drugs and brew them to make meth...one of the harshest drugs known to man. Tolerance.
You can give a kid a chocolate chip, but you can bet your arse hes going to want the whole cookie.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
CARLA;469808 wrote: Koan did you not read what Galbally posted please see below. Do you read any posts other than your own.????Impressed though I am by Galbally's grasp of the matter, what you highlighted from the post is his own opinion and contrasts with that of the off-site expert witnesses - the Chief Constables' - which I introduced earlier. I do think that the carefully-formed judgement of expert witnesses, especially those from the upper reaches of law enforcement strategy, should be considered when forming a balanced perspective. Along with Galbally's.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
K.Snyder;469814 wrote: The same reason people take over the counter drugs and brew them to make meth...one of the harshest drugs known to man. Tolerance.
You can give a kid a chocolate chip, but you can bet your arse hes going to want the whole cookie.And you'd prefer the unwinnable unending "War on Drugs" to a rational handing over of personal responsibility to the people who decide? Balance the equation. Some people will succumb to the allure of self-destruction as you say, most won't (as is the case with alcohol abuse and tobacco consumption), in exchange for which you pull the rug out from under the entire criminal enterprise which currently controls the banned recreational drugs trade and place it in the hands of responsible corporations.
You can give a kid a chocolate chip, but you can bet your arse hes going to want the whole cookie.And you'd prefer the unwinnable unending "War on Drugs" to a rational handing over of personal responsibility to the people who decide? Balance the equation. Some people will succumb to the allure of self-destruction as you say, most won't (as is the case with alcohol abuse and tobacco consumption), in exchange for which you pull the rug out from under the entire criminal enterprise which currently controls the banned recreational drugs trade and place it in the hands of responsible corporations.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
Imagine a world where drug pushers were put out of business. Children aren't approached for sales, children aren't taught to deal, the legality put it in containers with warning labels plastered all over it.
Now which world is less likely to result in chaos? This or one where underground cartels make more money than the tourist industry?
Now which world is less likely to result in chaos? This or one where underground cartels make more money than the tourist industry?
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
spot;469809 wrote: Anyone doing such a thing would still be prosecuted wit the full force of the law.
You seem to accept the unfortunate one on the other end of a druged up sphycopath as a sacrifice...I don't.
spot;469809 wrote:
Your notion that only poor people buy drugs is laughable - maybe your first off-site investigation of the evening might be to support this contention of yours that poor people form the overwhelming majority of criminalized users. It's certainly not the case in the UK.
Maybe you should look up the average income of people convicted of drug(illegal, as legal drugs are irrelevant in this case) induced crimes (felony-- lets not get over zealous of someone getting pulled over with a nickel bag of weed).
Im not talking about people on drugs, I'm talking about the people who commit crimes in order to support their habits...
And those of you who think legalizing drugs would reduce the market value of drugs, which would in turn reduce the amount of crime being committed in order to sustain the satisfaction of the person/persons addiction. But my point is, is that legalizing drugs will not only increase the amount of usage, but will not have an effect on the crimes being committed to sustain their habits because they cannot get enough of the drug...it's called an addiction. When their money runs out after buying cheaper drugs they are going to rob and shoot and murder people for money to get more, only because it is legal more people will be addicted and more people will commit more crimes as a result of not being able to control their habits. Same exact effect as it is now, only by criminalizing it, at least it can be controlled.
You seem to accept the unfortunate one on the other end of a druged up sphycopath as a sacrifice...I don't.
spot;469809 wrote:
Your notion that only poor people buy drugs is laughable - maybe your first off-site investigation of the evening might be to support this contention of yours that poor people form the overwhelming majority of criminalized users. It's certainly not the case in the UK.
Maybe you should look up the average income of people convicted of drug(illegal, as legal drugs are irrelevant in this case) induced crimes (felony-- lets not get over zealous of someone getting pulled over with a nickel bag of weed).
Im not talking about people on drugs, I'm talking about the people who commit crimes in order to support their habits...
And those of you who think legalizing drugs would reduce the market value of drugs, which would in turn reduce the amount of crime being committed in order to sustain the satisfaction of the person/persons addiction. But my point is, is that legalizing drugs will not only increase the amount of usage, but will not have an effect on the crimes being committed to sustain their habits because they cannot get enough of the drug...it's called an addiction. When their money runs out after buying cheaper drugs they are going to rob and shoot and murder people for money to get more, only because it is legal more people will be addicted and more people will commit more crimes as a result of not being able to control their habits. Same exact effect as it is now, only by criminalizing it, at least it can be controlled.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
Revealed: the 70 child drug dealers under 16 arrested by Scots police
MURDO MACLEOD AND RICHARD GRAY
AT LEAST 70 Scottish schoolchildren were arrested for drug-dealing last year, Scotland on Sunday can reveal.
