-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
how to change the war on drugs (lets do it together)
- Thread starter endlessness
- Start date
MalargueZiggy
Rising Star
Here's a link for you:
www.bbc.co.uk
And a link to the think tank mentioned:
www.tdpf.org.uk
I personally am struggling with how to decriminalise drugs because while I feel I have a right to my body and mind, I recognise that many people can’t use them sensibly. I feel, however, that this shouldn’t mean that I myself am persecuted. There has to be a middle ground.
What this may be is a difficult question, perhaps an understanding of the relative dangers of each drug. You can't put mescaline in the same category as cocaine and heroin. While from a libertarian stand point I ‘in principle’ agree in people’s rights to use coke and heroin, I recognise that from the point of view of living in a collective society it's dangerous to unleash addictive and harmful substances.
But can you legalise what are now legally called hallucinogens (inc. mdma) but then not cocaine because it has 'more potential' for abuse. What then about people who can use that substance carefully and sensibly?
Imo one answer is found in libertarian socialism, where collective groups can decide on a mini-scale if they sanction the use of these chemicals, but that doesn't work within our current system.
BBC - Mark Easton's UK: Could we save billions by legalising drugs?
The blog of Mark Easton, the BBC's home editor
And a link to the think tank mentioned:
Home | Transform
Transform Drug Policy Foundation is an independent charity working towards a safer system of legal regulation for all drugs. When we legalise and regulate drugs that are currently illegal we can take the power away from organised crime and establish safety controls.
www.tdpf.org.uk
I personally am struggling with how to decriminalise drugs because while I feel I have a right to my body and mind, I recognise that many people can’t use them sensibly. I feel, however, that this shouldn’t mean that I myself am persecuted. There has to be a middle ground.
What this may be is a difficult question, perhaps an understanding of the relative dangers of each drug. You can't put mescaline in the same category as cocaine and heroin. While from a libertarian stand point I ‘in principle’ agree in people’s rights to use coke and heroin, I recognise that from the point of view of living in a collective society it's dangerous to unleash addictive and harmful substances.
But can you legalise what are now legally called hallucinogens (inc. mdma) but then not cocaine because it has 'more potential' for abuse. What then about people who can use that substance carefully and sensibly?
Imo one answer is found in libertarian socialism, where collective groups can decide on a mini-scale if they sanction the use of these chemicals, but that doesn't work within our current system.
'Coatl
Teotzlcoatl
It simple, legalize (and legitimize) Mother Nature... and leave "drugs" illegal.
Just think.... drugs are illegal, but you can grow/buy all the Mimosa and Caapi you want (and if you are discrete, you could extract and smoke DMT in your homes).
Both would be illegal without a prescription in my perfect society.
Just think.... drugs are illegal, but you can grow/buy all the Mimosa and Caapi you want (and if you are discrete, you could extract and smoke DMT in your homes).
Both would be illegal without a prescription in my perfect society.
MalargueZiggy
Rising Star
[quote='Coatl]It simple, legalize (and legitimize) Mother Nature... and leave "drugs" illegal.
Just think.... drugs are illegal, but you can grow/buy all the Mimosa and Caapi you want (and if you are discrete, you could extract and smoke DMT in your homes).
[/quote]
So you keep Coca legal and people import it, thereby simply making cocaine out of it in their own country, exposing themselves to dangerous chemicals in their basement if they do it 'discretely' in their own kitchen. Or allowing the criminal gangs to continue doing it for them in your back yard as well as overseas, thereby addressing none of the social factors inherent in cocaine use and in fact arguably furthering them.
You allow me to grow my own plants and I extract the dmt, and then happen to get caught in possession of it; through a coincidence rather than me being stupid, and I still get punished.
You need drug laws that are based on the recognition that people can and will use their body and mind as they see fit, and hence should be assisted to do so safely.
(Another point to be raised, and maybe this is something for another thread, is the idea of what is a drug. You see anything in its natural form as inherently sacred and of course I agree with you to a point. However, you should recognise that because it originates in nature does not mean that it will inherently be used safely or indeed is inherently safe. Cannabis is a classic example of this, not only does it damage your lungs but its mental effects are well documented. I know people who have come so dependent on ganja to get into serious trouble.)
Just think.... drugs are illegal, but you can grow/buy all the Mimosa and Caapi you want (and if you are discrete, you could extract and smoke DMT in your homes).
[/quote]
So you keep Coca legal and people import it, thereby simply making cocaine out of it in their own country, exposing themselves to dangerous chemicals in their basement if they do it 'discretely' in their own kitchen. Or allowing the criminal gangs to continue doing it for them in your back yard as well as overseas, thereby addressing none of the social factors inherent in cocaine use and in fact arguably furthering them.
You allow me to grow my own plants and I extract the dmt, and then happen to get caught in possession of it; through a coincidence rather than me being stupid, and I still get punished.
You need drug laws that are based on the recognition that people can and will use their body and mind as they see fit, and hence should be assisted to do so safely.
(Another point to be raised, and maybe this is something for another thread, is the idea of what is a drug. You see anything in its natural form as inherently sacred and of course I agree with you to a point. However, you should recognise that because it originates in nature does not mean that it will inherently be used safely or indeed is inherently safe. Cannabis is a classic example of this, not only does it damage your lungs but its mental effects are well documented. I know people who have come so dependent on ganja to get into serious trouble.)
