Right now. The film industry. I'd guess it (from personal experience) at 80% addicted to cocaine. Why? because they are wealthy. They've got good sources. It's a status symbol.
People think we are talking about poor black people in the ghetto here. Get real!
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
K.Snyder;469850 wrote: 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.We're presenting an alternative solution.
People are either going to abuse alcohol 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"? Who's forcing what?
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.We're presenting an alternative solution.
People are either going to abuse alcohol 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"? Who's forcing 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
spot;469847 wrote: What does legal mean? It means it's sold in shops. I truly am not getting your drift here.
I think she is speaking in reference to the users being harder to fulfill their addictive tendencies through legalized, less potent drugs. Because we all know if they become legal, there will be laws rendering them less potent.
I think she is speaking in reference to the users being harder to fulfill their addictive tendencies through legalized, less potent drugs. Because we all know if they become legal, there will be laws rendering them less potent.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
spot;469853 wrote:
"The idea of getting someone to quite smoking by forcing them to smoke to that of anything unfathamable"? Who's forcing what?
Their addiction would force the issue. But in any case I was metaphorically speaking. It's perfectly adjacent.
"The idea of getting someone to quite smoking by forcing them to smoke to that of anything unfathamable"? Who's forcing what?
Their addiction would force the issue. But in any case I was metaphorically speaking. It's perfectly adjacent.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
CARLA;469845 wrote: 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. 
This is such a stretch I can't even blow a bubble with it. What are you on about? It makes no sense to me. And I've read it twice. Thought about it. Tried to imagine what you mean.
Blank.
eta: you've performed a Python sketch a la: If she weighs the same as a duck she's a witch.
This is such a stretch I can't even blow a bubble with it. What are you on about? It makes no sense to me. And I've read it twice. Thought about it. Tried to imagine what you mean.
Blank.
eta: you've performed a Python sketch a la: If she weighs the same as a duck she's a witch.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
Woo !! 1 for Carla.
[QUOTE]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.
Simple if your abusing you couldn't obtain all you needed legally, just not going to happen. You would have to get the rest some other way. That would be your dealer who never went out of business.
As it has been pointed out by many here if your addicted your need is constant, not control to a bit each day, and you will go to any lengths to get it legally or otherwise.
What 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?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]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.
Simple if your abusing you couldn't obtain all you needed legally, just not going to happen. You would have to get the rest some other way. That would be your dealer who never went out of business.
As it has been pointed out by many here if your addicted your need is constant, not control to a bit each day, and you will go to any lengths to get it legally or otherwise.
What 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?[/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;469854 wrote: I think she is speaking in reference to the users being harder to fulfill their addictive tendencies through legalized, less potent drugs. Because we all know if they become legal, there will be laws rendering them less potent.Not in my book it won't. Legalized drugs means exactly that - what's on the streets now, in pure unadulterated clean form, at a price which provides the corporations and the shops with a profit instead of the drug barons and the street dealers. No change in potency at all. The active ingredients, after all, are chemical. If it's stronger you take less, if it's weaker you take more. The effect is identical except the legal form wouldn't, thanks to FDA regulations, be adulterated with the rubbish that does the extra damage.
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;469859 wrote: Simple if your abusing you couldn't obtain all you needed legally, just not going to happen. You would have to get the rest some other way. That would be your dealer who never went out of business.Why, Carla? The shop-bought product is the clean form of the current street-drug at, presumably, a lower price (I take that as likely, but I don't insist on it). Who or what's going to stop you getting "all you needed legally" from the shop? Just like alcoholics can get all the alcohol they want. I'm sure if you explain, it'll be a lot clearer.
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;469859 wrote: Woo !! 1 for Carla.
Simple if your abusing you couldn't obtain all you needed legally, just not going to happen. You would have to get the rest some other way. That would be your dealer who never went out of business.
As it has been pointed out by many here if your addicted your need is constant, not control to a bit each day, and you will go to any lengths to get it legally or otherwise.
1 what?
you need to make sense to score points.
Simple if your abusing you couldn't obtain all you needed legally, just not going to happen. You would have to get the rest some other way. That would be your dealer who never went out of business.
As it has been pointed out by many here if your addicted your need is constant, not control to a bit each day, and you will go to any lengths to get it legally or otherwise.
1 what?
you need to make sense to score points.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
spot;469853 wrote: We're presenting an alternative solution.
Yeah, you are presenting an alternative solution, and that's fine, but it has yet to be a proven alternative.
spot;469853 wrote:
People are either going to abuse alcohol 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.
I understand that...
To be honest they should criminalize alcohol...it's proven that alot of bad has come out of it...it's also proven that more people who use alcohol act responsibly than those who do not, but I continue to see such like of responsibility associated with it. I myself like to drink, but I would be willing to sacrifice my own preference for the sake of those who are affected by such disregard.
I would still get it and drink it, but at least it may be controlled if it were criminalized and kept out of the hands of people who cannot act respectively while under the influence of alcohol.
Yeah, you are presenting an alternative solution, and that's fine, but it has yet to be a proven alternative.
spot;469853 wrote:
People are either going to abuse alcohol 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.
I understand that...
To be honest they should criminalize alcohol...it's proven that alot of bad has come out of it...it's also proven that more people who use alcohol act responsibly than those who do not, but I continue to see such like of responsibility associated with it. I myself like to drink, but I would be willing to sacrifice my own preference for the sake of those who are affected by such disregard.
I would still get it and drink it, but at least it may be controlled if it were criminalized and kept out of the hands of people who cannot act respectively while under the influence of alcohol.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
K.Snyder;469863 wrote: Yeah, you are presenting an alternative solution, and that's fine, but it has yet to be a proven alternative.The "War on Drugs" is a proven alternative? It's nothing of the sort until and unless it's won. That puts both approaches on a level playing field, surely.
Actually, it has been tested in the past. My alternative approach worked in the case of Prohibition before the war. Prohibition was tried, it failed, it was repealed. Would you like alcohol banned again? Didn't the Mafia gain its decades-long stranglehold on large areas of society as a result of Prohibition, just as the cartels and dealer networks are doing now? Prohibition on alcohol failed. The current "War of Drugs" is no different at all.
Actually, it has been tested in the past. My alternative approach worked in the case of Prohibition before the war. Prohibition was tried, it failed, it was repealed. Would you like alcohol banned again? Didn't the Mafia gain its decades-long stranglehold on large areas of society as a result of Prohibition, just as the cartels and dealer networks are doing now? Prohibition on alcohol failed. The current "War of Drugs" is no different at 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;469860 wrote: No change in potency at all. The active ingredients, after all, are chemical. If it's stronger you take less, if it's weaker you take more. The effect is identical except the legal form wouldn't, thanks to FDA regulations, be adulterated with the rubbish that does the extra damage.
People don't take less...they develop a tolerance level that keeps rising until they are dead, and during the fact behaving criminalistically up on to that point.
The extra damage is not in the drugs, it's the misuse of those drugs, whether its through inappropriate consumption, or just simple overdose. The rest is tolerance and misbehavior.
People don't take less...they develop a tolerance level that keeps rising until they are dead, and during the fact behaving criminalistically up on to that point.
The extra damage is not in the drugs, it's the misuse of those drugs, whether its through inappropriate consumption, or just simple overdose. The rest is tolerance and misbehavior.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
Koan in case you missed this Spots response to my post.
Sweetie I make more sense than you will ever make with your endless self rightous posts that say nothing, over and over again. Go to bed its way past your bed time.
