the war on drugs


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Pego » Sat Oct 27, 2012 6:26 am

SQUACKEE wrote:
Marlow wrote:Which brings me to my (not-so-secret) revelation to prove ONCE AND FOR ALL (as if I needed to) that I'm stark raving mad: yes, I'm all for destroying all alcoholic and tobacco products forever! Not even kidding. So yes, I've lost the major debate in this regard also.


If you agree with me, that legalizing Meth and Heroin ect. WILL lead to more use of these deadly drugs, then it is problematic to do so. IMO not so much that people will die, if you're hell bent on killing yourself with drugs no one can stop you, but druggies steal and rob, or worse, to support their habit and when they do, it is now, MY business. Some may suggest giving druggies their drugs free to advert crime. That would lead to the government creating and supporting a bunch of Zombies, which I am against.


If pot cigarettes were sold next to the tobacco products, they would be no more expensive than standard cigarettes (majority of the price being the tax). Amphetamine and cocaine production is also not very expensive, nor are the opiate products (the same as poppy seeds). You just gave another very good argument for the legalization.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: the war on drugs

Postby SQUACKEE » Sat Oct 27, 2012 6:32 am

Pego wrote:
SQUACKEE wrote:
Marlow wrote:Which brings me to my (not-so-secret) revelation to prove ONCE AND FOR ALL (as if I needed to) that I'm stark raving mad: yes, I'm all for destroying all alcoholic and tobacco products forever! Not even kidding. So yes, I've lost the major debate in this regard also.


If you agree with me, that legalizing Meth and Heroin ect. WILL lead to more use of these deadly drugs, then it is problematic to do so. IMO not so much that people will die, if you're hell bent on killing yourself with drugs no one can stop you, but druggies steal and rob, or worse, to support their habit and when they do, it is now, MY business. Some may suggest giving druggies their drugs free to advert crime. That would lead to the government creating and supporting a bunch of Zombies, which I am against.


If pot cigarettes were sold next to the tobacco products, they would be no more expensive than standard cigarettes (majority of the price being the tax). Amphetamine and cocaine production is also not very expensive, nor are the opiate products (the same as poppy seeds). You just gave another very good argument for the legalization.


So we would be able to provide meth and heroin legal and cheap? Does that lead to more or less addicts, that's what I fear. I cant be for something that makes more zombies.I may be wrong. :D
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Pego » Sat Oct 27, 2012 6:43 am

It is possible that there could be a few more "zombies" but not likely. There was no spike in number of users when the Netherlands legalized it. There also would be more funds available for prevention and treatment (sales tax and savings from enforcement and incarceration).
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: the war on drugs

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Oct 27, 2012 6:45 am

SQUACKEE wrote:If you agree with me, that legalizing Meth and Heroin ect. WILL lead to more use of these deadly drugs, then it is problematic to do so. IMO not so much that people will die, if you're hell bent on killing yourself with drugs no one can stop you, but druggies steal and rob, or worse, to support their habit and when they do, it is now, MY business.

I don't know about that. The main reason why drug addicts steel and rob is because of the lack of affordability and availibility. You don't hear stories about alcoholics and smokers stealing and robbing. My belief is that if drugs were legalized, the increased use would be greatly offset by the elimination of drug related crime and the unburdening of our criminal justice system. Taxpayers would have to spend less money incarcerating people and the government would be able to tap another revenue stream, so it's a win-win situation. Those are the main reasons why Prohibition was repealed.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Marlow » Sat Oct 27, 2012 6:48 am

SQUACKEE wrote:So we would be able to provide meth and heroin legal and cheap? Does that lead to more or less addicts?

That's the crux of the matter. If you can walk into any drug store ( :wink: ) and buy cocaine, heroin, PCP, Ecstasy, Meth, etc. over the counter, I believe will have MANY more drug-related problems than we do now. I'm guessing Pego says, no, we won't. My answer seems intuitive AND obvious AND logical, but I guess Pego would say the same. Stalemate.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21135
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Pego » Sat Oct 27, 2012 7:06 am

Marlow wrote:
SQUACKEE wrote:So we would be able to provide meth and heroin legal and cheap? Does that lead to more or less addicts?