All plants should be legal no questions asked. There is no logical argument against it. Who cares if certain members of society want to poison themselves or drug themselves to death? Its really their own problem. I am sick of people saying that society needs to regulate peoples drug intake or lives and behaviors. Its the only sensible argument most people have against legalizing drugs and I think its bunk. Live and let live.
Even if that plant contains harmful substances it should be legal. I know plants that I can make poisons with that are completely legal yet I can't smoke weed? It makes no sense. I could see it being illegal in a society to restrict *large* scale cultivation and sale of the compounds in plants like cocaine for example but regardless no plant should be illegal or completely under control by the government. Its illogical and wrong.
Well its kind of funny. Because if other drugs were legal (like LSD MDMA or whatever) would they be available only by prescription? If so for what conditions? MDMA is on its way to becoming a prescription drug for PTSD (check out www.maps.org). I dunno where I am going with that but I think all substances should be legal. However the sale and production of dangerous substances could be regulated in some ways. If people really want to do meth they should be able to why the fuck not?
Even if that plant contains harmful substances it should be legal. I know plants that I can make poisons with that are completely legal yet I can't smoke weed? It makes no sense. I could see it being illegal in a society to restrict *large* scale cultivation and sale of the compounds in plants like cocaine for example but regardless no plant should be illegal or completely under control by the government. Its illogical and wrong.
Well its kind of funny. Because if other drugs were legal (like LSD MDMA or whatever) would they be available only by prescription? If so for what conditions? MDMA is on its way to becoming a prescription drug for PTSD (check out www.maps.org). I dunno where I am going with that but I think all substances should be legal. However the sale and production of dangerous substances could be regulated in some ways. If people really want to do meth they should be able to why the fuck not?
'Coatl
Teotzlcoatl
Cocaine would be illegal. Coca leafs legal. You would get arrested for making and selling large amounts of cocaine. However.... if you made 1 gram of cocaine inside your house, never sold it and did it once, then you probably wouldn't ever get caught.
That is how I would want it. All botanicals are legal. All drugs are legal ONLY with a prescription.
Really intelligent scientist, poets and chemist could apply for prescriptions of pure pharmaceutical LSD-25, Mescaline and N,N-DMT on the basis of "internal exploration" or other worthy endeavors, and of course since the botanicals are perfectly legal anyone could import huge amounts of Mimosa root bark (or whatever) to quietly extract in their home-labs.
Botanicals would be legal for EVERYONE to grow and use as they see fit (unless it is transformed into an illegal (or prescription only) drug.
That is where I disagree, I don't want people doing meth, heroin, cocaine or other hard drugs unless they have a damn good (medical or research) reason.
MalargueZiggy
Rising Star
[quote='Coatl] Cocaine would be illegal. Coca leafs legal. You would get arrested for making and selling large amounts of cocaine. However.... if you made 1 gram of cocaine inside your house, never sold it and did it once, then you probably wouldn't ever get caught. [/quote]
In the case of coke it's not about being caught (for me personally). I have no desire to do coke. I was talking about the social and health consequences. Also the fact that this would still keep large scale cocaine production in the hands of criminal gangs, and would also mean that people who wanted to do it would still not be able to do it safely because they would have to use it illicitly.
[quote='Coatl]Really intelligent scientist, poets and chemist could apply for prescriptions of pure pharmaceutical LSD-25, Mescaline and N,N-DMT on the basis of "internal exploration" or other worthy endeavors, and of course since the botanicals are perfectly legal anyone could import huge amounts of Mimosa root bark (or whatever) to quietly extract in their home-labs. [/quote]
This is such an elitist viewpoint! So I wouldn't be allowed to do LSD because I'm a)not a research chemist b)not intelligent enough (that opens up a whole new can of worms about how you measure intelligence) c)a terrible poet d)almost there with some of these but 'not quite' by an artificially set standard.
Who cares? The taxpayer for a start, who has to inevitably fund helping these people as well as the problems they may cause. In theory I don't think society should regulate any part of our lives, but it's important to recognise that by the virtue of living as part of a society with a centralised structure of government, you are bound by certain restrictions, and these include making a collective decision about what will and won't be tolerated. Otherwise you're calling for a different system (as I am), which is a completely different question. The question we should be asking is what we can do within our current system.
The answer is allowing everyone a complete right to their own body and mind as long as they don't have any impact on anyone else. Unfortunately, where drugs are concerned they may have an impact on someone else. I come back again to ganja, or even mushrooms. Natural does not instantly equal safe. It may equal safer but people are people, they can use anything badly.
In the case of coke it's not about being caught (for me personally). I have no desire to do coke. I was talking about the social and health consequences. Also the fact that this would still keep large scale cocaine production in the hands of criminal gangs, and would also mean that people who wanted to do it would still not be able to do it safely because they would have to use it illicitly.
[quote='Coatl]Really intelligent scientist, poets and chemist could apply for prescriptions of pure pharmaceutical LSD-25, Mescaline and N,N-DMT on the basis of "internal exploration" or other worthy endeavors, and of course since the botanicals are perfectly legal anyone could import huge amounts of Mimosa root bark (or whatever) to quietly extract in their home-labs. [/quote]
This is such an elitist viewpoint! So I wouldn't be allowed to do LSD because I'm a)not a research chemist b)not intelligent enough (that opens up a whole new can of worms about how you measure intelligence) c)a terrible poet d)almost there with some of these but 'not quite' by an artificially set standard.
burnt said:
Who cares? The taxpayer for a start, who has to inevitably fund helping these people as well as the problems they may cause. In theory I don't think society should regulate any part of our lives, but it's important to recognise that by the virtue of living as part of a society with a centralised structure of government, you are bound by certain restrictions, and these include making a collective decision about what will and won't be tolerated. Otherwise you're calling for a different system (as I am), which is a completely different question. The question we should be asking is what we can do within our current system.