[QUOTE]Woo !! 1 for Carla.
Quote:
Quote:
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.
[/QUOTE]
Sweetie I make more sense than you will ever make with your endless self rightous posts that say nothing, over and over again. Go to bed its way past your bed time.
[QUOTE]Woo !! 1 for Carla.
Quote:
Quote:
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.
[/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
spot;469865 wrote: The "War on Drugs" is a proven alternative? It's nothing of the sort until and unless it's won. That puts both approaches on a level playing field, surely.
Fine.
spot;469865 wrote:
Actually, it has been tested in the past. My alternative approach worked in the case of Prohibition before the war. Prohibition was tried, it failed, it was repealed. Would you like alcohol banned again? Didn't the Mafia gain its decades-long stranglehold on large areas of society as a result of Prohibition, just as the cartels and dealer networks are doing now? Prohibition on alcohol failed. The current "War of Drugs" is no different at all.
Whatever works...I'm willing to sacrifice my freedoms...I'm just not willing to legalize Crack, Heroin, and Meth, and all those other Hazardous man made chemicals, that had to have been made by satin himself.
Fine.
spot;469865 wrote:
Actually, it has been tested in the past. My alternative approach worked in the case of Prohibition before the war. Prohibition was tried, it failed, it was repealed. Would you like alcohol banned again? Didn't the Mafia gain its decades-long stranglehold on large areas of society as a result of Prohibition, just as the cartels and dealer networks are doing now? Prohibition on alcohol failed. The current "War of Drugs" is no different at all.
Whatever works...I'm willing to sacrifice my freedoms...I'm just not willing to legalize Crack, Heroin, and Meth, and all those other Hazardous man made chemicals, that had to have been made by satin himself.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
As an aside,
I prepared a documentary (research, wrote the proposal) based on the Vancouver Downtown Eastside repository of drug addicts. I interviewed a young woman with gaping holes in her neck and arms who left me and my research partner in her hotel room to go back to walking the streets. There was blood splashed all over the walls going up the stairway.
I interviewed a computer whiz who had managed to get clean and start a very successful business who said he trusted junkies more than people on Robson St. (think Rodeo drive). And I've interviewed two computer whizzes who started the first internet porn site, wore gold chains around their necks and bragged about how they were getting into gambling next. The porn "stars" who entered the complex during the interview were mostly (obviously) strung out on cocaine. I've worked with strippers (they do all the body doubling in nude scenes for film) mostly addicts with their cell phones stuck to their heads.
All these people I've met have slowly convinced me how much better society would be if drugs were not part of some secret, underground culture that draws young people in through romantic ideas.
I prepared a documentary (research, wrote the proposal) based on the Vancouver Downtown Eastside repository of drug addicts. I interviewed a young woman with gaping holes in her neck and arms who left me and my research partner in her hotel room to go back to walking the streets. There was blood splashed all over the walls going up the stairway.
I interviewed a computer whiz who had managed to get clean and start a very successful business who said he trusted junkies more than people on Robson St. (think Rodeo drive). And I've interviewed two computer whizzes who started the first internet porn site, wore gold chains around their necks and bragged about how they were getting into gambling next. The porn "stars" who entered the complex during the interview were mostly (obviously) strung out on cocaine. I've worked with strippers (they do all the body doubling in nude scenes for film) mostly addicts with their cell phones stuck to their heads.
All these people I've met have slowly convinced me how much better society would be if drugs were not part of some secret, underground culture that draws young people in through romantic ideas.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
K.Snyder;469866 wrote: People don't take less...they develop a tolerance level that keeps rising until they are dead, and during the fact behaving criminalistically up on to that point."Although 45% of U.S. soldiers in Viet Nam reported trying heroin, only 20% spent some time addicted and just 12% returned to heroin addiction once they got home. And this occurred despite the fact that 60% of those who had been addicted in Viet Nam used heroin at least once after returning stateside."
I think you have very little idea of how well people can function in society while using heroin, or what a small percentage become addicted through use.
http://www.painreliefnetwork.org/myths_ ... ction.html
I think you have very little idea of how well people can function in society while using heroin, or what a small percentage become addicted through use.
http://www.painreliefnetwork.org/myths_ ... ction.html
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
To go back a little bit, I thought the Cleveland report emphasized mainly the decriminalization of Marijuana and Ecstasy, as opposed to anything else, although the article was mainly brief and merely only expressed a few opinions that legalizing "drugs" was an alternative solution.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
spot;469839 wrote: 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?
I saw that post and I did not ignore it, and there are people in law enforcement and politics who believe that legalization (or de-criminialization more probably) are the only options in a losing fight against the scourge of hard drugs. I also know that there are also very many in similar positions who hold the contrary view, there are also hypocritical policians who snot coke and talk about the evils of drugs. I am not being simplistic, and I stated at the start that I experimented with drugs when I was younger and more foolish. I also know that more and more people are taking drugs and that this "war" on drugs is not being won, and I'm not sugeesting that I really know how to make this blight any better. I do honestly believe though that any government should do as much as it can to make such lethal choices as taking heronie harder to make, not more convinient simply because its difficult to stop people making very bad choices. Creating a more morally healthy and just society is a much bigger question that just legalizing or criminalizing drugs I know, but it is part of it. A well-off indivdual deciding to waste their life and wealth on heroin or vodka, or cocaine is a personal choice that makes their family and friends sad. A generation of teenagers in the same estate all taking heronie and robbing everyone in a 2 mile radius to pay for it is not the same thing. What I am basically saying that some drugs are just so pernicious in their effect on people and more importantly on the people around them that in truth I cannot agree with their legalization, I think thats an entirely reasonable and understanable sentiment.
I saw that post and I did not ignore it, and there are people in law enforcement and politics who believe that legalization (or de-criminialization more probably) are the only options in a losing fight against the scourge of hard drugs. I also know that there are also very many in similar positions who hold the contrary view, there are also hypocritical policians who snot coke and talk about the evils of drugs. I am not being simplistic, and I stated at the start that I experimented with drugs when I was younger and more foolish. I also know that more and more people are taking drugs and that this "war" on drugs is not being won, and I'm not sugeesting that I really know how to make this blight any better. I do honestly believe though that any government should do as much as it can to make such lethal choices as taking heronie harder to make, not more convinient simply because its difficult to stop people making very bad choices. Creating a more morally healthy and just society is a much bigger question that just legalizing or criminalizing drugs I know, but it is part of it. A well-off indivdual deciding to waste their life and wealth on heroin or vodka, or cocaine is a personal choice that makes their family and friends sad. A generation of teenagers in the same estate all taking heronie and robbing everyone in a 2 mile radius to pay for it is not the same thing. What I am basically saying that some drugs are just so pernicious in their effect on people and more importantly on the people around them that in truth I cannot agree with their legalization, I think thats an entirely reasonable and understanable sentiment.
"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
spot;469871 wrote: "Although 45% of U.S. soldiers in Viet Nam reported trying heroin, only 20% spent some time addicted and just 12% returned to heroin addiction once they got home. And this occurred despite the fact that 60% of those who had been addicted in Viet Nam used heroin at least once after returning stateside."
I think you have very little idea of how well people can function in society while using heroin, or what a small percentage become addicted through use.
http://www.painreliefnetwork.org/myths_ ... ction.html
Ha...
I live in a city bad for drugs...there is a murder every night here related to drugs.