That's the crux of the matter. If you can walk into any drug store ( :wink: ) and buy cocaine, heroin, PCP, Ecstasy, Meth, etc. over the counter, I believe will have MANY more drug-related problems than we do now. I'm guessing Pego says, no, we won't. My answer seems intuitive AND obvious AND logical, but I guess Pego would say the same. Stalemate.


The only difference is that your response is "I believe", "intuitive", i.e. a speculation (neither "obvious", nor "logical"), while mine is based on a Dutch experience (see my previous post, I did not say an authoritative NO, I said unlikely).
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: the war on drugs

Postby SQUACKEE » Sat Oct 27, 2012 7:15 am

Pego wrote:
Marlow wrote:
SQUACKEE wrote:So we would be able to provide meth and heroin legal and cheap? Does that lead to more or less addicts?

That's the crux of the matter. If you can walk into any drug store ( :wink: ) and buy cocaine, heroin, PCP, Ecstasy, Meth, etc. over the counter, I believe will have MANY more drug-related problems than we do now. I'm guessing Pego says, no, we won't. My answer seems intuitive AND obvious AND logical, but I guess Pego would say the same. Stalemate.


The only difference is that your response is "I believe", "intuitive", i.e. a speculation (neither "obvious", nor "logical"), while mine is based on a Dutch experience (see my previous post, I did not say an authoritative NO, I said unlikely).


I thought the Dutch experiment went south? If pego is correct, then I am all for legalization as I am pro-drugs mostly, except the truly evil ones. :wink:

Anything can be abused and I wonder what the death rate is on junk foods-Marlow, too much sugar and fat leading to diabetes and heart disease? We have already started making them illegal- see trans fat and super sized soft drinks.
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Re: the war on drugs

Postby bambam » Sat Oct 27, 2012 8:32 am

Pego wrote:It is possible that there could be a few more "zombies" but not likely. There was no spike in number of users when the Netherlands legalized it. There also would be more funds available for prevention and treatment (sales tax and savings from enforcement and incarceration).


Pego is right that the Netherlands is the best argument for legalizing some drugs. When my wife flew for TWA she went into a small shop and asked a Coke, and they rolled out a line for her. She did not use it.
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Conor Dary » Sat Oct 27, 2012 8:47 am

When I was in Nepal back in the 70's during my Peace Corps days the drug scene was pretty open. Pot plants grew wild everywhere. Restaurants in Kathmandu had 'No Hashish Smoking' signs. And it didn't seem like that big of a deal, except for the spaced-out foreigners hanging around Phewa Tal (Lake) in Pokhara.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Marlow » Sat Oct 27, 2012 12:05 pm

Pego wrote:mine is based on a Dutch experience (see my previous post, I did not say an authoritative NO, I said unlikely).


The Dutch?! Been there, seen that. Cannabis is also against the law there and harder drugs moreso.

wiki wrote:The drug policy of the Netherlands officially has four major objectives:
To prevent recreational drug use and to treat and rehabilitate recreational drug users.
To reduce harm to users.
To diminish public nuisance by drug users (the disturbance of public order and safety in the neighbourhood).
To combat the production and trafficking of recreational drugs.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21135
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: the war on drugs

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Oct 27, 2012 12:21 pm

Marlow wrote:
Pego wrote:mine is based on a Dutch experience (see my previous post, I did not say an authoritative NO, I said unlikely).


The Dutch?! Been there, seen that. Cannabis is also against the law there and harder drugs moreso.

wiki wrote:The drug policy of the Netherlands officially has four major objectives:
To prevent recreational drug use and to treat and rehabilitate recreational drug users.
To reduce harm to users.
To diminish public nuisance by drug users (the disturbance of public order and safety in the neighbourhood).
To combat the production and trafficking of recreational drugs.