The answer is allowing everyone a complete right to their own body and mind as long as they don't have any impact on anyone else. Unfortunately, where drugs are concerned they may have an impact on someone else. I come back again to ganja, or even mushrooms. Natural does not instantly equal safe. It may equal safer but people are people, they can use anything badly.
The point is that prohibition is more dangerous for the user and the whole society than are the drugs themselves.
Look, hard drugs can be addictive and damaging to individuals who abuse them, this is a fact but there is not doubt about it that when these drugs are prohibited there use is completely uncontrolled and thus made significantly more dangerous. I have gone over this time and time again that most of the problems people associate with hard drugs (aside from addiction) are a result of prohibition and the drug war rather than any property of the substance itself.
We all need to realize and respect that all people have an equal right at life on this planet. No ones life is more important or meaningful than anyone elses. People have the right to do as they wish so long as it does not physically harm another individual. Drugs have been used by our ancestors prior to the evolution of homo sapiens. We can not STOP drug use what we can do is control and regulate it and reduce the harm and danger its use brings about. Even the death penalty does little to deter drug use. Recreational drug use is here to stay.
It is observed through out the animal kingdom even among insects. It is a byproduct of a nervous system.
An advanced society can and should deal with the problems of drug use through science, medicine, and compassion rather than neanderthal strategies such as fire power and cages. During alcohol prohibition alcohol became significantly more harmful for the user and society than it was prior to prohibition this is why alcohol prohibition was repealed. Adulterated alcohol caused serious health effects such as blindness, liver damage, and death. The crime and corruption that evolved around the black market distribution of alcohol put all members of society at risk. Like alcohol other currently illegal recreational drugs are dangerous but making them worse , creating criminal enterprises to distribute them and doing nothing to decrease their usage is not the answer.
Prohibition is profitable. Very profitable. It is a billion dollar industry. Marijuana is not illegal because they can not tax it, this is ridiculous. Marijuana is illegal because they make more off of marijuana being illegal than they would if it was legal and taxed. Of course pharmaceutical companies, alcohol and tobaco companies also give money and lobby to keep marijuana illegal because they have something to lose ($$$$) if it were legally regulated but the drug war is big business to the government and you better believe that a lot of the $ is for marijuana control, prosecution, drug testing....
The prohibition industry is not going to stop themselves. People need to be educated but even within our community I hear people say heroin and meth shouldn't be legal. This is part of the problem people associate legal with good. Regulation is the only effective way that we can control and minimize the dangers associated with the use of these drugs. Look at the data prior to prohibition when heroin, cocaine and even crack cocaine were available to anyone. The same % of the population used them however crime rates were decreased, overdose rates were minimal. Intravenous drug use was rare, the spread of infectious disease was minimal. All of these things that our government claims are the reason for drugs being illegal are in fact created by prohibition. Prohibition equals economic anarchy. We are actually paying to have a system run by gangsters rather than the FDA. Thus you have no idea what you are ingesting, and how much. You pay inflated prices for inferior adulterated products, you are forced into crime because you lost your job (for a dirty urine analysis) or to support your habit. These things could easily be avoided. Cocaine did not make Pablo Escobar prohibition did.
It is important when educating people to convey regulation rather than legalization. Emphasize the fact that for most of americas existence these drugs were legally available and that the true problems really did not come into play until after the start of prohibition. Acknowledge that drugs can be dangerous but show that just as with alcohol prohibition prohibition only acts to make them more dangerous. We can minimize the harm as many countries across the world are beginning to accomplish. The netherlands has 60% of the drug use that the US has. In countries with legal medical heroin programs crime, spread of infectious disease, and new addict rates have declined. Repealing prohibition is not about having fun and getting high it is about minimizing the harm to society that drugs and prohibition are causing.
Look, hard drugs can be addictive and damaging to individuals who abuse them, this is a fact but there is not doubt about it that when these drugs are prohibited there use is completely uncontrolled and thus made significantly more dangerous. I have gone over this time and time again that most of the problems people associate with hard drugs (aside from addiction) are a result of prohibition and the drug war rather than any property of the substance itself.
We all need to realize and respect that all people have an equal right at life on this planet. No ones life is more important or meaningful than anyone elses. People have the right to do as they wish so long as it does not physically harm another individual. Drugs have been used by our ancestors prior to the evolution of homo sapiens. We can not STOP drug use what we can do is control and regulate it and reduce the harm and danger its use brings about. Even the death penalty does little to deter drug use. Recreational drug use is here to stay.
It is observed through out the animal kingdom even among insects. It is a byproduct of a nervous system.
An advanced society can and should deal with the problems of drug use through science, medicine, and compassion rather than neanderthal strategies such as fire power and cages. During alcohol prohibition alcohol became significantly more harmful for the user and society than it was prior to prohibition this is why alcohol prohibition was repealed. Adulterated alcohol caused serious health effects such as blindness, liver damage, and death. The crime and corruption that evolved around the black market distribution of alcohol put all members of society at risk. Like alcohol other currently illegal recreational drugs are dangerous but making them worse , creating criminal enterprises to distribute them and doing nothing to decrease their usage is not the answer.