The shocking statistics include 10 children aged 15 or under who were caught dealing heroin in Fife.
Feb. 2006
MURDO MACLEOD AND RICHARD GRAY
AT LEAST 70 Scottish schoolchildren were arrested for drug-dealing last year, Scotland on Sunday can reveal.
The shocking statistics include 10 children aged 15 or under who were caught dealing heroin in Fife.
Feb. 2006
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
spot;469817 wrote: responsible corporations.
:yh_rotfl
:yh_rotfl
:yh_rotfl
:yh_rotfl
:yh_rotfl
:yh_rotfl
:yh_rotfl
:yh_rotfl
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
Here we go again full circle. :-5 Once again I will say it, what makes you think any of the statements below would stop because drugs were made legal...
Excuse me while I go gouge my eyes out..
[QUOTE]Imagine a world where drug pushers were put out of business. Children aren't approached for sales, children aren't taught to deal, the legality put it in containers with warning labels plastered all over it.
Now which world is less likely to result in chaos? This or one where underground cartels make more money than the tourist industry?[/QUOTE]
Excuse me while I go gouge my eyes out..
[QUOTE]Imagine a world where drug pushers were put out of business. Children aren't approached for sales, children aren't taught to deal, the legality put it in containers with warning labels plastered all over it.
Now which world is less likely to result in chaos? This or one where underground cartels make more money than the tourist industry?[/QUOTE]
ALOHA!!
MOTTO TO LIVE BY:
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.
WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"
MOTTO TO LIVE BY:
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.
WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
K.Snyder;469820 wrote: by criminalizing it, at least it can be controlled.That, of course, is where we differ. You think the "War on Drugs" is winnable. Reality shows that's baloney. How long has it been fought? Who's winning?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
We are happy about children being turned into drug dealers?
70 arrested in one year just in Scotland and 10 in one county. This wouldn't happen if drugs were legalised.
70 arrested in one year just in Scotland and 10 in one county. This wouldn't happen if drugs were legalised.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
CARLA;469823 wrote: Here we go again full circle. :-5 Once again I will say it, what makes you think any of the statements below would stop because drugs were made legal... Carla, what part of the underground cartels which currently make more money than the tourist industry would still be in business if the trade were legalized? None of it at all. That's the part that would stop - the profitmaking by the criminals. That's the entire objective of legalizing the supply. The profits would all go to legitimate taxpaying businesses instead. The criminals would be out of a job. The reduction of the prison population is a free bonus you can add to it.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
CARLA;469823 wrote: Here we go again full circle. :-5 Once again I will say it, what makes you think any of the statements below would stop because drugs were made legal...
Excuse me while I go gouge my eyes out..
I don't find that very respectful
Why would children be pushers if it can be bought at a pharmacy?
Excuse me while I go gouge my eyes out..
I don't find that very respectful
Why would children be pushers if it can be bought at a pharmacy?
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
spot;469826 wrote: That, of course, is where we differ. You think the "War on Drugs" is winnable. Reality shows that's baloney. How long has it been fought? Who's winning?
You can't prove it otherwise...
Now is not the time to change strategy, especially when we are just learning about the drugs, as most of the dangerous ones are only 30 years young. Look at meth...Before and after photos...
Legalize weed fine...
I wouldn't be for legalizing cocaine as it produces crack, and that's the only reason, because I think when its used responsibly its not that dangerous.
As for the other drugs, they are extremely unpredictable and upon minimal use, has proven to be a thorn in the backside to society, and habits cannot be controlled, which is a recipe for disaster.
You can't prove it otherwise...
Now is not the time to change strategy, especially when we are just learning about the drugs, as most of the dangerous ones are only 30 years young. Look at meth...Before and after photos...
Legalize weed fine...
I wouldn't be for legalizing cocaine as it produces crack, and that's the only reason, because I think when its used responsibly its not that dangerous.
As for the other drugs, they are extremely unpredictable and upon minimal use, has proven to be a thorn in the backside to society, and habits cannot be controlled, which is a recipe for disaster.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
No it would not, they would just be dealing legal drugs. Do you not understand that legal or otherwise there will be drug dealers, and buyers it will not change, it will get worse
[QUOTE]We are happy about children being turned into drug dealers?