I said this before, but the Dayton Daily news reported a man burned another man to death, while attempting to by drugs.
That happened two house down from the house I grew up in.
Storys can go both ways, if such is the case i'm afraid I don't have enough time to post all of what happens around here...it's enough to make you sick to your stomach.
I think you have very little idea of how well people can function in society while using heroin, or what a small percentage become addicted through use.
http://www.painreliefnetwork.org/myths_ ... ction.html
Ha...
I live in a city bad for drugs...there is a murder every night here related to drugs.
I said this before, but the Dayton Daily news reported a man burned another man to death, while attempting to by drugs.
That happened two house down from the house I grew up in.
Storys can go both ways, if such is the case i'm afraid I don't have enough time to post all of what happens around here...it's enough to make you sick to your stomach.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
CARLA;469867 wrote: Koan in case you missed this Spots response to my post.
Sweetie I make more sense than you will ever make with your endless self rightous posts that say nothing, over and over again. Go to bed its way past your bed time.If you actually respond to the question you might get on top of this after all, and I'd be delighted. Here it is again, still unaddressed:spot wrote: [QUOTE=CARLA]Simple if your abusing you couldn't obtain all you needed legally, just not going to happen. You would have to get the rest some other way. That would be your dealer who never went out of business.Why, Carla? The shop-bought product is the clean form of the current street-drug at, presumably, a lower price (I take that as likely, but I don't insist on it). Who or what's going to stop you getting "all you needed legally" from the shop? Just like alcoholics can get all the alcohol they want. I'm sure if you explain, it'll be a lot clearer.
Sweetie I make more sense than you will ever make with your endless self rightous posts that say nothing, over and over again. Go to bed its way past your bed time.If you actually respond to the question you might get on top of this after all, and I'd be delighted. Here it is again, still unaddressed:spot wrote: [QUOTE=CARLA]Simple if your abusing you couldn't obtain all you needed legally, just not going to happen. You would have to get the rest some other way. That would be your dealer who never went out of business.Why, Carla? The shop-bought product is the clean form of the current street-drug at, presumably, a lower price (I take that as likely, but I don't insist on it). Who or what's going to stop you getting "all you needed legally" from the shop? Just like alcoholics can get all the alcohol they want. I'm sure if you explain, it'll be a lot clearer.
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;469872 wrote: To go back a little bit, I thought the Cleveland report emphasized mainly the decriminalization of Marijuana and Ecstasy, as opposed to anything else, although the article was mainly brief and merely only expressed a few opinions that legalizing "drugs" was an alternative solution.All you need do is re-read it, they - the Chief Constables - are discussing legalization across the board to eliminate the overhead that keeps the police from dealing with real crime. Go back and check.
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;469873 wrote: I saw that post and I did not ignore it, and there are people in law enforcement and politics who believe that legalization (or de-criminialization more probably) are the only options in a losing fight against the scourge of hard drugs. I also know that there are also very many in similar positions who hold the contrary view, there are also hypocritical policians who snot coke and talk about the evils of drugs. I am not being simplistic, and I stated at the start that I experimented with drugs when I was younger and more foolish. I also know that more and more people are taking drugs and that this "war" on drugs is not being won, and I'm not sugeesting that I really know how to make this blight any better. I do honestly believe though that any government should do as much as it can to make such lethal choices as taking heronie harder to make, not more convinient simply because its difficult to stop people making very bad choices. Creating a more morally healthy and just society is a much bigger question that just legalizing or criminalizing drugs I know, but it is part of it. A well-off indivdual deciding to waste their life and wealth on heroin or vodka, or cocaine is a personal choice that makes their family and friends sad. A generation of teenagers in the same estate all taking heronie and robbing everyone in a 2 mile radius to pay for it is not the same thing. What I am basically saying that some drugs are just so pernicious in their effect on people and more importantly on the people around them that in truth I cannot agree with their legalization, I think thats an entirely reasonable and understanable sentiment.
That assumes that we can't educate people about the consequences of using it. Most the kids I know are less interested in using legal substances than those that are banned.
We could use that money to film people like the girl with gaping holes in her body, walking up and down Hastings St. Vancouver like an AIDS advert and play it for the school children. Why couldn't I make that film? No money. All they wanted was the beef on the porn dudes. Starnet. That's the only thing that money would pay for. Let's sort out our priorities and maybe we'll see a difference.
That assumes that we can't educate people about the consequences of using it. Most the kids I know are less interested in using legal substances than those that are banned.
We could use that money to film people like the girl with gaping holes in her body, walking up and down Hastings St. Vancouver like an AIDS advert and play it for the school children. Why couldn't I make that film? No money. All they wanted was the beef on the porn dudes. Starnet. That's the only thing that money would pay for. Let's sort out our priorities and maybe we'll see a difference.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
Bloody Hell I need some drugs can anyone sell me some. I gouged my eyes out that didn't help at all. :-5
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
SnoozeControl;469882 wrote: Spot and Koan, why do you two insist on endlessly pounding on certain threads like this? As Carla so succintly said to Koan:
What do you possibly think you're going to accomplish? You've had your say (many times over) on this subject, you've possibly managed to annoy an even larger audience than you did the other night and I think it's apparent at this point that you aren't going to change anyone's minds with your rhetoric.
So to reiterate: what do you think you're going to accomplish?
shall we go back and see what you've contributed to this thread?
talk about self righteous.
If your sole purpose in arriving here is to harass then you've got less interest in life than I supposed.
Perhaps you should help CARLA gouge her eyes out since she seems to have failed.
What do you possibly think you're going to accomplish? You've had your say (many times over) on this subject, you've possibly managed to annoy an even larger audience than you did the other night and I think it's apparent at this point that you aren't going to change anyone's minds with your rhetoric.
So to reiterate: what do you think you're going to accomplish?
shall we go back and see what you've contributed to this thread?
talk about self righteous.
If your sole purpose in arriving here is to harass then you've got less interest in life than I supposed.
Perhaps you should help CARLA gouge her eyes out since she seems to have failed.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
SnoozeControl;469882 wrote: Spot and Koan, why do you two insist on endlessly pounding on certain threads like this? As Carla so succintly said to Koan:
What do you possibly think you're going to accomplish? You've had your say (many times over) on this subject, you've possibly managed to annoy an even larger audience than you did the other night and I think it's apparent at this point that you aren't going to change anyone's minds with your rhetoric.
So to reiterate: what do you think you're going to accomplish?We're developing a thread, Snooze. We're bringing additional evidence into it as we proceed. We're developing our understanding of the problem as we do it. We're learning. I'm quite sure we're educating, though not (by the look of it) many of the thread participants. More people read this than write it. If I thought I was running out of additional material I'd stop. I'm not, so far.
To reverse the question, why are you here?
What do you possibly think you're going to accomplish? You've had your say (many times over) on this subject, you've possibly managed to annoy an even larger audience than you did the other night and I think it's apparent at this point that you aren't going to change anyone's minds with your rhetoric.
So to reiterate: what do you think you're going to accomplish?
We're developing a thread, Snooze. We're bringing additional evidence into it as we proceed. We're developing our understanding of the problem as we do it. We're learning. I'm quite sure we're educating, though not (by the look of it) many of the thread participants. More people read this than write it. If I thought I was running out of additional material I'd stop. I'm not, so far.To reverse the question, why are you here?
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;469885 wrote: Bloody Hell I need some drugs can anyone sell me some. I gouged my eyes out that didn't help at all. :-5And your answer to http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... tcount=271 is?