I guess their policy with drugs is similar to our policy with tobacco. The government does all sorts of things to discourage people from smoking cigarettes, but it still taxes tobacco and strictly controls its production and distibution.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Pego » Sat Oct 27, 2012 1:29 pm

My point was that contrary to your "intuitive" claim, loosening drug laws does not cause a spike in use. The Dutch have by far the most liberal drug laws in EU. That is a fact, whether you've been there or not. Here is a paragraph from Wiki comparing the drug users numbers.

In the Netherlands 9.5% of young adults (aged 15–34) consume soft drugs once a month, comparable to the level of Finland (8%), Latvia (9,7%) and Norway (9.6%) and less than in the UK (13.8%), Germany (11,9%), Czech Republic (19,3%), Denmark (13,3%), Spain (18.8%), France (16,7%), Slovakia (14,7%) and Italy (20,9%) but higher than in Bulgaria (4,4%), Sweden (4,8%), Poland (5,3%) or Greece (3,2%).[27][28] The monthly prevalence of drugs other than cannabis among young people (15-24) was 4% in 2004, that was above the average (3%) of 15 compared countries in EU. However, seemingly few transcend to becoming problem drug users (0.30%), well below the average (0.52%) of the same compared countries.[28]
The reported number of deaths linked to the use of drugs in the Netherlands, as a proportion of the entire population, is together with Poland, France, Slovakia, Hungary and the Czech Republic the lowest of the EU.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Marlow » Sat Oct 27, 2012 1:37 pm

Pego wrote:loosening drug laws does not cause a spike in use.

The Dutch have always been soft on drugs, so when they loosened the laws, of course there was no change. In the USA a loosening of the law (notice that even they have laws against its use) would begin usher in a great change in usage as many more young people would experiment with its use as older people publically role modeled it use. Is that what you really want?
Marlow
 
Posts: 21135
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: the war on drugs

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Oct 27, 2012 2:33 pm

Marlow wrote:
Pego wrote:loosening drug laws does not cause a spike in use.

The Dutch have always been soft on drugs, so when they loosened the laws, of course there was no change. In the USA a loosening of the law (notice that even they have laws against its use) would begin usher in a great change in usage as many more young people would experiment with its use as older people publically role modeled it use. Is that what you really want?

Young people who want to experiment with drugs aren't restrained by fear of the law. Middle-aged people who are married with children and good jobs might be restrained by drug laws, but not young people. My guess is that young people in college settings are no more restrained by drug laws than the general polulation is by speeding laws.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Marlow » Sat Oct 27, 2012 2:35 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:Young people who want to experiment with drugs aren't restrained by fear of the law.

Your post, your view. Certainly not my experience.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21135
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: the war on drugs

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Oct 27, 2012 2:45 pm

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:Young people who want to experiment with drugs aren't restrained by fear of the law.

Your post, your view. Certainly not my experience.

When you were a young man, serving in the Navy and going through college, I would venture to guess that you were in settings where drugs were prevalent and easily accessible on many occasions, perhaps even at parties where people were doing them right in front of you. Be honest, was fear of being arrested the reason you didn't take a hit? Like you I've never done drugs, not even weed, but fear of the law was never the thing holding me back on those occasions where folks were doing drugs right in front of me.

EDIT: At worst case, there would be a marginal increase in drug use if they were legalized, but IMO that downside would be far, far, far outweighed by the upside of elimination of drug related crimes, unburdening the criminal justice system and increasing tax revenues.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Pego » Sat Oct 27, 2012 2:53 pm

Marlow wrote: In the USA a loosening of the law would begin usher in a great change in usage as many more young people would experiment with its use


And you know this how?
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: the war on drugs

Postby SQUACKEE » Sat Oct 27, 2012 2:56 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:Young people who want to experiment with drugs aren't restrained by fear of the law.

Your post, your view. Certainly not my experience.

When you were a young man, serving in the Navy and going through college, I would venture to guess that you were in settings where drugs were prevalent and easily accessible on many occasions, perhaps even at parties where people were doing them right in front of you. Be honest, was fear of being arrested the reason you didn't take a hit? Like you I've never done drugs, not even weed, but fear of the law was never the thing holding me back on those occasions where folks were doing drugs right in front of me.