70 arrested in one year just in Scotland and 10 in one county. This wouldn't happen if drugs were legalised.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]We are happy about children being turned into drug dealers?
70 arrested in one year just in Scotland and 10 in one county. This wouldn't happen if drugs were legalised.[/QUOTE]
ALOHA!!
MOTTO TO LIVE BY:
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.
WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"
MOTTO TO LIVE BY:
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.
WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
koan;469798 wrote: Galbally,
There is no dispute that drugs are harmful. If they were legalised tomorrow I wouldn't be spending my money on them.
It is precisely because of how harmful they are that the movement to decriminalize them has gained momentum. Prohibition makes the problems worse. It is proven. Legalising doesn't condone the use. Look at tobacco. It is legal but huge resources are spent to educate people about its use. Society does not condone the use of tobacco. Period. But it is legal.
Firstly let me say that I am saddened by how vitriolic this thread has become and its not my intention to offend anyone including yourself, but I have to say that the although there is certainly merit in the argument for the legalization of certain drugs, cannabis is the one I am thinking of, I simply cannot accept that legalizing heroine would be beneficial, there is a vast qualitative difference in the behaviour of those addicted to heroine or crack cocaine as opposed to cannabis or tobacco users, and this is precisely because heroine is such an insiduous substance, legalizing it will not stop people from using it, and they will still have to buy it, unless you advocate providing it for free through the health system. It may be possible for people with independent means to maintain a heroine habit and not have to steal to fund it, but most teenagers on sink estates do not have a disposable income to spend on an expensive heroine addiction, so they will still commit crimes to obtain it whether its bought in a pharmacy or on the street, also I am quite sure that Doctors would absolutely refuse to prescribe heroine to anyone and neither would pharmacists, also if you improve the quality of the heroine you will simply increase the tolerance of those addicted to it because of the nature of its actions on the body and you will be still left with the primary problem of addiction and the crime required to obtain the drug. Legalizing these drugs would simply make the social problems exponentially worse and you might well be condemming an already pretty deprived social underclass into an even worse nighmare of legally sanctioned addiction and violence, its certainly true that organized gangs make large amounts of money from dealing illegal drugs, its also true that increasing numbers of young men and women are committing acts of physcopathic violence and abuse precisely because they have become morally destoryed by addiction. I can't see how legalizing and regulating the import and quality of heroin or other drugs of a similar nature are going to do anything but make the situation even worse. This is not an issue of a morally responsible person making a personal lifestlye choice, this is a situation where social deprevation, a breakdown in civic society, and moral degenercy caused by drugs such as heroine are making the lives of poor people in underprivilidged areas a living hell, legalizing the substanaces that are in part fueling this is not an acceptable option.
There is no dispute that drugs are harmful. If they were legalised tomorrow I wouldn't be spending my money on them.
It is precisely because of how harmful they are that the movement to decriminalize them has gained momentum. Prohibition makes the problems worse. It is proven. Legalising doesn't condone the use. Look at tobacco. It is legal but huge resources are spent to educate people about its use. Society does not condone the use of tobacco. Period. But it is legal.
