A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
Yay! I now see why why lonewolf stays out of political discussions - it upsets us to disagree with people we like, even though that is the essence of friendship (being able to disagree without taking it personally!) I'm going to have some C-O-K-E now!
Yay! I now see why why lonewolf stays out of political discussions - it upsets us to disagree with people we like, even though that is the essence of friendship (being able to disagree without taking it personally!) I'm going to have some C-O-K-E now!
jazzcyclist wrote:I have to admit that I'm kind of surprised at you and Blues. I figured you folks would object to the way our criminal justice system treats drug offenders, and the devasting impact that drug sentencing laws have had on poor Black communities.
I completely object; Prohibition is possible without mass incarceration of Black and Brown youth. This conversation seems, I could have missed the off-ramp, to have shifted more to "use" not "sale" so I can see how my views have confused you. But, there are higher priorities in Black and Brown communities than the redaction of drug enforcement laws. The high school graduation rate of less than 50% nationwide would be first on my list (I would make dropping out illegal...if I were the king) and though I'm not trying to draw a correlation between out-of-wedlock births and any possible negative effects on the community at large (trying to keep the politics to a minimum), if that were brought up I wouldn't object.
Blues wrote:As a health professional and as one who worked for several years in a huge state psychiatric institution (where the chief of psychiatry and others strongly believed that the disproportionate number of young adults in the institution was primarily due to their abuse of recreational drugs and the harmful effect on brain neurotransmitters that the chronic drug use caused), I'm inclined to agree with most of what Marlow has stated in this discussion.
It's easy to skewer Marlow, but in this case, I lean more his way too. Let the "libertarians" and the "anarchists" nit-pick his words, I put more faith in his observations from teaching and coaching teenagers for the last 100 years (teenagers coming from the best of homes, mind you) than from some of the posters.
I have to admit that I'm kind of surprised at you and Blues. I figured you folks would object to the way our criminal justice system treats drug offenders, and the devasting impact that drug sentencing laws have had on poor Black communities.
That's a crock of baloney Jazz... Because some of us may disagree with particular solutions doesn't mean we don't recognize or acknowledge the problems.
Just as I'm not ready to give in and make all PED's legal because the system isn't 100% successful in deterring the cheaters, I'm not ready to give in and make all recreational drugs legal because of inadequacies of the current drug control system. I don't think the solution is to make dangerous habit forming drugs legal and widely available, but rather to do more to try to correct the social issues that lead so many to become habitual users or that are responsible for the problems or inequality of the current system. The reform of marijuana laws is a different issue and I'm not including that discussion here.
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner. Well said, Blues.
Blues wrote:That's a crock of baloney Jazz... Because some of us may disagree with particular solutions doesn't mean we don't recognize or acknowledge the problems.
Just as I'm not ready to give in and make all PED's legal because the system isn't 100% successful in deterring the cheaters, I'm not ready to give in and make all recreational drugs legal because of inadequacies of the current drug control system. I don't think the solution is to make dangerous habit forming drugs legal and widely available, but rather to do more to try to correct the social issues that lead so many to become habitual users or that are responsible for the problems or inequality of the current system. The reform of marijuana laws is a different issue and I'm not including that discussion here.
It sounds like you want to repeal prohition for marijuana but keep it in place for everything else. Is that correct? If so, how would you prevent people involved with the other kinds of drugs from getting caught up with the criminal justice system and how would you combat drug related violence?
My belief is that the vast majority of young people who want to do drugs are already doing them, and the increase in drug use would be marginal if drugs were decriminalized. Furthermore, I wouldn't make drugs as available as alcohol and tobacco, which can be bought at every street corner convenience store where I live, just available enough to take away the incentive/profit motive of street dealers. In many states, hard liquor is only sold at certain state-run liquor stores that could be located many miles apart. That's convenient enough to discourage bootleggers but often too inconvenient for people without cars.
SQUACKEE wrote:I think you still have crime problem even if make heroin cheap, because the heroin user cant work at all and has no money but a huge habit.
This may be true, but it is also true that alcohol impoverished and drove to despair multiple times the number of all opiate users combined.
SQUACKEE wrote:I think you still have crime problem even if make heroin cheap, because the heroin user cant work at all and has no money but a huge habit.
That's why I would keep the hard stuff illegal. Where I would draw the line is whether or not most users of a drug are functional. Most alcohol, tobacco and marijuana users are functional. Hell, our two Presidents were cocaine users when they were young and turned out all right. I don't know much about heroin, but my sense is that most users aren't functional. I still think we should aggressively discourage the use of these things, and the fact that tobacco use has steadily declined over the last 50 years proves that education does work.