It is true that fear of the law is almost non-existent in stopping drug use, that is a fact and I like facts! My only concern is to not encourage more use of horribly destructive drugs by making them cheap and legal, should I be called a mad man? :D
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Re: the war on drugs

Postby SQUACKEE » Sat Oct 27, 2012 3:00 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
EDIT: At worst case, there would be a marginal increase in drug use if they were legalized, but IMO that downside would be far, far, far outweighed by the upside of elimination of drug related crimes, unburdening the criminal justice system and increasing tax revenues.


To quote pego, you know this how?
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Re: the war on drugs

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Oct 27, 2012 3:07 pm

SQUACKEE wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
EDIT: At worst case, there would be a marginal increase in drug use if they were legalized, but IMO that downside would be far, far, far outweighed by the upside of elimination of drug related crimes, unburdening the criminal justice system and increasing tax revenues.


To quote pego, you know this how?

Nobody KNOWS these things. All any of us can do is offer specualtion and conjecture based on history; in particular American alcohol consumption trends and Prohibition, tobacco use trends and Dutch drug use trends and its legalization in the Netherlands.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Marlow » Sat Oct 27, 2012 3:13 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:When you were a young man, serving in the Navy and going through college, I would venture to guess that you were in settings where drugs were prevalent and easily accessible on many occasions, perhaps even at parties where people were doing them right in front of you. Be honest, was fear of being arrested the reason you didn't take a hit? Like you I've never done drugs, not even weed, but fear of the law was never the thing holding me back on those occasions where folks were doing drugs right in front of me.
EDIT: At worst case, there would be a marginal increase in drug use if they were legalized, but IMO that downside would be far, far, far outweighed by the upside of elimination of drug related crimes, unburdening the criminal justice system and increasing tax revenues.


I went to college at Drug Central in 1969 and then was commissioned in the Navy as Viet Nam waned (another Drug Paradise). In both milieux, drugs were considered pandemic, which in actual fact meant that about 15-20% of the populations were 'regular' (every week) druggies. I was friends with many of them (despite my growing disapproval, as I saw its effects), but the VAST majority of people I knew, even just in passing, where NOT into drugs. And yes, many simply weren't interested, but as we talked about the usage, virtually all said the same thing: they were not worth the consequences of being busted. I had no interest in them, but most of my non-using friends were definitely fascinated with the 'rush' or 'mellow' they were hearing about. The stakes were simply too high to experiment more than once or twice and then breathe a heavy sigh of relief that they were not caught, resulting in not trying it again.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21135
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Marlow » Sat Oct 27, 2012 3:15 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:Nobody KNOWS these things.

Precisely! We are are giving opinions based on our own Nature and Nurture. My experiences have irrevocably driven me to my views today. Others' experiences differ. C'est la vie.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21135
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Pego » Sat Oct 27, 2012 3:34 pm

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:Nobody KNOWS these things.

Precisely! We are are giving opinions based on our own Nature and Nurture. My experiences have irrevocably driven me to my views today. Others' experiences differ. C'est la vie.


I'll say my last piece, 2 points.

In your long response to jazzcyclist you list reasons why you did not succumb to the drug culture. Fear of the law is not one of them, which has been our position all along.

No, our differences are not based on "Nature and Nurture." We have evidence from a long history of different kinds of prohibitions, while yours is based on your deep dislike of drugs by your own declaration a few posts earlier when you declared you would burn all alcohol and tobacco products. You are entitled to your passion, but it is just your passion nonetheless.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: the war on drugs

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Oct 27, 2012 4:00 pm

Marlow wrote:I went to college at Drug Central in 1969 and then was commissioned in the Navy as Viet Nam waned (another Drug Paradise). In both milieux, drugs were considered pandemic, which in actual fact meant that about 15-20% of the populations were 'regular' (every week) druggies. I was friends with many of them (despite my growing disapproval, as I saw its effects), but the VAST majority of people I knew, even just in passing, where NOT into drugs. And yes, many simply weren't interested, but as we talked about the usage, virtually all said the same thing: they were not worth the consequences of being busted. I had no interest in them, but most of my non-using friends were definitely fascinated with the 'rush' or 'mellow' they were hearing about. The stakes were simply too high to experiment more than once or twice and then breathe a heavy sigh of relief that they were not caught, resulting in not trying it again.