Firstly let me say that I am saddened by how vitriolic this thread has become and its not my intention to offend anyone including yourself, but I have to say that the although there is certainly merit in the argument for the legalization of certain drugs, cannabis is the one I am thinking of, I simply cannot accept that legalizing heroine would be beneficial, there is a vast qualitative difference in the behaviour of those addicted to heroine or crack cocaine as opposed to cannabis or tobacco users, and this is precisely because heroine is such an insiduous substance, legalizing it will not stop people from using it, and they will still have to buy it, unless you advocate providing it for free through the health system. It may be possible for people with independent means to maintain a heroine habit and not have to steal to fund it, but most teenagers on sink estates do not have a disposable income to spend on an expensive heroine addiction, so they will still commit crimes to obtain it whether its bought in a pharmacy or on the street, also I am quite sure that Doctors would absolutely refuse to prescribe heroine to anyone and neither would pharmacists, also if you improve the quality of the heroine you will simply increase the tolerance of those addicted to it because of the nature of its actions on the body and you will be still left with the primary problem of addiction and the crime required to obtain the drug. Legalizing these drugs would simply make the social problems exponentially worse and you might well be condemming an already pretty deprived social underclass into an even worse nighmare of legally sanctioned addiction and violence, its certainly true that organized gangs make large amounts of money from dealing illegal drugs, its also true that increasing numbers of young men and women are committing acts of physcopathic violence and abuse precisely because they have become morally destoryed by addiction. I can't see how legalizing and regulating the import and quality of heroin or other drugs of a similar nature are going to do anything but make the situation even worse. This is not an issue of a morally responsible person making a personal lifestlye choice, this is a situation where social deprevation, a breakdown in civic society, and moral degenercy caused by drugs such as heroine are making the lives of poor people in underprivilidged areas a living hell, legalizing the substanaces that are in part fueling this is not an acceptable option.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
CARLA;469832 wrote: No it would not, they would just be dealing legal drugs. Do you not understand that legal or otherwise there will be drug dealers, and buyers it will not change, it will get worse]*What* will get worse? The "dealers", as you call them, will be the common-or-garden liquor store down the street that people currently buy alcohol and cigarettes from, and which can't sell to minors. Who are these remaining "dealers" you're talking about?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
K.Snyder;469831 wrote: You can't prove it other wise...How long has it been fought? Who's winning? "Answer my question".
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
Galbally;469833 wrote: Firstly let me say that I am saddened by how vitriolic this thread has become and its not my intention to offend anyone including yourself, but I have to say that the although there is certainly merit in the argument for the legalization of certain drugs, cannabis is the one I am thinking of, I simply cannot accept that legalizing heroine would be beneficial, there is a vast qualitative difference in the behaviour of those addicted to heroine or crack cocaine as opposed to cannabis or tobacco users, and this is precisely because heroine is such an insiduous substance, legalizing it will not stop people from using it, and they will still have to buy it, unless you advocate providing it for free through the health system. It may be possible for people with independent means to maintain a heroine habit and not have to steal to fund it, but most teenagers on sink estates do not have a disposable income to spend on an expensive heroine addiction, so they will still commit crimes to obtain it whether its bought in a pharmacy or on the street, also I am quite sure that Doctors would absolutely refuse to prescribe heroine to anyone and neither would pharmacists, also if you improve the quality of the heroine you will simply increase the tolerance of those addicted to it because of the nature of its actions on the body and you will be still left with the primary problem of addiction and the crime required to obtain the drug. Legalizing these drugs would simply make the social problems exponentially worse and you might well be condemming an already pretty deprived social underclass into an even worse nighmare of legally sanctioned addiction and violence, its certainly true that organized gangs make large amounts of money from dealing illegal drugs, its also true that increasing numbers of young men and women are committing acts of physcopathic violence and abuse precisely because they have become morally destoryed by addiction. I can't see how legalizing and regulating the import and quality of heroin or other drugs of a similar nature are going to do anything but make the situation even worse. This is not an issue of a morally responsible person making a personal lifestlye choice, this is a situation where social deprevation, a breakdown in civic society, and moral degenercy caused by drugs such as heroine are making the lives of poor people in underprivilidged areas a living hell, legalizing the substanaces that are in part fueling this is not an acceptable option.
I appreciate that it is not your intention to offend and your lack of offensive language.
I completely understand a fear of legalising drugs such as heroin and cocaine. I also think that once a person looks past the fear of what might happen, the examples provided by prohibition policy justify overcoming that fear.
If we stop pushing all the reality away (and making assumptions about what the income level of the users is) then we can deal with the health issues at stake more efficiently. The question is, for me, where to spend the money.
I appreciate that it is not your intention to offend and your lack of offensive language.
I completely understand a fear of legalising drugs such as heroin and cocaine. I also think that once a person looks past the fear of what might happen, the examples provided by prohibition policy justify overcoming that fear.
If we stop pushing all the reality away (and making assumptions about what the income level of the users is) then we can deal with the health issues at stake more efficiently. The question is, for me, where to spend the money.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
Galbally;469833 wrote: legalizing the substanaces that are in part fueling this is not an acceptable option.I'd very much like to hear your opinion on http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... tcount=124 and the comments quoted in it. Why do they think that way? What is it about their view that you consider ill-informed?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
spot;469836 wrote: How long has it been fought? Who's winning? "Answer my question".
In comparison to what, the way things are now, or if drugs were to be legalized?
In comparison to what, the way things are now, or if drugs were to be legalized?