EDIT: Also, the stereotypical alcoholics that I've seen over the years who can't hold a steady job still possess the wherewithall to hustle a couple of bucks doing odd jobs to get their next cheap bottle of wine.
SQUACKEE wrote:I think you still have crime problem even if make heroin cheap, because the heroin user cant work at all and has no money but a huge habit.
This may be true, but it is also true that alcohol impoverished and drove to despair multiple times the number of all opiate users combined.
So we are fucked, basically, and left with the lesser of two evils? Which I am ok with, never did buy into Utopia
SQUACKEE wrote:I think you still have crime problem even if make heroin cheap, because the heroin user cant work at all and has no money but a huge habit.
This may be true, but it is also true that alcohol impoverished and drove to despair multiple times the number of all opiate users combined.
Not only that but the crime involved with users is on the light side compared to the violence and mayhem of drug cartels.
And besides a lot of alcoholics don't work and need a bottle of booze, and may commit some crime but nothing like the violence of the Capone and the North Side mobs in Prohibition Chicago.
Conor Dary wrote:...And besides a lot of alcoholics don't work and need a bottle of booze, and may commit some crime but nothing like the violence of the Capone and the North Side mobs in Prohibition Chicago.
It appears that you haven't been following the discussion; that points been covered - and explained. In a nutshell: if the prohibition had never been instituted, bootleggers would have never existed for alcohol.
Conor Dary wrote:And besides a lot of alcoholics don't work and need a bottle of booze, and may commit some crime but nothing like the violence of the Capone and the North Side mobs in Prohibition Chicago.
??!! Capone and the Chicago mobs are puddles compared to the oceans of misery that alcohol has perpetuated upon the world.
[I get that Prohibition failed and that our culture is inextricably intertwined with the consumption of alcohol, so don't make me start all over again - I GET the other side!]
Conor Dary wrote:And besides a lot of alcoholics don't work and need a bottle of booze, and may commit some crime but nothing like the violence of the Capone and the North Side mobs in Prohibition Chicago.
??!! Capone and the Chicago mobs are puddles compared to the oceans of misery that alcohol has perpetuated upon the world.
Well, yea, I suppose we could find some alternate universe where alcohol never existed. But we have this world and it is called reality.
Conor Dary wrote:...And besides a lot of alcoholics don't work and need a bottle of booze, and may commit some crime but nothing like the violence of the Capone and the North Side mobs in Prohibition Chicago.
It appears that you haven't been following the discussion; that points been covered - and explained. In a nutshell: if the prohibition had never been instituted, bootleggers would have never existed for alcohol.
7sided let us get this straight right off the top. Your points mean zero to me. I ignore everything you write. So don't respond to mine. Just go to hell. Is that clear?
SQUACKEE wrote:I think you still have crime problem even if make heroin cheap, because the heroin user cant work at all and has no money but a huge habit.
This may be true, but it is also true that alcohol impoverished and drove to despair multiple times the number of all opiate users combined.
So we are fucked, basically, and left with the lesser of two evils? Which I am ok with, never did buy into Utopia
Are you (and all those east coast creatures) surviving Sandy? Evidently you still have power, it is lame to use computers by candlelight.
Conor Dary wrote:...And besides a lot of alcoholics don't work and need a bottle of booze, and may commit some crime but nothing like the violence of the Capone and the North Side mobs in Prohibition Chicago.
It appears that you haven't been following the discussion; that points been covered - and explained. In a nutshell: if the prohibition had never been instituted, bootleggers would have never existed for alcohol.
Exactly! Before Prohibition, there were no boitleggers and after Prohibition,the bottleggers disappeared.
Conor Dary wrote:...And besides a lot of alcoholics don't work and need a bottle of booze, and may commit some crime but nothing like the violence of the Capone and the North Side mobs in Prohibition Chicago.
It appears that you haven't been following the discussion; that points been covered - and explained. In a nutshell: if the prohibition had never been instituted, bootleggers would have never existed for alcohol.
7sided let us get this straight right off the top. Your points mean zero to me. I ignore everything you write. So don't respond to mine. Just go to hell. Is that clear?
Conor Dary wrote:Right. It is not like you have to open the thread or like gh put it, as I just noticed rereading the above, that there will put some false leader like "Free Prizes!!' to get you there. There are some threads, and posters, I completely avoid.
Anyway, I'm flattered by your patronage. Please feel free to tell a friend.
Last edited by preston on Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
Conor Dary wrote:...And besides a lot of alcoholics don't work and need a bottle of booze, and may commit some crime but nothing like the violence of the Capone and the North Side mobs in Prohibition Chicago.