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
Later I have to self medicate right now. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE]And your answer to http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/sh...&postcount=271 is?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]And your answer to http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/sh...&postcount=271 is?[/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
Talk about predictable. All spot and I have to do is take an interest in a topic and four to six people show up to abuse us.
What the abusers fail to realise is how ridiculous they look.
Go convince yourselves that you are winning friends...if that's what makes you thrive.
In the meantime, I shall sleep quite soundly and amused.
What the abusers fail to realise is how ridiculous they look.
Go convince yourselves that you are winning friends...if that's what makes you thrive.
In the meantime, I shall sleep quite soundly and amused.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
CARLA;469891 wrote: Later I have to self medicate right now. :rolleyes:Figures.
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
But prohibition did not reduce the number of alcohol users.
What makes you conclude that prohibition is reducing the number of heroin users?
My point was that legalizing heroin is not going to stop its abuse, not that prohibition stops people from taking heroin, your just making it morally and legally acceptable to take it and get addicted with all the associated consequences, if your society is willing to pay the cost of such philosophical "freedom" fine, most are unwilling. The problem is not whether heroin is legal or not, the problem is that heroin is a pernicious drug that destorys lives and communities, and I simply don't accept that if you legalize it, sell it in shops, and hand out clean needles that the basic problem is going to go away, its just going to be more convienient to access heroin. That is not a desirable outcome.
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.
Handing out syringes is simply a firefighting tactic to stop people getting infected from dirty needles, it is beneficial in the short term of course but again you are simply controlling the basic problem not solving it. In terms of the causes of substance abuse I will put it this way, in the 1970s you could count the number of heroin addicts in Ireland in double digits, but there was plenty of drunks and glue sniffers, and pep pill poppers, and so forth. Then in the early 80s there was a glut of the stuff in Britain so some bright spark in the British criminal community decided that it would be cost effective in the long term to dump the stuff in Dublin in the poorest neighbourhoods virtually free, 12 months later you had thousands of heroin addicts in Dublin and a crime situation that went out of control. It was very simple, you make heroin freely available, inevitably some unfortunate or foolish people have a go at it, you create a community of additcts, a market that encouranges increased supplies, more addicts, more crime, more deprevation, more breeding grounds for nihilitistic youths to experiemnt in destorying themselves, and so on and so forth.
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.
By that logic we shouldn't bother having laws against murder then, because as far as I am aware its illegal and yet people still go out and kill each other, its a policy of despair, you can use law enforcement to disrupt supply to some extent, police and communities can work together to disrupt street trading, society in general can form better education and principals to guide people into better lives, and you can also use social policy and medical care to dea with the problems casued by abuse, they are not mutually exclusive strategies.
What makes you conclude that prohibition is reducing the number of heroin users?
My point was that legalizing heroin is not going to stop its abuse, not that prohibition stops people from taking heroin, your just making it morally and legally acceptable to take it and get addicted with all the associated consequences, if your society is willing to pay the cost of such philosophical "freedom" fine, most are unwilling. The problem is not whether heroin is legal or not, the problem is that heroin is a pernicious drug that destorys lives and communities, and I simply don't accept that if you legalize it, sell it in shops, and hand out clean needles that the basic problem is going to go away, its just going to be more convienient to access heroin. That is not a desirable outcome.
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.
Handing out syringes is simply a firefighting tactic to stop people getting infected from dirty needles, it is beneficial in the short term of course but again you are simply controlling the basic problem not solving it. In terms of the causes of substance abuse I will put it this way, in the 1970s you could count the number of heroin addicts in Ireland in double digits, but there was plenty of drunks and glue sniffers, and pep pill poppers, and so forth. Then in the early 80s there was a glut of the stuff in Britain so some bright spark in the British criminal community decided that it would be cost effective in the long term to dump the stuff in Dublin in the poorest neighbourhoods virtually free, 12 months later you had thousands of heroin addicts in Dublin and a crime situation that went out of control. It was very simple, you make heroin freely available, inevitably some unfortunate or foolish people have a go at it, you create a community of additcts, a market that encouranges increased supplies, more addicts, more crime, more deprevation, more breeding grounds for nihilitistic youths to experiemnt in destorying themselves, and so on and so forth.
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.
By that logic we shouldn't bother having laws against murder then, because as far as I am aware its illegal and yet people still go out and kill each other, its a policy of despair, you can use law enforcement to disrupt supply to some extent, police and communities can work together to disrupt street trading, society in general can form better education and principals to guide people into better lives, and you can also use social policy and medical care to dea with the problems casued by abuse, they are not mutually exclusive strategies.
"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
spot;469860 wrote: Not in my book it won't. Legalized drugs means exactly that - what's on the streets now, in pure unadulterated clean form, at a price which provides the corporations and the shops with a profit instead of the drug barons and the street dealers.
Yep, and people are buying "clean" over the counter harmless medicines, and turning them into what is ever increasingly proving to be one of the worst drugs mankind has ever witnessed...it's called methamphetamine.
Yep, and people are buying "clean" over the counter harmless medicines, and turning them into what is ever increasingly proving to be one of the worst drugs mankind has ever witnessed...it's called methamphetamine.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
Diuretic;469913 wrote: Scary stuff - and even in my little backwater we're turning over a lab or two a week. I don't have a problem with criminalising the production of methamphetamine at all. The cooks should be banged up for years and years as should anyone else involved in its production.
Right, and such instances would increase do to the legalization of drugs, simply because by them being legal their market value would make them alot cheaper to attain.
Right, and such instances would increase do to the legalization of drugs, simply because by them being legal their market value would make them alot cheaper to attain.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
Galbally;469907 wrote: But prohibition did not reduce the number of alcohol users.
What makes you conclude that prohibition is reducing the number of heroin users?
My point was that legalizing heroin is not going to stop its abuse, not that prohibition stops people from taking heroin, your just making it morally and legally acceptable to take it and get addicted with all the associated consequences, if your society is willing to pay the cost of such philosophical "freedom" fine, most are unwilling. The problem is not whether heroin is legal or not, the problem is that heroin is a pernicious drug that destorys lives and communities, and I simply don't accept that if you legalize it, sell it in shops, and hand out clean needles that the basic problem is going to go away, its just going to be more convienient to access heroin. That is not a desirable outcome.
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.
Handing out syringes is simply a firefighting tactic to stop people getting infected from dirty needles, it is beneficial in the short term of course but again you are simply controlling the basic problem not solving it. In terms of the causes of substance abuse I will put it this way, in the 1970s you could count the number of heroin addicts in Ireland in double digits, but there was plenty of drunks and glue sniffers, and pep pill poppers, and so forth. Then in the early 80s there was a glut of the stuff in Britain so some bright spark in the British criminal community decided that it would be cost effective in the long term to dump the stuff in Dublin in the poorest neighbourhoods virtually free, 12 months later you had thousands of heroin addicts in Dublin and a crime situation that went out of control. It was very simple, you make heroin freely available, inevitably some unfortunate or foolish people have a go at it, you create a community of additcts, a market that encouranges increased supplies, more addicts, more crime, more deprevation, more breeding grounds for nihilitistic youths to experiemnt in destorying themselves, and so on and so forth.
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.
By that logic we shouldn't bother having laws against murder then, because as far as I am aware its illegal and yet people still go out and kill each other, its a policy of despair, you can use law enforcement to disrupt supply to some extent, police and communities can work together to disrupt street trading, society in general can form better education and principals to guide people into better lives, and you can also use social policy and medical care to dea with the problems casued by abuse, they are not mutually exclusive strategies.