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
K.Snyder;469840 wrote: In comparison to what, the way things are now, or if drugs were to be legalized?How long has "the War on Drugs" been fought? Who's winning? What is there in the question that has anything to do with legalizing drugs?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
Various posters have tried to portray me as a haughty intellectual who has no personal experience. Let me correct this notion.
I have known a very large number of cocaine and heroine addicts. I have spent almost a year listening to a drug dealer tell me his life story. I've known people who have crack babies. I know people from every level of drug using. I've used drugs myself and known where to draw the line. I am not writing based on google searches.
This does not make me correct. That is why I do internet searches to back up my personal experiences. For the very reason that I have personal experience I need to confirm my conclusions with people of authority and knowledge to be sure I'm not just prejudice.
Personal experience is personal. You can't run a country based on them and if you want to fix the world (as best as possible) based on your personal opinion you've got 6.2 billion competitors.
I have known a very large number of cocaine and heroine addicts. I have spent almost a year listening to a drug dealer tell me his life story. I've known people who have crack babies. I know people from every level of drug using. I've used drugs myself and known where to draw the line. I am not writing based on google searches.
This does not make me correct. That is why I do internet searches to back up my personal experiences. For the very reason that I have personal experience I need to confirm my conclusions with people of authority and knowledge to be sure I'm not just prejudice.
Personal experience is personal. You can't run a country based on them and if you want to fix the world (as best as possible) based on your personal opinion you've got 6.2 billion competitors.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
When you make them legal you make it harder to get, which will increase the need for dealers, and their creative ways of securing the drugs to continue to sell them to buyers who wouldn't and couldn't obtain them legally. It makes not one ounce of difference if they are legal it will not stop the abusers need for more than they need leading to more crimes in obtaining them, and in my opinion more loss of life because of it. Legal will mean nothing when it comes to high profile drugs like Heroine, Crack Cocaine.
[QUOTE]*What* will get worse? The "dealers", as you call them, will be the common-or-garden liquor store down the street that people currently buy alcohol and cigarettes from, and which can't sell to minors. Who are these remaining "dealers" you're talking about?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]*What* will get worse? The "dealers", as you call them, will be the common-or-garden liquor store down the street that people currently buy alcohol and cigarettes from, and which can't sell to minors. Who are these remaining "dealers" you're talking about?[/QUOTE]
ALOHA!!
MOTTO TO LIVE BY:
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.
WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"
MOTTO TO LIVE BY:
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.
WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
CARLA;469845 wrote: When you make them legal you make it harder to getWhat does legal mean? It means it's sold in shops. I truly am not getting your drift here. How is having it available legally in a shop harder to get? Why would you buy legal drugs on the street from someone you don't know when you can get government-certified FDA-quality-controlled packets from the shop? Maybe you have a point here about why dealers would still be out there supplying as well, but I haven't got it at all yet. Please explain why it might happen.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
koan;469837 wrote: I appreciate that it is not your intention to offend and your lack of offensive language.
I completely understand a fear of legalising drugs such as heroin and cocaine. I also think that once a person looks past the fear of what might happen, the examples provided by prohibition policy justify overcoming that fear.
If we stop pushing all the reality away (and making assumptions about what the income level of the users is) then we can deal with the health issues at stake more efficiently. The question is, for me, where to spend the money.
But Koan think about it, the drug that has the most detrimental effect on our society in general is not heroine, its alcohol, which is freely available everywhere, prohibition did not solve the massive problems surrounding alcohol abuse, but neither does supplying it legally either, one of the most pernicious aspects of alcohol is that its pervasive everywhere in our society and is associated with fun and good company and all the rest, and is sold that way by massive commercial enterprises, but there are literally millions of alcoholics in Europe and America, AA has more than a million members, and thats people in recovery, think of all the absued wives dreading the drunk coming home, the street fights, stabbings ousside nightclubs, rapes, murders, the smashed cars with mangled bodies, the lonely sucides, the people drinking themsevlves quietly to death in grotty flats or one the streets, and alcohol is far less damaging than heroine (at least in the short term), Now, imagine that heroine was as readily available as alcohol, that as spot sugeested you could get it in an off liscence with a syringe and some cigaretttes, think about what the probable social consqeuences would be for all the people whos lives and well being were interconnected with the person taking several large doese of heronine every day quite legally, I know that if I was someone in a position of responsibility in society I simply wouldn't countenance it, it would be doing something in the philosophical name of libertariamism that would destory the lives of thousands upon thousands of people.