It appears that you haven't been following the discussion; that points been covered - and explained. In a nutshell: if the prohibition had never been instituted, bootleggers would have never existed for alcohol.
Exactly! Before Prohibition, there were no boitleggers and after Prohibition,the bottleggers disappeared.
I have a 25-year old bottle of my Slovak brother-in-law's moonshine plum brandy (sliwowitz). My guess is that it is at least 150 proof, perhaps more . It has no blue tinge against the light (markings of methylalcohol), so I probably won't go blind as yet .
SQUACKEE wrote:I think you still have crime problem even if make heroin cheap, because the heroin user cant work at all and has no money but a huge habit.
I read a very long article once (i think it was in Vanity Fair) about highly functional professional Heroin addicts who worked on Wall St. I'm not advocating it but you can very well manage a smack habit if you have to money to do so
SQUACKEE wrote:I think you still have crime problem even if make heroin cheap, because the heroin user cant work at all and has no money but a huge habit.
I read a very long article once (i think it was in Vanity Fair) about highly functional professional Heroin addicts who worked on Wall St. I'm not advocating it but you can very well manage a smack habit if you have to money to do so
You can say the same about gambling (another vice?). It's all fun and games until someone runs out of money, though.
SQUACKEE wrote:I think you still have crime problem even if make heroin cheap, because the heroin user cant work at all and has no money but a huge habit.
I read a very long article once (i think it was in Vanity Fair) about highly functional professional Heroin addicts who worked on Wall St. I'm not advocating it but you can very well manage a smack habit if you have to money to do so
Among the heroin-using population, I'm going to go out on the limb and guess that these "functional" heroin addicts are outliers.
Pego wrote:I know that civilized society needs to draw reasonable lines of acceptable conduct. I simply do not believe that our drug laws are reasonable. I think we argue more about where to draw the line rather that the principle. That is definitely debatable and IMHO solvable.
Agreed. To solve this, step one - and really the only major step - would be to put marijuana on the same legal standing (manufacturing & purchasing requirements/sale locations/driving penalties/etc.) as alcohol.
Pego wrote:I know that civilized society needs to draw reasonable lines of acceptable conduct. I simply do not believe that our drug laws are reasonable. I think we argue more about where to draw the line rather that the principle. That is definitely debatable and IMHO solvable.
Agreed. To solve this, step one - and really the only major step - would be to put marijuana on the same legal standing (manufacturing & purchasing requirements/sale locations/driving penalties/etc.) as alcohol.
Here's a related excerpt from an article I read today.
A negative stereotype that is unfortunately easy to confirm: the French smoke like chimneys. I may have mentioned it earlier on this blog, but the most shocking thing to me is how when it comes to smoking, France is a “Mad Men” world. It’s like the 1964 Surgeon General’s Report has never been translated. We’re staying near the Sorbonne, in a part of the city that hosts lots of students, so perhaps what we see on the street in our everyday life is unusual, re: rates of smoking. But I don’t think so. And it’s not at all unusual to see 12 year olds with cigarettes. Today at Versailles, we passed a group of schoolkids on a field trip. The kids looked to be about 13. Some of them were following their teacher, smoking away. Nobody cares here.
I do think I mentioned earlier that an American friend living here told me that one major difference between US and French societies today is that smoking has become a class marker in the US, but it is by no means so here in France. That seems clear to me too, at the end of our time here. Our six year old daughter asked me the other day why so many people smoke here, and I told her that it was just like this in our own country when I was her age. I told Julie later that it must seem incredibly strange to my own parents, who have been smoking since they were teenagers, to see how everything changed around them regarding smoking.
Actually, based on my observations, Europeans in general smoke like chimneys, not just the French. But my main point is that through education, it is possible to make things uncool to young people, which is all it would take keep the them from getting hooked on drugs in a society where drugs are legal.
SQUACKEE wrote:I think you still have crime problem even if make heroin cheap, because the heroin user cant work at all and has no money but a huge habit.
I read a very long article once (i think it was in Vanity Fair) about highly functional professional Heroin addicts who worked on Wall St. I'm not advocating it but you can very well manage a smack habit if you have to money to do so
I'd be curious to know just how long they could successfully "manage" their smack habits... Because of the phenomenon of tolerance with narcotics (where chronic use requires higher and higher doses to cause the same effect), the habit would get more and more expensive as time went on, quite possibly becoming unaffordable at some point. The risk of an overdose occurring would be a possibility too, especially since drug strength wouldn't always be predictable... And I'd hate to see them if they were ever unable to obtain the stuff for some reason and had to miss a few doses...
SQUACKEE wrote:I think you still have crime problem even if make heroin cheap, because the heroin user cant work at all and has no money but a huge habit.