Hard drugs haven't cornered the market on murder. One of my close friends in highschool changed her last name because her father committed a highly publicised murder. He got drunk and set his girlfriend on fire in her bed. One of her children died in the blaze as well. Her father was an alcoholic and not a drug user.
As to availability issues, I grew up in a small town and went to an even smaller town to party almost every weekend. Despite alcohol being easier to get, we rarely drank but we did drugs every weekend increasing to during the week as well. I never bought drugs from an adult. I didn't meet an adult dealer until I was an adult myself, so I've never bought drugs from an adult. All the dealers were teenagers. The older teens went to their supplier, usually in Toronto and brought back sheets of acid, whatever other drugs they were dealing with and ran the local markets in both towns. As we got older, one of the boys I went to school with started getting a little cocky. He was also a local DJ and he was becoming the main hard drug supplier. Two years after I left to go to college that boy was disappeared. As far as I know they never found his body.
Getting tougher with the drug laws would not stop any of that from happening. In the case of who is dealing, it would get worse. Minors get off easier if they are caught. That is why they are recruited.
What makes you conclude that prohibition is reducing the number of heroin users?
My point was that legalizing heroin is not going to stop its abuse, not that prohibition stops people from taking heroin, your just making it morally and legally acceptable to take it and get addicted with all the associated consequences, if your society is willing to pay the cost of such philosophical "freedom" fine, most are unwilling. The problem is not whether heroin is legal or not, the problem is that heroin is a pernicious drug that destorys lives and communities, and I simply don't accept that if you legalize it, sell it in shops, and hand out clean needles that the basic problem is going to go away, its just going to be more convienient to access heroin. That is not a desirable outcome.
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.
Handing out syringes is simply a firefighting tactic to stop people getting infected from dirty needles, it is beneficial in the short term of course but again you are simply controlling the basic problem not solving it. In terms of the causes of substance abuse I will put it this way, in the 1970s you could count the number of heroin addicts in Ireland in double digits, but there was plenty of drunks and glue sniffers, and pep pill poppers, and so forth. Then in the early 80s there was a glut of the stuff in Britain so some bright spark in the British criminal community decided that it would be cost effective in the long term to dump the stuff in Dublin in the poorest neighbourhoods virtually free, 12 months later you had thousands of heroin addicts in Dublin and a crime situation that went out of control. It was very simple, you make heroin freely available, inevitably some unfortunate or foolish people have a go at it, you create a community of additcts, a market that encouranges increased supplies, more addicts, more crime, more deprevation, more breeding grounds for nihilitistic youths to experiemnt in destorying themselves, and so on and so forth.
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.
By that logic we shouldn't bother having laws against murder then, because as far as I am aware its illegal and yet people still go out and kill each other, its a policy of despair, you can use law enforcement to disrupt supply to some extent, police and communities can work together to disrupt street trading, society in general can form better education and principals to guide people into better lives, and you can also use social policy and medical care to dea with the problems casued by abuse, they are not mutually exclusive strategies.
Hard drugs haven't cornered the market on murder. One of my close friends in highschool changed her last name because her father committed a highly publicised murder. He got drunk and set his girlfriend on fire in her bed. One of her children died in the blaze as well. Her father was an alcoholic and not a drug user.
As to availability issues, I grew up in a small town and went to an even smaller town to party almost every weekend. Despite alcohol being easier to get, we rarely drank but we did drugs every weekend increasing to during the week as well. I never bought drugs from an adult. I didn't meet an adult dealer until I was an adult myself, so I've never bought drugs from an adult. All the dealers were teenagers. The older teens went to their supplier, usually in Toronto and brought back sheets of acid, whatever other drugs they were dealing with and ran the local markets in both towns. As we got older, one of the boys I went to school with started getting a little cocky. He was also a local DJ and he was becoming the main hard drug supplier. Two years after I left to go to college that boy was disappeared. As far as I know they never found his body.
Getting tougher with the drug laws would not stop any of that from happening. In the case of who is dealing, it would get worse. Minors get off easier if they are caught. That is why they are recruited.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
Keith W;469623 wrote: OK I will probably get chewed out for this but I have had enough, I will try and keep my responce as cleans as possible.
I will now give you my professional opinion of you Koan.
You are a self righteous, full of male cow excrement, class a masturbater.
Your right and everyone else is wrong, yeah right
Only your opinion counts and everyones else's doesn't.
I mean how do you clean your teeth in the morning? I mean with your head stuck up you rear end and all?
Stop spouting male cow excrement will ya
Or better still do your self and the world a favor and pull your bottom lip over your head and swallow.
********************************
Apologies, Koan excepted, that I have offended by this post, I have just had enough of Koan bull
I don't have a response to this, I just thought it so good, it beared repeating.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I stopped reading the thread after this point. It's quite aerobic, going round and round.
Shoot me, but I think adults are responsible for their own actions. It's not up to the government to protect me from myself, or you (collective, meaning anyone) from yourself. That includes protecting people from the supreme stupidity of hard drug abuse. It's just not the government's job!
I will now give you my professional opinion of you Koan.
You are a self righteous, full of male cow excrement, class a masturbater.
Your right and everyone else is wrong, yeah right
Only your opinion counts and everyones else's doesn't.
I mean how do you clean your teeth in the morning? I mean with your head stuck up you rear end and all?
Stop spouting male cow excrement will ya
Or better still do your self and the world a favor and pull your bottom lip over your head and swallow.
********************************
Apologies, Koan excepted, that I have offended by this post, I have just had enough of Koan bull
I don't have a response to this, I just thought it so good, it beared repeating.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I stopped reading the thread after this point. It's quite aerobic, going round and round.
Shoot me, but I think adults are responsible for their own actions. It's not up to the government to protect me from myself, or you (collective, meaning anyone) from yourself. That includes protecting people from the supreme stupidity of hard drug abuse. It's just not the government's job!
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
Firstly I though long and hard about getting reinvolved in this thread as its not been a very pleasant one, and I don't enjoy these threads where people get personal and vindictive (though no one has been nasty to me here). But I just want to answer some of your points koan.
Hard drugs haven't cornered the market on murder. One of my close friends in highschool changed her last name because her father committed a highly publicised murder. He got drunk and set his girlfriend on fire in her bed. One of her children died in the blaze as well. Her father was an alcoholic and not a drug user.
Yes, my point earlier was precisely that: Alcohol is by far the most serious social drug-related problem we have and its probibition or free availability doesn't alter the fact that many many such cases involve drinking. These endless and tragic cases underlines the fact that as a general rule, any drugs that affect people's judgement and actions like alcohol or heroin are, in principal, things that are potentially very harmful, and I don't think that a "lassire faire" approach to any of these issues is the correct one at all. I completely understand the issue that many people have, in that they see these things as personal choice issues, (which they are), but I strongly believe that society is perfectly within its rights to have legal and ethical guidelines on how such things should be dealt with, as its both sensible and also morally right. That doesn't (by extension) mean that I think that all governemnts should try and regulate everything we do, or stop us from taking all recreational substances as it is impossible to do so, and some drugs that are currently illegal could in my opinion be legalized. But, on issues like again heroin in particular I think that legalizing it is not actualy an empowering thing, its simply taking a well-meant principal of freedom of personal choice too far. You have to take these things on a case-by-case basis, I think that having a system where people were allowed to make any personal ife choices they wanted (as long as they didn't impact others) is a understanable idea, but is just doesn't work in practice because things like taking heroin hugely impact upon other people as well as destroy the lives of those addicted and legalizing it simply isn't right.