I completely understand a fear of legalising drugs such as heroin and cocaine. I also think that once a person looks past the fear of what might happen, the examples provided by prohibition policy justify overcoming that fear.
If we stop pushing all the reality away (and making assumptions about what the income level of the users is) then we can deal with the health issues at stake more efficiently. The question is, for me, where to spend the money.
But Koan think about it, the drug that has the most detrimental effect on our society in general is not heroine, its alcohol, which is freely available everywhere, prohibition did not solve the massive problems surrounding alcohol abuse, but neither does supplying it legally either, one of the most pernicious aspects of alcohol is that its pervasive everywhere in our society and is associated with fun and good company and all the rest, and is sold that way by massive commercial enterprises, but there are literally millions of alcoholics in Europe and America, AA has more than a million members, and thats people in recovery, think of all the absued wives dreading the drunk coming home, the street fights, stabbings ousside nightclubs, rapes, murders, the smashed cars with mangled bodies, the lonely sucides, the people drinking themsevlves quietly to death in grotty flats or one the streets, and alcohol is far less damaging than heroine (at least in the short term), Now, imagine that heroine was as readily available as alcohol, that as spot sugeested you could get it in an off liscence with a syringe and some cigaretttes, think about what the probable social consqeuences would be for all the people whos lives and well being were interconnected with the person taking several large doese of heronine every day quite legally, I know that if I was someone in a position of responsibility in society I simply wouldn't countenance it, it would be doing something in the philosophical name of libertariamism that would destory the lives of thousands upon thousands of people.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
Galbally;469848 wrote: But Koan think about it, the drug that has the most detrimental effect on our society in general is not heroine, its alcohol, which is freely available everywhere, prohibition did not solve the massive problems surrounding alcohol abuse, but neither does supplying it legally either, one of the most pernicious aspects of alcohol is that its pervasive everywhere in our society and is associated with fun and good company and all the rest, and is sold that way by massive commercial enterprises, but there are literally millions of alcoholics in Europe and America, AA has more than a million members, and thats people in recovery, think of all the absued wives dreading the drunk coming home, the street fights, stabbings ousside nightclubs, rapes, murders, the smashed cars with mangled bodies, the lonely sucides, the people drinking themsevlves quietly to death in grotty flats or one the streets, and alcohol is far less damaging than heroine (at least in the short term), Now, imagine that heroine was as readily available as alcohol, that as spot sugeested you could get it in an off liscence with a syringe and some cigaretttes, think about what the probable social consqeuences would be for all the people whos lives and well being were interconnected with the person taking several large doese of heronine every day quite legally, I know that if I was someone in a position of responsibility in society I simply wouldn't countenance it, it would be doing something in the philosophical name of libertariamism that would destory the lives of thousands upon thousands of people.
But prohibition did not reduce the number of alcohol users.
What makes you conclude that prohibition is reducing the number of heroin users?
Handing out syringes has been a great benefit to society.
The law is not going to affect the users. Focusing on the cause of substance abuse is the only thing that will accomplish that.
The millions of pounds in question that started this thread could be spent on prevention and curing people with addictive behaviour. An addictive personality will always find a way to fulfill its need. The laws stop nothing.
But prohibition did not reduce the number of alcohol users.
What makes you conclude that prohibition is reducing the number of heroin users?
Handing out syringes has been a great benefit to society.
The law is not going to affect the users. Focusing on the cause of substance abuse is the only thing that will accomplish that.
The millions of pounds in question that started this thread could be spent on prevention and curing people with addictive behaviour. An addictive personality will always find a way to fulfill its need. The laws stop nothing.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
spot;469842 wrote: How long has "the War on Drugs" been fought? Who's winning? What is there in the question that has anything to do with legalizing drugs?
It's impossible to know who's winning, because there is no alternative solution. Drugs are drugs. People are either going to do them or not, and the ones who do steadily increase their tolerance level rendering them unpredictable to the point of...whatever it is the hell they think.
The idea of getting someone to quite smoking by forcing them to smoke to that of anything unfathamable, in my opinion, is not going to work in regards to stabilizing the drug problem.
It's impossible to know who's winning, because there is no alternative solution. Drugs are drugs. People are either going to do them or not, and the ones who do steadily increase their tolerance level rendering them unpredictable to the point of...whatever it is the hell they think.
The idea of getting someone to quite smoking by forcing them to smoke to that of anything unfathamable, in my opinion, is not going to work in regards to stabilizing the drug problem.