Prohibition is profitable. Very profitable. It is a billion dollar industry. Marijuana is not illegal because they can not tax it, this is ridiculous. Marijuana is illegal because they make more off of marijuana being illegal than they would if it was legal and taxed. Of course pharmaceutical companies, alcohol and tobaco companies also give money and lobby to keep marijuana illegal because they have something to lose ($$$$) if it were legally regulated but the drug war is big business to the government and you better believe that a lot of the $ is for marijuana control, prosecution, drug testing....
The prohibition industry is not going to stop themselves. People need to be educated but even within our community I hear people say heroin and meth shouldn't be legal. This is part of the problem people associate legal with good. Regulation is the only effective way that we can control and minimize the dangers associated with the use of these drugs. Look at the data prior to prohibition when heroin, cocaine and even crack cocaine were available to anyone. The same % of the population used them however crime rates were decreased, overdose rates were minimal. Intravenous drug use was rare, the spread of infectious disease was minimal. All of these things that our government claims are the reason for drugs being illegal are in fact created by prohibition. Prohibition equals economic anarchy. We are actually paying to have a system run by gangsters rather than the FDA. Thus you have no idea what you are ingesting, and how much. You pay inflated prices for inferior adulterated products, you are forced into crime because you lost your job (for a dirty urine analysis) or to support your habit. These things could easily be avoided. Cocaine did not make Pablo Escobar prohibition did.
It is important when educating people to convey regulation rather than legalization. Emphasize the fact that for most of americas existence these drugs were legally available and that the true problems really did not come into play until after the start of prohibition. Acknowledge that drugs can be dangerous but show that just as with alcohol prohibition prohibition only acts to make them more dangerous. We can minimize the harm as many countries across the world are beginning to accomplish. The netherlands has 60% of the drug use that the US has. In countries with legal medical heroin programs crime, spread of infectious disease, and new addict rates have declined. Repealing prohibition is not about having fun and getting high it is about minimizing the harm to society that drugs and prohibition are causing.
MalargueZiggy
Rising Star
Bufo, you largely summed up my views.
But, I'd like more clarification on:
Can you substantiate this?
The % of population using drugs has increased rapidly since prohibition. I don't think that this is a result of prohibition but would argue that it is a result of social factors, e.g increasing urbanisation, alienation, dissolution of traditional familial and societal connections...
I agree that prohibition increases the dangers of using drugs and the social problems they cause.
It's dangerous to put this solely down to prohibition. Again I would point to the society the Netherlands has, the good points of which are not solely down to their drug laws.
How does drug use in Japan compare to the US for example? How about the UAE (incredibly strict drug laws). Etc
But, I'd like more clarification on:
bufoman said:
Can you substantiate this?
bufoman said:
The % of population using drugs has increased rapidly since prohibition. I don't think that this is a result of prohibition but would argue that it is a result of social factors, e.g increasing urbanisation, alienation, dissolution of traditional familial and societal connections...
I agree that prohibition increases the dangers of using drugs and the social problems they cause.
bufoman said:
It's dangerous to put this solely down to prohibition. Again I would point to the society the Netherlands has, the good points of which are not solely down to their drug laws.
How does drug use in Japan compare to the US for example? How about the UAE (incredibly strict drug laws). Etc
'Coatl
Teotzlcoatl
I find statements like this to be LUDICROUS!!! Nobody can use meth safely, No one can use heroin safely (unless they are a medical professional administering it to someone besides themselves for medical reasons).
How can you not use cannabis safely? How about Peyote? Certain drugs are worse than others as far as addiction and negative effects go, PERIOD!
Why just the other day I was arguing with a heroin addict who first told me how much pain he was in and how he would like to never do opiates again, but he "can't" and then 5 minutes later (after he shot up) he was telling me how safe it is and that there aren't really any negative effects.
The percentage of population that uses illegal drugs has not significantly changed prior to prohibition. I am not sure where you heard it has increased, the number of people have increased but not the percentage of the population. While there are small variations year to year there appear to be no significant changes. Some years there are slight rises but as an averaged whole little increases are observed.
The government would make money through legalizing marijuana and taxing it. While some would grow there own many would just take the easier route and buy it. Alcohol is not very hard to produce, and while many people produce their own alcohol most do not and purchase it. Alcohol is regulated, one can produce their own supply, but to sell it to others they must be licensed and taxed. This is a good thing as it protects us from contaminants. Marijuana is the major illegal drug that people use. Thus marijuana related actions is the majority of the drug war funds. If marijuana were legalized the drug war industry would lose a major portion of its business and "customers".
Thus the drug war industry (the government) makes a lot of money off of cannabis remaining illegal. This amount is in the billions of dollars. The amount that regulated taxed marijuana is unknown however it s very likely less than the amount that the government get relating to its control. The difference is that if marijuana were regulated and taxed the people of the US, "the true government " would make billions rather than spending it. We would save the initial billion we pay in taxs to pay neanderthal lowlifes to "enforce" marijuana laws. Plus the tax revenue.