As to availability issues, I grew up in a small town and went to an even smaller town to party almost every weekend. Despite alcohol being easier to get, we rarely drank but we did drugs every weekend increasing to during the week as well. I never bought drugs from an adult. I didn't meet an adult dealer until I was an adult myself, so I've never bought drugs from an adult. All the dealers were teenagers. The older teens went to their supplier, usually in Toronto and brought back sheets of acid, whatever other drugs they were dealing with and ran the local markets in both towns. As we got older, one of the boys I went to school with started getting a little cocky. He was also a local DJ and he was becoming the main hard drug supplier. Two years after I left to go to college that boy was disappeared. As far as I know they never found his body.
Yes and where I live very similar things have happened, and I know people who's laives have been destoryed by drugs, alcohol, and criminality so I know personally of some bad stuff that I am not going to go into, but you are talking about acid and dope which are not heroin, as I am assumming that your circle when you were younger were not taking heroin, though maybe some are now. Look, I am not a pious moralist saying that we should prohibit all recreational drugs, but your sort of blanket approach to legalizing everything is the reverse of those who hear the word "drugs" and think that someone smoking dope is the same as someone addicted to heroin. You can absolutely differentiate these things because they are qualitatively different. I think there is a stong case for legalizing cannabis, (depsite the fact that I don't think its as harmless as people claim), but again its a case by case thing involving all the aspects of the use of recreational drugs including the pyscology and culture of our societies where so many people take such substances for whatever reason. We do have a society with hypocritical values to taking dugs, I know that, but just because some people are reactionary about taking cannabis or mushrooms; that doesn't mean that you can't make a convincing case for saying some drugs should definetly not be legalized as they are too detrimental both to addicts and society. If there is a price to be paid for that in that some people will continue to take them, and criminals will profit then so be it, thats the harsh reality of life. Sometimes you have to take a hard line on things because there isn't any better option, you would argue against that in terms of heroin and I would simply disagree with you.
Getting tougher with the drug laws would not stop any of that from happening. In the case of who is dealing, it would get worse. Minors get off easier if they are caught. That is why they are recruited.
I think if we had a more pragmatic approach to drugs in general it would be better all round, its not a black and white issue, and it also differs between different countries, but still within that approach I personally would still not legalize things like crack cocaine and heroin for the resons that I have pointed out earlier, I don't understand why you cant at least admit that I have a pretty valid argument to make here, you know what heroin does to people and so do I, would you really want a situation where an 18 year old girl or boy could go into a shop and buy it legally, go home and get smacked up on it?
I don't know how much more argument there is to make on these issues as most people's positions appear to be pretty fixed, and most of the stuff here isn't actually about the issues just people having a go at each other, but I think we should debate these things without reverting to the very abusive comments and hyperbole, I don't wana continue on this thread if it stays like that as I don't enjoy that kinda stuff and it just depresses me.
Hard drugs haven't cornered the market on murder. One of my close friends in highschool changed her last name because her father committed a highly publicised murder. He got drunk and set his girlfriend on fire in her bed. One of her children died in the blaze as well. Her father was an alcoholic and not a drug user.
Yes, my point earlier was precisely that: Alcohol is by far the most serious social drug-related problem we have and its probibition or free availability doesn't alter the fact that many many such cases involve drinking. These endless and tragic cases underlines the fact that as a general rule, any drugs that affect people's judgement and actions like alcohol or heroin are, in principal, things that are potentially very harmful, and I don't think that a "lassire faire" approach to any of these issues is the correct one at all. I completely understand the issue that many people have, in that they see these things as personal choice issues, (which they are), but I strongly believe that society is perfectly within its rights to have legal and ethical guidelines on how such things should be dealt with, as its both sensible and also morally right. That doesn't (by extension) mean that I think that all governemnts should try and regulate everything we do, or stop us from taking all recreational substances as it is impossible to do so, and some drugs that are currently illegal could in my opinion be legalized. But, on issues like again heroin in particular I think that legalizing it is not actualy an empowering thing, its simply taking a well-meant principal of freedom of personal choice too far. You have to take these things on a case-by-case basis, I think that having a system where people were allowed to make any personal ife choices they wanted (as long as they didn't impact others) is a understanable idea, but is just doesn't work in practice because things like taking heroin hugely impact upon other people as well as destroy the lives of those addicted and legalizing it simply isn't right.
As to availability issues, I grew up in a small town and went to an even smaller town to party almost every weekend. Despite alcohol being easier to get, we rarely drank but we did drugs every weekend increasing to during the week as well. I never bought drugs from an adult. I didn't meet an adult dealer until I was an adult myself, so I've never bought drugs from an adult. All the dealers were teenagers. The older teens went to their supplier, usually in Toronto and brought back sheets of acid, whatever other drugs they were dealing with and ran the local markets in both towns. As we got older, one of the boys I went to school with started getting a little cocky. He was also a local DJ and he was becoming the main hard drug supplier. Two years after I left to go to college that boy was disappeared. As far as I know they never found his body.
Yes and where I live very similar things have happened, and I know people who's laives have been destoryed by drugs, alcohol, and criminality so I know personally of some bad stuff that I am not going to go into, but you are talking about acid and dope which are not heroin, as I am assumming that your circle when you were younger were not taking heroin, though maybe some are now. Look, I am not a pious moralist saying that we should prohibit all recreational drugs, but your sort of blanket approach to legalizing everything is the reverse of those who hear the word "drugs" and think that someone smoking dope is the same as someone addicted to heroin. You can absolutely differentiate these things because they are qualitatively different. I think there is a stong case for legalizing cannabis, (depsite the fact that I don't think its as harmless as people claim), but again its a case by case thing involving all the aspects of the use of recreational drugs including the pyscology and culture of our societies where so many people take such substances for whatever reason. We do have a society with hypocritical values to taking dugs, I know that, but just because some people are reactionary about taking cannabis or mushrooms; that doesn't mean that you can't make a convincing case for saying some drugs should definetly not be legalized as they are too detrimental both to addicts and society. If there is a price to be paid for that in that some people will continue to take them, and criminals will profit then so be it, thats the harsh reality of life. Sometimes you have to take a hard line on things because there isn't any better option, you would argue against that in terms of heroin and I would simply disagree with you.
Getting tougher with the drug laws would not stop any of that from happening. In the case of who is dealing, it would get worse. Minors get off easier if they are caught. That is why they are recruited.
I think if we had a more pragmatic approach to drugs in general it would be better all round, its not a black and white issue, and it also differs between different countries, but still within that approach I personally would still not legalize things like crack cocaine and heroin for the resons that I have pointed out earlier, I don't understand why you cant at least admit that I have a pretty valid argument to make here, you know what heroin does to people and so do I, would you really want a situation where an 18 year old girl or boy could go into a shop and buy it legally, go home and get smacked up on it?
I don't know how much more argument there is to make on these issues as most people's positions appear to be pretty fixed, and most of the stuff here isn't actually about the issues just people having a go at each other, but I think we should debate these things without reverting to the very abusive comments and hyperbole, I don't wana continue on this thread if it stays like that as I don't enjoy that kinda stuff and it just depresses me.