You're obfuscating Marlow.

1) Were the folks who mentioned fear of getting busted at Stanford or in the Navy?

2) Was fear of getting busted the primary reason you didn't try drugs at Stanford or were you like me, a person who refused to be bullied by peer pressure and saw no point in taking on a vice that would potentially bring very bad consequences?

3) If there were friends of yours who you claim were "fascinated with the 'rush' or 'mellow' they were hearing about" but afraid of the legal consequences of doing drugs, why did they all "experiment once or twice"?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Marlow » Sat Oct 27, 2012 5:28 pm

Pego wrote:You are entitled to your passion, but it is just your passion nonetheless.

The fact that you previously said you were 'offended' by something I said means that you too take it personally. I see zero difference between the two of us; we're just on opposite sides of the same coin.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21135
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Marlow » Sat Oct 27, 2012 5:31 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:You're obfuscating Marlow.
1) Were the folks who mentioned fear of getting busted at Stanford or in the Navy?
2) Was fear of getting busted the primary reason you didn't try drugs at Stanford or were you like me, a person who refused to be bullied by peer pressure and saw no point in taking on a vice that would potentially bring very bad consequences?
3) If there were friends of yours who you claim were "fascinated with the 'rush' or 'mellow' they were hearing about" but afraid of the legal consequences of doing drugs, why did they all "experiment once or twice"?

1) Both
2) The latter - we were 'afraid' of the consequences. The potential price was too high.
3) Same reason Odysseus wanted to hear the Sirens' song.

I eschew obfuscation . . . :wink:
Marlow
 
Posts: 21135
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: the war on drugs

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Oct 27, 2012 6:36 pm

Marlow wrote: I see zero difference between the two of us; we're just on opposite sides of the same coin.

That's the way I see it too. Marlow, by his own admission, opposes the libertarian philosophy of governance in favor of the nanny-state model which means that historical evidence and statistics regarding Prohibition and the Netherlands aren't needed for him to defend his point of view. I respect the fact that he admits that he's a nanny-stater a whole lot more than folks who want to control or eliminate the vices that adults can legally indulge while at the same time claiming to be small-government, laissez-faire conservatives.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Marlow » Sat Oct 27, 2012 7:05 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:which means that historical evidence and statistics regarding Prohibition and the Netherlands aren't needed for him to defend his point of view.

Prohibition failed because alcohol consumption was grandfathered into our culture. Drug use isn't (yet). Historical evidence is just that, historical. It's predictive properties are highly suspect.
And yes, I am very much a Nanny-stater for one simple reason: too many people have PROVEN their inability to make good choices, and by that I do not mean the choices I want them to make, I mean the choices that don't tend to ruin themselves and those around them.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21135
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: the war on drugs

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Oct 27, 2012 7:45 pm

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:which means that historical evidence and statistics regarding Prohibition and the Netherlands aren't needed for him to defend his point of view.

Prohibition failed because alcohol consumption was grandfathered into our culture. Drug use isn't (yet).

But remember that cigarettes have always been legal in this country too, and yet cigarette use among Americans has steadily declined over the last 50 years, and there are fewer teenage smokers per capita today than at any point in our lifetimes. That's because as soon as people began to realize that cigarettes were bad for you, and the government began to agressively educate the American people on their downside, young became increasingly reluctant to take up this vice, and cigarette smoking was no longer the cool thing to do. This proves that through education, people can be discouraged from trying new vices even when they're legal.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: the war on drugs

Postby El Toro » Sat Oct 27, 2012 9:41 pm

It's not just the Netherlands. Portugal decriminalised possession and use a decade ago, allowing them to address the real issue in a less fraught environment. Doesn't seem to create a magic environment with unicorns grazing but certainly hasn't created the downfall of civilisation.