However in the current government drug war industry they make a lot of money off of marijuana remaining illegal. I agree that this $ costs the people and we do not benefit from it but the government does. By government I mean the bureaucratic businesses that have hijacked our legislative system. Drug war funding is easy money for them, easy jobs and easy power. They want to perpetuate there industry make it bigger. They aren't considered with not being able to tax marijuana, they have already found away to make $ off of marijuana and that is by making it illegal and taxing people to enforce the regulation.
Countries with the strict laws such as the death penalty like Singapore and Thailand still have significant amounts of drug use. I am not aware of the exact number sand would be skeptical of any studies for obvious reasons (who would admit it in that country). I am not claiming that legalizing drugs will decrease there use. However many claim that legalizing drugs (regulating or decriminalizing them) will cause significant rises in drug use this is very unlikely and not supported by any evidence. Of course there are a variety of factors why people do or do not use drugs the law likely has little baring on people's choice with social reasons outweighing legal ones. It is important however that in a variety of countries that have recently legalized drugs or decriminalized them (spain, mexico, columbia) as well as US cities california (juvenile marijuana has decreased) the usage has actually declined. There are a variety of reasons for this however it is likely that the outlaw status of drugs draws certain people to them and when they are just another thing and are no longer "cool" those people are less likely to be interested. Young people are likely to be especially susceptible to the outlaw status.
The government would make money through legalizing marijuana and taxing it. While some would grow there own many would just take the easier route and buy it. Alcohol is not very hard to produce, and while many people produce their own alcohol most do not and purchase it. Alcohol is regulated, one can produce their own supply, but to sell it to others they must be licensed and taxed. This is a good thing as it protects us from contaminants. Marijuana is the major illegal drug that people use. Thus marijuana related actions is the majority of the drug war funds. If marijuana were legalized the drug war industry would lose a major portion of its business and "customers".
Thus the drug war industry (the government) makes a lot of money off of cannabis remaining illegal. This amount is in the billions of dollars. The amount that regulated taxed marijuana is unknown however it s very likely less than the amount that the government get relating to its control. The difference is that if marijuana were regulated and taxed the people of the US, "the true government " would make billions rather than spending it. We would save the initial billion we pay in taxs to pay neanderthal lowlifes to "enforce" marijuana laws. Plus the tax revenue.
However in the current government drug war industry they make a lot of money off of marijuana remaining illegal. I agree that this $ costs the people and we do not benefit from it but the government does. By government I mean the bureaucratic businesses that have hijacked our legislative system. Drug war funding is easy money for them, easy jobs and easy power. They want to perpetuate there industry make it bigger. They aren't considered with not being able to tax marijuana, they have already found away to make $ off of marijuana and that is by making it illegal and taxing people to enforce the regulation.
Countries with the strict laws such as the death penalty like Singapore and Thailand still have significant amounts of drug use. I am not aware of the exact number sand would be skeptical of any studies for obvious reasons (who would admit it in that country). I am not claiming that legalizing drugs will decrease there use. However many claim that legalizing drugs (regulating or decriminalizing them) will cause significant rises in drug use this is very unlikely and not supported by any evidence. Of course there are a variety of factors why people do or do not use drugs the law likely has little baring on people's choice with social reasons outweighing legal ones. It is important however that in a variety of countries that have recently legalized drugs or decriminalized them (spain, mexico, columbia) as well as US cities california (juvenile marijuana has decreased) the usage has actually declined. There are a variety of reasons for this however it is likely that the outlaw status of drugs draws certain people to them and when they are just another thing and are no longer "cool" those people are less likely to be interested. Young people are likely to be especially susceptible to the outlaw status.
[quote='Coatl]
I find statements like this to be BULLSHIT.
[/quote]
Its not necessary to talk like this Coatl. It makes you come across as self-righteous and arrogant (which im sure youre not), and doesnt help in the discussion. I've seen how you can also give mature positive contributions, so please.. Your opinion is very welcome, just try to express it in a more respectful manner.
I find statements like this to be BULLSHIT.
[/quote]
Its not necessary to talk like this Coatl. It makes you come across as self-righteous and arrogant (which im sure youre not), and doesnt help in the discussion. I've seen how you can also give mature positive contributions, so please.. Your opinion is very welcome, just try to express it in a more respectful manner.
[quote='Coatl]
I find statements like this to be BULLSHIT. Nobody can use meth safely, No one can use heroin safely (unless they are a medical professional administering it to someone besides themselves for medical reasons).
How can you not use cannabis safely? How about Peyote? Certain drugs are worse than others as far as addiction and negative effects go, PERIOD!
Why just the other day I was arguing with a heroin addict who first told me how much pain he was in and how he would like to never do opiates again, but he "can't" and then 5 minutes later (after he shot up) he was telling me how safe it is and that there aren't really any negative effects.
[/quote]
First of all you missed my point completely. Drug use is absolutely dangerous. Most people are able to use these things recreationally and with minimal harm however for a small percentage they can be very damaging as can work, sex, gambling, alcohol, eating....
Just because some people over eat should eating be illegal? Just because some people are workaholics no one should work?
Actually many people who use heroin and meth do so recreationally and relatively safety. You are very misinformed. There are many people who use opiates their entire lives with minimal adverse effects. Also many writers and adults use meth occasionally for various reasons. You are seriously misinformed. only a small percentage of the users of these drugs end up addicted and with serious problems. I suggest you do some reading and research aside form the DEA website. Check out the book Just say yes, Jonathan Ott's pharmacotheon. Shulgin's TIHKAL, all of these people think all drugs should be regulated. If you actually want more books let me know and I will give you a huge list.