"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
Keith W - That is a horrific way to address another member of this forum & i hope it has been reported 
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
Not to mention the amount of robberies that would skyrocket as a result of legalizing drugs. If someone is willing to blow away a clerk for $300 dollars, just think of what would happen if stores started carrying crack cocaine and heroin.
Yes, yes, you argue that upon the drugs being legalized no one would have to resort to crime because they can afford it, and that's where I disagree. No drug, in my opinion, fueled by an addiction is affordable to anyone, because it is just that, an addiction. It doesn't stop, and when they run out, they will resort to the same crimes to get more, only the spread would be significantly higher. I just don't see that as being an alternative, and I don't see it realistically happening anytime in the near future.
Yes, yes, you argue that upon the drugs being legalized no one would have to resort to crime because they can afford it, and that's where I disagree. No drug, in my opinion, fueled by an addiction is affordable to anyone, because it is just that, an addiction. It doesn't stop, and when they run out, they will resort to the same crimes to get more, only the spread would be significantly higher. I just don't see that as being an alternative, and I don't see it realistically happening anytime in the near future.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
Some of my friends are hooked on crack or heroin(I don't really know what their status is now, because I don't associate with them anymore, and all of them have served prison time(They may still be in prison) because they didn't have a job to support their addictions. One shot someone while robbing a house, one robbed a check cashing corner store(Was on disability because he wrecked his car and his leg had been chopped off -- so this even further increases my doubt that making drugs affordable will decrease crime, because he was receiving money from the government), others robbed more houses, and one of my best friends wrecked his truck while under the influence of crack cocaine rendering him in a comma for three months. It's just wicked sh*t, and I don't trust people who use the stuff one bit, not even my old friends.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
Diuretic;469616 wrote: You're quite right but what relevance does that have to the discussion?
Just that if drugs were to be legalized it would increase the probability of that happening, that's all.
Just that if drugs were to be legalized it would increase the probability of that happening, that's all.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
Diuretic;469621 wrote: Bad batch just like a bad batch of moonshine as opposed to a bottle of Jim Beam.
So criminalize alcohol,..I have already stated that it's quite obvious that the majority of people who abuse alcohol are not responsible about it...We all know about that, and I don't understand where you are going with this, as if all I am doing is being antagonistic.
So criminalize alcohol,..I have already stated that it's quite obvious that the majority of people who abuse alcohol are not responsible about it...We all know about that, and I don't understand where you are going with this, as if all I am doing is being antagonistic.
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.
How about these facts then?
Methamphetamine is derived from current legal substances and is relatively cheap in comparison to other drugs, yet there has been a steady increase of it's use, not only in inner city metropolitan, but in higher income housing in suburbs across America. Methamphetamine is proving to be one of the deadliest drugs seen by mankind, yet it's derived from clean substances, and highly addictive.
It seems that you are only interested in the facts that heighten your own argument. Not once have you responded to anything I've said about methamphetamine, and it's obvious reflection on why it is bad to legalize man made chemically enhanced mind altering drugs.
Methamphetamine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Methamphetamine (sometimes referred to as methyl amphetamine or desoxyephedrine) is a psychostimulant drug used primarily for recreational purposes, but is sometimes prescribed for ADHD and narcolepsy under the brand name Desoxyn. It causes euphoria and excitement by acting directly on the brain's reward mechanisms, thus making it highly addictive. Methamphetamine rapidly enters the brain and causes a cascading release of norepinephrine and dopamine (and to a lesser extent, serotonin). Users may become obsessed or perform repetitive tasks such as cleaning, hand-washing or assembling and disassembling objects.[2] Withdrawal is characterized by increased sleeping and eating, and depression-like symptoms, often accompanied by anxiety and drug-craving.
Availability and names
In the U.S., illicit methamphetamine comes in a variety of forms, with an average price of $150 per gram of pure substance. Most commonly it is found as a colorless crystalline solid, sold on the street under the name crystal meth and a variety of other names. It is also sold as a less pure crystalline powder called crank, or in crystalline rock form. Colourful flavored pills containing methamphetamine and caffeine are known as yaba (Thai for "crazy medicine"). At its most impure, it is sold as a crumbly brown or off-white rock commonly referred to as "peanut butter crank". Methamphetamine found on the street is rarely pure, but adulterated with chemicals that were used to synthesize it. It may be diluted or "cut" with non-psychoactive substances like inositol. It may also be cut with other psychoactive substances, but the reverse is presumably more common due to its low price relative to other common drugs.
Low price because it's easy to attain.
The 1960s saw the start of the significant use of clandestine manufacture to supply methamphetamine. Prior to 1983, U.S. laws prohibiting the possession of precursors and equipment for methamphetamine production were not yet in place. The recreational use of Levoamphetamine sky-rocketed in the 1980s. The December 2, 1989 edition of The Economist described San Diego, California as the "methamphetamine capital of North America."
In 1986, the U.S. government passed the Federal Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act in an attempt to combat the growing use of designer drugs. In spite of this, its use expanded throughout the rural United States, especially in the Midwest and South. Growth of methamphetamine use continues into the 21st century, and many states are considering tougher legislation.
Methamphetamines weren't apart of the United States until around 1951, yet you say that by decriminalizing it will reduce the overall use and affects of the drug. This is obviously an inaccurate assumption considering that there was no law against all of these drugs that have been recently discovered, yet they dramatically increased...why?...because of availability and addiction.
Prohibition aims to limit drugs' availability while at the same time limits the amount of exposure it gives to people in general.
If you can't put two and two together, then I'm afraid I am just waisting my time.
As for your ego, and your "I take back the comment about you having added any fact to the thread, then", obviously you need to be led to your water to drink.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine
Until the early 1990s, methamphetamine for the US market was made mostly in clandestine labs run by drug traffickers in Mexico and California. These areas are still the largest producers for the U.S. market. Since then, however, authorities have discovered increasing numbers of small-scale methamphetamine labs all over the United States, mostly located in rural, suburban, or low-income areas.
As for your continuing questioning about my observation that most crimes and drug related problem are adjacent to peoples of low income life styles I will let those facts speak for themselves.
A cheap, and I reiterate, legal source is continuing to be developed into one of the most destructive drugs known to the new world, and while large scale organizations may be credited with it's origination, relatively small groups are ever increasingly taking the making of methamphetamines in their own hands. Regulate? Regulate what?...
A wide variety of groups are involved in the distribution of methamphetamine, from the aforementioned prison gangs and motorcycle gangs to street gangs, traditional organized crime operations, and impromptu small networks made up of users. The government of North Korea has been linked to the manufacture and distribution of crystal meth, and allegedly plays a role in distribution networks throughout Asia as well as those in Australia and even in North America [14]. Regardless, meth trafficking is not exclusively dominated by cartels along the lines of Colombian cocaine cartels or Pakistani heroin cartels.
Sell your own kids crack, Heroin and Meth -- I won't, and I won't allow it if theres anything I can do about it.
How about these facts then?
Methamphetamine is derived from current legal substances and is relatively cheap in comparison to other drugs, yet there has been a steady increase of it's use, not only in inner city metropolitan, but in higher income housing in suburbs across America. Methamphetamine is proving to be one of the deadliest drugs seen by mankind, yet it's derived from clean substances, and highly addictive.
It seems that you are only interested in the facts that heighten your own argument. Not once have you responded to anything I've said about methamphetamine, and it's obvious reflection on why it is bad to legalize man made chemically enhanced mind altering drugs.