US article
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news ... al-addicts

Some interesting Australian analysis of the Portuguese situation looking at both sides of the argument. http://www.dpmp.unsw.edu.au/DPMPWeb.nsf ... HUGHES.pdf
El Toro
 
Posts: 903
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: the war on drugs

Postby mump boy » Sun Oct 28, 2012 1:52 am

Marlow wrote:
Pego wrote:Your analogy is preposterous and borders on offensive. I am done here.

I am vehemently against anything that 'enables' people to hurt others - (


Drugs don't enable people to hurt others, they may be a contributing factor in some cases but it isn't the drugs that hurt people and in the case of most recreational drugs it is the opposite

Recreational drugs are in many cases a contributing factor to people getting on with each other.

In the uk in the 80's we had massive problems with Football Hooliganism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_h ... ed_Kingdom

After the Heysel Stadium disaster in '85 when liverpool fans went on the rampage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xI9R1zhIl6c

our football clubs were banned from European competition

Fuelled by alcohol and club rivalry there wasn't a weekend that went by without people being injured and killed in the riots.

Eventually alcohol was banned in stadiums and everyone searched before they went in, so fans started taking ecstasy instead !! No more riots people were too busy being happy and loving each other.

The influence of the magic pills spread beyond the confines of the thriving club scene. In 1991 and 1992, Ecstasy began to permeate into other walks of life. As more and more people discovered it, the national mood seemed to lift. Protestant and Catholic kids were hugging each other in the clubs in Northern Ireland. Amazingly, arrests for football violence dropped by 22% that year. It was never really confirmed, but many fans said this was because Ecstasy had replaced beer as the drug of choice on the terraces. Rival gangs were meeting in the clubs, taking tablets and calling truce. http://www.ephidrina.org/ecstasy/britain.html

When i first started going to clubs in London in the early 90's EVERYBODY took ecstasy (i mean everyone), and clubs were totally mixed, gay, straight, black white, rich, poor, there would be people of all walks of life making friend with each other. One of the reasons that we have relatively good race relations and acceptance of homosexuality (only 16% are opposed to marriage or civil partnerships, marriage will become legal in the next year and there are no major politicians who oppose it) is because there is a whole generation of people who spent their formative years taking ecstasy dancing and making friends with people from all walks of life.

Of course i know people for whom taking drugs became a problem but for everyone of them i know 100 who took recreational drugs at the weekend had an amazing time, made friends for life, had their eyes opened to all kinds of new people and experiences and gut up on Monday morning and put in a productive week at work

For someone with no personal experience of drugs to pontificate that drugs 'enable people to hurt others' shows contemptible ignorance
mump boy
 
Posts: 5637
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: the war on drugs

Postby mump boy » Sun Oct 28, 2012 1:58 am

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
Marlow wrote:So those are good things that people enjoy . . . not able to control their own (destructive) desires.

I know you're a teetotaler, but have you ever had a drink?


People (including me) doing plenty of stupid stuff when we're sober. Why would anyone intentionally put themselves (and others!) MORE in "harm's way" (not necessarily physical)?


Because it's fun and the fun FAR out ways the negatives (well in my old age that isn't so try anymore, i can't cope with the hangovers :( )
mump boy
 
Posts: 5637
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: the war on drugs

Postby mump boy » Sun Oct 28, 2012 2:11 am

Pego wrote:It is possible that there could be a few more "zombies" but not likely. There was no spike in number of users when the Netherlands legalized it. There also would be more funds available for prevention and treatment (sales tax and savings from enforcement and incarceration).


More importantly it severs the link between drugs and crime. US prisons are bursting with people locked up for minor drug offences or crimes committed in order to get drugs. If drug consumption was decriminalised (you can still go after suppliers, just not for possession or small time dealers) the trillions that could be spent on treatment and education would be a real War on Drugs.
mump boy
 
Posts: 5637
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: the war on drugs

Postby mump boy » Sun Oct 28, 2012 2:14 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
Marlow wrote:
Pego wrote:loosening drug laws does not cause a spike in use.