If one has access to clean pure heroin of known dosage there are almost zero adverse effects aside from addiction which many things drugs and behaviors are addictive. Street heroin is dangerous because you do not know what you are taking and how much. Prior to prohibition the same % of the population that uses it today used heroin. They were able to do so with out overdosing, without stealing, diseases associated with its use were non-existent, people were able to use it with minimal adverse effects. Also less people used IV because it was of high purity and cheap. Many addicts were politicians, writers, mothers and various others people. Most people do not use opiates to get fucked up it makes many people feel good. What is wrong with this? These people may have lower levels of endogenous opiates then the general public. Opiates have been used for thousands of years only recently have they become a problem because of prohibition. Look at a website that says what is bad about heroin use every single thing is a direct result of prohibition.
Anyway you missed my point completely even if drugs are dangerous (which many are) prohibition is still not the answer. It only makes them more dangerous this can easily be seen with alcohol. Alcohol is far more dangerous for ones health than heroin. (THIS IS !00% FACT). Neither should be illegal both should be regulated and controlled so that we have power over them. We can not stop there usage we need to reduce the harms. We can also develop safe alternatives to many of these drugs.
I find statements like this to be BULLSHIT. Nobody can use meth safely, No one can use heroin safely (unless they are a medical professional administering it to someone besides themselves for medical reasons).
How can you not use cannabis safely? How about Peyote? Certain drugs are worse than others as far as addiction and negative effects go, PERIOD!
Why just the other day I was arguing with a heroin addict who first told me how much pain he was in and how he would like to never do opiates again, but he "can't" and then 5 minutes later (after he shot up) he was telling me how safe it is and that there aren't really any negative effects.
[/quote]
First of all you missed my point completely. Drug use is absolutely dangerous. Most people are able to use these things recreationally and with minimal harm however for a small percentage they can be very damaging as can work, sex, gambling, alcohol, eating....
Just because some people over eat should eating be illegal? Just because some people are workaholics no one should work?
Actually many people who use heroin and meth do so recreationally and relatively safety. You are very misinformed. There are many people who use opiates their entire lives with minimal adverse effects. Also many writers and adults use meth occasionally for various reasons. You are seriously misinformed. only a small percentage of the users of these drugs end up addicted and with serious problems. I suggest you do some reading and research aside form the DEA website. Check out the book Just say yes, Jonathan Ott's pharmacotheon. Shulgin's TIHKAL, all of these people think all drugs should be regulated. If you actually want more books let me know and I will give you a huge list.
If one has access to clean pure heroin of known dosage there are almost zero adverse effects aside from addiction which many things drugs and behaviors are addictive. Street heroin is dangerous because you do not know what you are taking and how much. Prior to prohibition the same % of the population that uses it today used heroin. They were able to do so with out overdosing, without stealing, diseases associated with its use were non-existent, people were able to use it with minimal adverse effects. Also less people used IV because it was of high purity and cheap. Many addicts were politicians, writers, mothers and various others people. Most people do not use opiates to get fucked up it makes many people feel good. What is wrong with this? These people may have lower levels of endogenous opiates then the general public. Opiates have been used for thousands of years only recently have they become a problem because of prohibition. Look at a website that says what is bad about heroin use every single thing is a direct result of prohibition.
Anyway you missed my point completely even if drugs are dangerous (which many are) prohibition is still not the answer. It only makes them more dangerous this can easily be seen with alcohol. Alcohol is far more dangerous for ones health than heroin. (THIS IS !00% FACT). Neither should be illegal both should be regulated and controlled so that we have power over them. We can not stop there usage we need to reduce the harms. We can also develop safe alternatives to many of these drugs.
MalargueZiggy
Rising Star
Thanks for the clarification Bufo. Although I have to admit I don't agree with you about them making more money from drugs being illegal on that evidence. Read the link I posted a few posts back about the money they'd save by legalising them.
I'm sure I saw a graph showing this. I can't find it now. There's a possibility I saw a graph showing the number of users in thousands not percentages and didn't account for overall population increases.
Either way I'd be very interested to see your statistics.
I agree completely with the final point you made; that it's ridiculous to claim drug use will rise with decriminalisation (see the link Tolu posted in this thread about Portugal: Portugal's drug decriminalization aftermath - Open Discussion - Welcome to the DMT-Nexus )
However, I think you should be careful about making comparisions between countries, because there are a number of factors that affect drug use. Hence we can talk in terms of statistics within a country (e.g portugal) but I don't think it's useful to compare countries.
If we must compare countries, how about the DEA's argument that Sweden's incredibly strict drug laws have contributed to a decline in drug use:
The editorial is about ganja but contains this: "Sweden is an excellent example. Drug use is just a third of the European average while spending on drug control is three times the EU average. For three decades, Sweden has had consistent and coherent drug-control policies, regardless of which party is in power. There is a strong emphasis on prevention, drug laws have been progressively tightened, and extensive treatment and rehabilitation opportunities are available to users. The police take drug crime seriously."
I agree on the 'cool' thing. Dutch friends have pointed this out to me.
bufoman said:
I'm sure I saw a graph showing this. I can't find it now. There's a possibility I saw a graph showing the number of users in thousands not percentages and didn't account for overall population increases.
Either way I'd be very interested to see your statistics.