Methamphetamine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Methamphetamine (sometimes referred to as methyl amphetamine or desoxyephedrine) is a psychostimulant drug used primarily for recreational purposes, but is sometimes prescribed for ADHD and narcolepsy under the brand name Desoxyn. It causes euphoria and excitement by acting directly on the brain's reward mechanisms, thus making it highly addictive. Methamphetamine rapidly enters the brain and causes a cascading release of norepinephrine and dopamine (and to a lesser extent, serotonin). Users may become obsessed or perform repetitive tasks such as cleaning, hand-washing or assembling and disassembling objects.[2] Withdrawal is characterized by increased sleeping and eating, and depression-like symptoms, often accompanied by anxiety and drug-craving.
Availability and names
In the U.S., illicit methamphetamine comes in a variety of forms, with an average price of $150 per gram of pure substance. Most commonly it is found as a colorless crystalline solid, sold on the street under the name crystal meth and a variety of other names. It is also sold as a less pure crystalline powder called crank, or in crystalline rock form. Colourful flavored pills containing methamphetamine and caffeine are known as yaba (Thai for "crazy medicine"). At its most impure, it is sold as a crumbly brown or off-white rock commonly referred to as "peanut butter crank". Methamphetamine found on the street is rarely pure, but adulterated with chemicals that were used to synthesize it. It may be diluted or "cut" with non-psychoactive substances like inositol. It may also be cut with other psychoactive substances, but the reverse is presumably more common due to its low price relative to other common drugs.
Low price because it's easy to attain.
The 1960s saw the start of the significant use of clandestine manufacture to supply methamphetamine. Prior to 1983, U.S. laws prohibiting the possession of precursors and equipment for methamphetamine production were not yet in place. The recreational use of Levoamphetamine sky-rocketed in the 1980s. The December 2, 1989 edition of The Economist described San Diego, California as the "methamphetamine capital of North America."
In 1986, the U.S. government passed the Federal Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act in an attempt to combat the growing use of designer drugs. In spite of this, its use expanded throughout the rural United States, especially in the Midwest and South. Growth of methamphetamine use continues into the 21st century, and many states are considering tougher legislation.
Methamphetamines weren't apart of the United States until around 1951, yet you say that by decriminalizing it will reduce the overall use and affects of the drug. This is obviously an inaccurate assumption considering that there was no law against all of these drugs that have been recently discovered, yet they dramatically increased...why?...because of availability and addiction.
Prohibition aims to limit drugs' availability while at the same time limits the amount of exposure it gives to people in general.
If you can't put two and two together, then I'm afraid I am just waisting my time.
As for your ego, and your "I take back the comment about you having added any fact to the thread, then", obviously you need to be led to your water to drink.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine
Until the early 1990s, methamphetamine for the US market was made mostly in clandestine labs run by drug traffickers in Mexico and California. These areas are still the largest producers for the U.S. market. Since then, however, authorities have discovered increasing numbers of small-scale methamphetamine labs all over the United States, mostly located in rural, suburban, or low-income areas.
As for your continuing questioning about my observation that most crimes and drug related problem are adjacent to peoples of low income life styles I will let those facts speak for themselves.
A cheap, and I reiterate, legal source is continuing to be developed into one of the most destructive drugs known to the new world, and while large scale organizations may be credited with it's origination, relatively small groups are ever increasingly taking the making of methamphetamines in their own hands. Regulate? Regulate what?...
A wide variety of groups are involved in the distribution of methamphetamine, from the aforementioned prison gangs and motorcycle gangs to street gangs, traditional organized crime operations, and impromptu small networks made up of users. The government of North Korea has been linked to the manufacture and distribution of crystal meth, and allegedly plays a role in distribution networks throughout Asia as well as those in Australia and even in North America [14]. Regardless, meth trafficking is not exclusively dominated by cartels along the lines of Colombian cocaine cartels or Pakistani heroin cartels.
Sell your own kids crack, Heroin and Meth -- I won't, and I won't allow it if theres anything I can do about it.
The uk spends £44 thou a year on each junkie
Diuretic;470703 wrote:
On the topic at hand I'm still very much in favour of regulation of many recreational substances together with educational programmes which should start early in anyone's life but I also agree that some substances have no redeeming qualities and should be prohibited and use deterred and certainly production heavily punished.
And I think that would be reasonable, only for people who are already addicted to such substances, but the fact of the matter is legalizing drugs would increase the amount of users, and in my opinion that is a step in the wrong direction. There will always be that become addicted to the drug, and making it readily available is only going to make that statistic worse. My point about methamphetamines proves that, in that people are taking legal drugs and turning them into highly addictive mind and personality altering drugs, from nothing more than simple medicine. That alone should tell you how much of a drive and determination these people have to get high, and they don't want anyone trying to stop them. I don't know about what it's like in the U.K. but here in America, legalizing drugs would be the equivalent to blowing an already bleeding wound wide open with a freakin 12 gauge shotgun.
Diuretic;470703 wrote:
I suppose at this stage I'm arguing that cannabis should be legalised but regulated like alcohol while at the other end of the scale I can see no value in methamphetamine. We should shift our efforts from cannabis enforcement to meth enforcement (and any other substances which make it to that end of the spectrum for me).
I agree with you. I don't think marijuana is that much of a concern, although I am concerned about it being a gateway drug, but that dives into something that cannot be proven considering you would need the testimony of all hard core drug users to admit to that, at the same time if marijuana were to be overwhelmingly considered a "gateway drug", then I would find no difference between that and alcohol.
But in any case, if the legalization of alot of hard core drugs were to be something strenuously contemplated, then I see marijuana acting as a test for that to happen, and think this is a mistake, mainly because marijuana cannot be categorized even remotely close to that of Crack, Meth, Heroin.
On the topic at hand I'm still very much in favour of regulation of many recreational substances together with educational programmes which should start early in anyone's life but I also agree that some substances have no redeeming qualities and should be prohibited and use deterred and certainly production heavily punished.
And I think that would be reasonable, only for people who are already addicted to such substances, but the fact of the matter is legalizing drugs would increase the amount of users, and in my opinion that is a step in the wrong direction. There will always be that become addicted to the drug, and making it readily available is only going to make that statistic worse. My point about methamphetamines proves that, in that people are taking legal drugs and turning them into highly addictive mind and personality altering drugs, from nothing more than simple medicine. That alone should tell you how much of a drive and determination these people have to get high, and they don't want anyone trying to stop them. I don't know about what it's like in the U.K. but here in America, legalizing drugs would be the equivalent to blowing an already bleeding wound wide open with a freakin 12 gauge shotgun.
Diuretic;470703 wrote:
I suppose at this stage I'm arguing that cannabis should be legalised but regulated like alcohol while at the other end of the scale I can see no value in methamphetamine. We should shift our efforts from cannabis enforcement to meth enforcement (and any other substances which make it to that end of the spectrum for me).
I agree with you. I don't think marijuana is that much of a concern, although I am concerned about it being a gateway drug, but that dives into something that cannot be proven considering you would need the testimony of all hard core drug users to admit to that, at the same time if marijuana were to be overwhelmingly considered a "gateway drug", then I would find no difference between that and alcohol.
But in any case, if the legalization of alot of hard core drugs were to be something strenuously contemplated, then I see marijuana acting as a test for that to happen, and think this is a mistake, mainly because marijuana cannot be categorized even remotely close to that of Crack, Meth, Heroin.