I read a very long article once (i think it was in Vanity Fair) about highly functional professional Heroin addicts who worked on Wall St. I'm not advocating it but you can very well manage a smack habit if you have to money to do so
I'd be curious to know just how long they could successfully "manage" their smack habits... Because of the phenomenon of tolerance with narcotics (where chronic use requires higher and higher doses to cause the same effect), the habit would get more and more expensive as time went on, quite possibly becoming unaffordable at some point. The risk of an overdose occurring would be a possibility too, especially since drug strength wouldn't always be predictable... And I'd hate to see them if they were ever unable to obtain the stuff for some reason and had to miss a few doses...
Agreed on all accounts. Heroin withdrawal sure ain't pretty. Of the ones I have seen, this would be my order of magnitude.
1. Alcohol 2. Heroin 3. Tie between short-acting barbiturates and short-acting benzodiazapines.
I find myself largely agreeing with Marlow's posts on this thread....
I was only drunk twice in my life, and both times as a university student. I felt so ill the day after, that I've never felt the urge to drink too much again. I might have a glass of rum and coke, or a Red Stripe beer, once a month, and that's it. I smoked a cigarette once or twice in Uni, and never felt the urge to do so again.
And yet, when I speak to folks here in England, the assumption is that just because I come from Jamaica, I have smoked ganja/marijuana. However, I must say the prospect of smoking anything - ganja or otherwise - never appealed to me, even when I went to parties and saw others doing it.
But should some drugs remain criminalised, while others aren't? There is a case of double-standards here, that I just can't argue with justification....
shivfan wrote: But should some drugs remain criminalised, while others aren't? There is a case of double-standards here, that I just can't argue with justification....
If all recreational drugs had the exact same degree of risk involved with usage, I might be inclined to agree.. But the adverse effects and risks of addiction vary greatly among the various substances involved, which is why some are deemed safe enough (at least on a per capita usage basis) to be legally used without medical supervision, and others aren't. I'd never be in favor of legalizing hard drugs with high degrees of abuse, addiction, or overdose potential, or that posed other serious health risks, and if we go the other way and say that the sale of alcohol or tobacco should be prohibited too, I'd like to see how many votes a politician running on that platform would get... Unfortunately it's hard go backwards and take things away, but it's better than making things worse to avoid the appearance of a possible double standard...
On a side note since the Prohibition era has been mentioned previously in the thread, I seriously wonder if the bootleg related crime during prohibition would have been as severe if people hadn't been legally permitted to purchase alcohol before prohibition... There were already many legal users when Prohibition took effect, and they could no longer legally purchase their recreational drug of choice. And since prohibition outlawed the manufacture, transportation, and sale but not the consumption of alcohol, I also wonder if the fact that consumption was still legally permitted resulted in a higher demand for illegal suppliers during the era..
Unlike a few others in the thread, I really believe that if a drug is made legal to purchase and consume, significantly more people will be willing to try it or use it (and not just because they don't have to worry about being arrested).. I don't think education is the answer to preventing significant problems if habit forming drugs are legalized either.. Education has decreased the rate of tobacco usage, but when we consider the severity of the health risks involved and the astronomical healthcare costs to all of us resulting from tobacco related diseases, it's still amazing how many people still choose to use tobacco on a regular basis, despite all the attempts to educate regarding the risks... The rate of abuse of legally available alcohol provides a similar example. And as we know, when one is under the effects of many of these drugs it's not always possible to make safe or intelligent decisions, so I think the problems and risks involved if they were made legal would definitely exceed the benefits.
Blues, I think I'm on the same page with you for the most part. I would draw the line at drugs that have a high propensity for addiction and abuse and I'm pretty sure that percentage of heroin abusers/addicts among heroin users is much, much higher than the percentage of alcohol abusers/alcoholics among alcohol users. I also see no problem with double standards about the way different drugs are regulated. The government has double standards with in other areas, so I don't see why drug regulation should be immune. For example, the government allows us to buy small weapons such as rifles, shotguns, pistols and revolvers on demand, but heavy weapons such as bazookas, RGS's and mortars as well as fully-automatic weapons are forbidden.
Blues wrote: Unlike a few others in the thread, I really believe that if a drug is made legal to purchase and consume, significantly more people will be willing to try it or use it (and not just because they don't have to worry about being arrested).. I don't think education is the answer to preventing significant problems if habit forming drugs are legalized either...
Our one real world example proves the opposite...
Ten years ago, Portugal decriminalized all drugs. One decade after this unprecedented experiment, drug abuse is down by half...
.
. It has no blue tinge against the light (markings of methylalcohol), so I probably won't go blind as yet 
.