I agree completely with the final point you made; that it's ridiculous to claim drug use will rise with decriminalisation (see the link Tolu posted in this thread about Portugal: Portugal's drug decriminalization aftermath - Open Discussion - Welcome to the DMT-Nexus )
However, I think you should be careful about making comparisions between countries, because there are a number of factors that affect drug use. Hence we can talk in terms of statistics within a country (e.g portugal) but I don't think it's useful to compare countries.
If we must compare countries, how about the DEA's argument that Sweden's incredibly strict drug laws have contributed to a decline in drug use:
The editorial is about ganja but contains this: "Sweden is an excellent example. Drug use is just a third of the European average while spending on drug control is three times the EU average. For three decades, Sweden has had consistent and coherent drug-control policies, regardless of which party is in power. There is a strong emphasis on prevention, drug laws have been progressively tightened, and extensive treatment and rehabilitation opportunities are available to users. The police take drug crime seriously."
I agree on the 'cool' thing. Dutch friends have pointed this out to me.
I am not saying that the government is making money. The people are actually losing money in the billions. What I meant though is the current government sector called the drug war industry stands to lose a lot of money if drugs were regulated. The government as a whole would make billions of dollars as you stated. However many in government currently are addicted and employed by the easy drug war money. They would lose this money in the billions of dollars if the drug war was ended. The drug war is a major industry. In their eyes they already are making billions off of drugs remaining illegal. As a whole we would make a profit off of regulating drugs but these individuals would lose there industry. They obviously are jot going to give it up with out a fight.
Thus the reason to keep Marijuana illegal is more so, so that they can continue to profit off of it. You see they profit off of it remaining illegal. The american people don't, we pay for it. But the drug war industry like any business wants to continue doing what its doing so that they can maintain their money, power, say.... This is the drive to keep these things illegal the money that is made off of them remaining illegal. In TIHKAL Shulgin does a great job showing just how big this drug war industry is. it is much bigger than people realize. Drugs remaining illegal is a 40 plus billion dollar a year industry. If drugs were legalized and taxed I do not think it would generate this much money although it may very well. Wither way the economics would have to shift if such a change were made. When the government is currently profiting off of this in the billions it is very unlikely to want to change it.
Also another likely factor is that controlling the black market of drugs (which the CIA is absolutely at the least indirectly involved in) allow to control and influence who's hands the power in the third world falls into.
That is interesting about sweden I will look into that. I am guessing there is an explanation. My point that determining drug use is difficult in countries especially with strict laws may be relevant. There may also be other factors as well. I am sure North Korea has a low rate of drug use however should we model our government after this country? Obviously not. I am not sure how strict the drug laws are but i will defiantly look into it.
In several countries which have recently adopted harm reduction strategies drug use has declined. Even in california juvenile marijuana use has been reduced by the "medical" marijuana laws. In these countries we can make some conclusions however as what has changed is the drug policies and little else.
I am enjoying this conversation however I really have to study for a final. (Pharmacology BLAHAHAH) But I would love to continue this discussion later on maybe after tomorrow? I have some great books and sources as I am sure you do as well.
Thus the reason to keep Marijuana illegal is more so, so that they can continue to profit off of it. You see they profit off of it remaining illegal. The american people don't, we pay for it. But the drug war industry like any business wants to continue doing what its doing so that they can maintain their money, power, say.... This is the drive to keep these things illegal the money that is made off of them remaining illegal. In TIHKAL Shulgin does a great job showing just how big this drug war industry is. it is much bigger than people realize. Drugs remaining illegal is a 40 plus billion dollar a year industry. If drugs were legalized and taxed I do not think it would generate this much money although it may very well. Wither way the economics would have to shift if such a change were made. When the government is currently profiting off of this in the billions it is very unlikely to want to change it.
Also another likely factor is that controlling the black market of drugs (which the CIA is absolutely at the least indirectly involved in) allow to control and influence who's hands the power in the third world falls into.
That is interesting about sweden I will look into that. I am guessing there is an explanation. My point that determining drug use is difficult in countries especially with strict laws may be relevant. There may also be other factors as well. I am sure North Korea has a low rate of drug use however should we model our government after this country? Obviously not. I am not sure how strict the drug laws are but i will defiantly look into it.
In several countries which have recently adopted harm reduction strategies drug use has declined. Even in california juvenile marijuana use has been reduced by the "medical" marijuana laws. In these countries we can make some conclusions however as what has changed is the drug policies and little else.
I am enjoying this conversation however I really have to study for a final. (Pharmacology BLAHAHAH) But I would love to continue this discussion later on maybe after tomorrow? I have some great books and sources as I am sure you do as well.
as a side note:
I dont think the government would make so much money as so many people say, if weed was legal... Its a plant, you put the right seed in the earth, it grows and gives you LOADS of good smoke. Sure there will always be some lazy bastards but I think a lot more people would grow if it was legal, so the percentage of those who would buy from regulated weed would be smaller than predicted.
I dont think the government would make so much money as so many people say, if weed was legal... Its a plant, you put the right seed in the earth, it grows and gives you LOADS of good smoke. Sure there will always be some lazy bastards but I think a lot more people would grow if it was legal, so the percentage of those who would buy from regulated weed would be smaller than predicted.
MalargueZiggy
Rising Star
Ah the hidden people. Including of course the DEA themselves. Of course they'll frame the information they put out to say they need to keep doing what they're doing or else they'd be out of a job!