The Dutch have always been soft on drugs, so when they loosened the laws, of course there was no change. In the USA a loosening of the law (notice that even they have laws against its use) would begin usher in a great change in usage as many more young people would experiment with its use as older people publically role modeled it use. Is that what you really want?

Young people who want to experiment with drugs aren't restrained by fear of the law. Middle-aged people who are married with children and good jobs might be restrained by drug laws, but not young people. My guess is that young people in college settings are no more restrained by drug laws than the general polulation is by speeding laws.


This ^^
mump boy
 
Posts: 5637
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Marlow » Sun Oct 28, 2012 6:02 am

mump boy wrote:This ^^

Mump,
Does it surprise you that we see the world from diametrically opposed perspectives, given our somewhat disparate life experiences? :wink:
I can't think of two people LESS alike on this forum than you and I, but ya know what, bro, you're OK! :D
Marlow
 
Posts: 21135
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: the war on drugs

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Oct 28, 2012 6:55 am

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:3) If there were friends of yours who you claim were "fascinated with the 'rush' or 'mellow' they were hearing about" but afraid of the legal consequences of doing drugs, why did they all "experiment once or twice"?

3) Same reason Odysseus wanted to hear the Sirens' song.

Then I guess they weren't that afraid of the cops, were they?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: the war on drugs

Postby Marlow » Sun Oct 28, 2012 9:01 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:3) If there were friends of yours who you claim were "fascinated with the 'rush' or 'mellow' they were hearing about" but afraid of the legal consequences of doing drugs, why did they all "experiment once or twice"?

3) Same reason Odysseus wanted to hear the Sirens' song.

Then I guess they weren't that afraid of the cops, were they?

Don't forget that 'back in the day', when there were no cops or even laws, life expectancies were pretty darn short, and it was not just because of the lack of medicine. As William Golding intimated, man's inhumanity to man knows few bounds - I just happen to think that drugs and alcohol exacerbate our already perilous journey through life . . . in the long term (though obviously not in the short term . . . Carpe Diem is a great philosophy (and I often seek to embrace it) as long as we don't have to worry about the 'diem' after today).
Marlow
 
Posts: 21135
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: the war on drugs

Postby mump boy » Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:30 am

Marlow wrote:
mump boy wrote:This ^^

Mump,
Does it surprise you that we see the world from diametrically opposed perspectives, given our somewhat disparate life experiences? :wink:
I can't think of two people LESS alike on this forum than you and I, but ya know what, bro, you're OK! :D


Haha right back at ya :D
mump boy
 
Posts: 5637
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: the war on drugs

Postby no one » Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:00 pm

Pego -

you piqued my interest.

You mentioned "peripheral neuropathy to exceedingly rare such as Marchiafava-Bignami syndrome". I've been Dxd with, among other things, peripheral neuropathy which is a 24/7 'experience'. And Type II Diabetes, currently managed by diet. No alch for 38 yrs, and relatively little (for young adult) prior. Ok - that is enough personal info (maybe too much)

Been to neurologist(s) and podiatrist and gen med - they all shrug their shoulders when ask about Tx and whats the general clinical course. If I live as long as lonewolf I have 20 yrs or so. Can you give me any clue or direction - I've researched somewhat on internet.

You can put this on my bill.
no one
 
Posts: 1611
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: the war on drugs

Postby bad hammy » Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:50 pm

The war on drugs does two things for sure:

1. Ensures that many young folks of color get tossed into prisons and permanently off of voter rolls. Primarily because the feds feed a gazillion dollars of military/police equipment to local law enforcement if they keep their drug bust numbers up. Of course local authorities can't keep posting high arrest numbers by raiding the dorms at Stanford and Berkeley - the parents of those precious spawn would never stand for it - so the cops drop into East Palo Alto and West Berkeley to pick up a paddy-wagon full of black/brown folks doing the same thing as the college kids but without the protection privilege allows.

2. Ensures that alcohol related diseases and profits continue to grow.
Last edited by bad hammy on Sun Oct 28, 2012 3:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10881
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 7 guests