Actually, that's something else I'd be interested to get an understanding of; how jobs would be affected by decriminalisation.
I think that the sea change has to come when the sectors of society and the government itself stand to gain more from doing it than not.
I think that the fight against current laws has be won by cold, hard, fact. Unfortunately, the moral argument doesn't wash with most people, particularly those in power.
As far as I can tell from your opinions, you feel that this whole issue boils pretty much solely down to money? Is that part of a general world view you hold, do you think we are fighting a losing battle when we talk sensibly about health/crime/morality? Are there other factors you see that could sway it our way?
Good luck in your final! I look forward to picking this up again as and when.
Actually, that's something else I'd be interested to get an understanding of; how jobs would be affected by decriminalisation.
I think that the sea change has to come when the sectors of society and the government itself stand to gain more from doing it than not.
I think that the fight against current laws has be won by cold, hard, fact. Unfortunately, the moral argument doesn't wash with most people, particularly those in power.
As far as I can tell from your opinions, you feel that this whole issue boils pretty much solely down to money? Is that part of a general world view you hold, do you think we are fighting a losing battle when we talk sensibly about health/crime/morality? Are there other factors you see that could sway it our way?
Good luck in your final! I look forward to picking this up again as and when.
Thanks
Money can usual be found at the root of most issues. There are various reasons for this but money is power, safety...
It is obviously not a health issue. Tobacco alcohol, prescription drugs all have significant dangers and health effects equal in magnitude to any of those of illegal drugs. The very fact that prohibition makes drug use more dangerous shows they have very little concern for protecting public health. If they had the FDA would regulate these things and harm reduction policies would be enacted.
I think education is the key. People need to see the truth of what is going on. If we look at why alcohol prohibition was repealed it was because a bunch of house wives got together and said prohibition is more harmful to our children than alcohol. This is the equally true about current drug prohibition and until people open their eyes and start to discus this it will continue. The media is very powerful thing and they currently are on the prohibition side.
These people are not our government they do not have our best interest at heart. They are lying to us, stealing form us, and putting us all at risk. Not only are we letting them do this but we are paying them The fact that this industry is doing its dirty work under the title of THE US GOVERNMENT people think they must be concerned with our best interest. They are concerned with money maintaining their money, power and jobs.
It can be thought of like science. Many times scientists may say one thing in order to get a grant even though they know that it is not correct. A lot of the times this even has to do with studies on drugs. So our government right now is getting easy money, we are just throwing it at them saying build prison, buy guns, train cops... basically asking them to create a larger industry. They aren't going say no thanks we are big enough... they keep asking for more and more. The more they do the worst it gets the more crime, overdoses, adulterated drugs.... (to a point) and then they say see we need more money it is getting worse.
Money can usual be found at the root of most issues. There are various reasons for this but money is power, safety...
It is obviously not a health issue. Tobacco alcohol, prescription drugs all have significant dangers and health effects equal in magnitude to any of those of illegal drugs. The very fact that prohibition makes drug use more dangerous shows they have very little concern for protecting public health. If they had the FDA would regulate these things and harm reduction policies would be enacted.
I think education is the key. People need to see the truth of what is going on. If we look at why alcohol prohibition was repealed it was because a bunch of house wives got together and said prohibition is more harmful to our children than alcohol. This is the equally true about current drug prohibition and until people open their eyes and start to discus this it will continue. The media is very powerful thing and they currently are on the prohibition side.
These people are not our government they do not have our best interest at heart. They are lying to us, stealing form us, and putting us all at risk. Not only are we letting them do this but we are paying them The fact that this industry is doing its dirty work under the title of THE US GOVERNMENT people think they must be concerned with our best interest. They are concerned with money maintaining their money, power and jobs.
It can be thought of like science. Many times scientists may say one thing in order to get a grant even though they know that it is not correct. A lot of the times this even has to do with studies on drugs. So our government right now is getting easy money, we are just throwing it at them saying build prison, buy guns, train cops... basically asking them to create a larger industry. They aren't going say no thanks we are big enough... they keep asking for more and more. The more they do the worst it gets the more crime, overdoses, adulterated drugs.... (to a point) and then they say see we need more money it is getting worse.
endlessness said:
This is not the case. Most people would rather buy it, as it would be much easy and they could have it right away. Many people would not have the time, the space and/or the initial investment to grow high quality pot. Look at california "medical patients" are able to grow their own plants yet still most buy their pot from the clinics. It has become a huge industry in cali. It is just simpler to buy it. Growing good high quality pot is just as hard as making your own alcohol or growing your own tobacco people would just rather have it quickly and simply. You can't just throw some seeds in the ground and expect to grow into great pot. It requires time and money. In Amsterdam too most people just go to the store and buy it. Plus people like buying different strains. Also it would become a huge industry paraphenalia, grow equipment, marijuana bars,...the government would make a lot of money. Not to mention save a few billion right off the bat.
Many people would also grow it but a lot of money would still be generated thorugh the taxation of the sales.
'Coatl
Teotzlcoatl
Your right, I'll edit that. Sorry guys.
This is some great conversation.
One of my goals of all these crazy policies is to remove power from the hands of the rich pharmaceutical and agricultural companies and place it into the hands of the gardener and the farmer.
I envision a world with hemp plants, a goji orchard and a medicinal garden in every yard!