Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Cracking down on crack

By the77x42 in Culture
Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 09:40:34 AM EST
Tags: Culture (all tags)
Culture

If you ever visit Vancouver, BC, you will probably visit Gastown. What you might not visit is a place two blocks south: Main and Hastings.


The open drug market is most dominant on the corner of Main and Hastings, just a two minute walk away from Vancouver's largest tourist center.

Having grown up in Vancouver and working right beside Gastown for a number of years, I have had many first hand accounts with the people that crowd the worst concentrated drug area in Canada. In the middle of the day, you will see women selling crack cocaine for about $10 and addicts shooting heroin while police mindlessly walk by. Addicts are asleep/passed-out on the sidewalks and ambulances are constantly on patrol.

The problem is so bad that needle boxes (places where addicts can discard their used needles) are placed on street corners. Medical personnel go around handing out free, clean needles to heroin addicts to (hopefully) control the spread of AIDS through needle sharing.

So, what to do to solve the drug problem?

The city proposed methods that include drop-in clinics where addicts can safely take their drugs, dubbed "safe injection sites". Also more enforcement was proposed to help keep the drug dealers off the streets.

A couple days ago, the police tripled their presence in the downtown eastside (from 20 to 60) and patrolled on foot, bicycle, and horseback.

Unfortunately, it appears that only enforcement is being experimented with at this point. "We keep having this illusion of four pillars but all it is is just cops; you promised us January 1 there would be a safe site".1

The acting coordinator at a Community Policing Centre, said Vancouver simply doesn't have a large enough force to dedicate so many officers to one problem.

"New York was able to achieve what it achieved [cleaning up street crime in the 1990s] with three times the number of officers per thousand population that Vancouver has," he said.

"Vancouver doesn't have the surplus to do a major operation like this, so they have to take people away from other jobs to do this and they have to pay overtime."2

Vancouver Police had requested a six month extension on the program but yesterday, city council unanimously rejected the extension although today it looks as though the police force is going to find its own resources to continue the program.

What is drug enforcement without treatment?

Addicts are back out on the streets after being processed within hours. By having an increased police presence in one area, the drug dealers and users are just going to move into other, more suburban areas.

Some local political parties have been advocating the legalization of all drugs. Some committies in Canada have be advocating the legalization of marijuana, maybe harder drugs should be legalized as well. I for one, don't see this as a solution for addicts, more as a money-saving solution.

There needs to be clinics, safe injection sites to slow the spread of disease, and free education programs and counselling to inform users. Vancouver Mayor Larry Campbell was elected primarily for his stance on a first-ever safe injection site for Vancouver drug addicts, but, alas, where is the funding?

Something desperately needs to be done, as the current situation is definitely not working.

What should be done to stop the drug epidemic?

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
To combat drugs, you should:
o a. Have more enforcement 1%
o b. Have more treatment facilities 8%
o c. Have more education programs 7%
o d. All of the above (a-c) 13%
o e. Make them all legal 26%
o f. All of the above (a-e) 26%
o g. Impose the death penalty on dealers 8%
o h. All of the above (a-g) 5%

Votes: 168
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o visit Vancouver, BC
o Gastown
o Main and Hastings
o crack cocaine
o heroin
o police tripled their presence in the downtown eastside
o 1
o 2
o city council unanimously rejected the extension
o going to find its own resources
o local political parties
o advocating the legalization of marijuana
o counsellin g
o Vancouver Mayor Larry Campbell
o Also by the77x42


Display: Sort:
Cracking down on crack | 304 comments (255 topical, 49 editorial, 0 hidden)
Well (4.00 / 1) (#1)
by FuriousXGeorge on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 03:45:35 AM EST

Treat, enforce, or legalize.
-- FIELDISM NOW!
Is that an inclusive-or? [nt] (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by the77x42 on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 03:48:28 AM EST




"We're not here to educate. We're here to point and laugh." - creature
"You have some pretty stupid ideas." - indubitable ‮

[ Parent ]
Crack (5.00 / 2) (#184)
by rinsa on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 10:20:25 AM EST

the only option left is to legalise the lot. prohibition DOES NOT WORK this has been and will continue to be proved. prices will then fall dramatically, the (dangherous) impurities will be removed (meaning people die less) you see a huge drop in crime as people need much less money to support their habit and the serious gun culture and other crime that exists around the supply of illegal drugs goes away overnight. this leaves cops more time to deal with crimes (by users and non users alike). the only down side is a possibility more people will take drugs, but as human beings its their right to choose what goes in their bodies.
cracks like evrything else, fine in morderation
[ Parent ]
nuh? (5.00 / 3) (#3)
by zephc on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 03:59:57 AM EST

People are shooting up crack now?  Those must be some scary-big needles!

read (none / 0) (#4)
by the77x42 on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 04:13:03 AM EST

"clean needles to heroin addicts"


"We're not here to educate. We're here to point and laugh." - creature
"You have some pretty stupid ideas." - indubitable ‮

[ Parent ]
Well (none / 0) (#206)
by trane on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 03:09:57 PM EST

when you can't get powder cocaine, you can use lemon juice to break crack down into an injectible form.

[ Parent ]
Crack is boring (3.57 / 7) (#6)
by epepke on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 06:00:12 AM EST

Somebody had to say it. Crack is an incredibly boring drug, possibly even more boring than marijuana. Give me a nice Belgian ale any day. What exactly is to be served by cracking down on crack?


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


carck (none / 0) (#186)
by rinsa on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 10:34:17 AM EST

mate crack is fun believe me
cracks like evrything else, fine in morderation
[ Parent ]
Take the safety off in the War on Drugs (1.47 / 34) (#7)
by Filthy Socialist Hippy on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 06:58:37 AM EST

You've seen the ads.  Drug money supports terrorists.  These traitors have chosen to declare themselves enemies of the free world.

Execute every last mother fucking one of them.

Screw due process.  Screw spending tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on each prosecution.  Screw paying to keep them in jail, or paying to help them deal with their weak wills or greed.

This is workable for two reasons:

  1. How many law enforcement officers were sacked or prosecuted for killing drug dealers last year?  How many for accidentally killing innocent bystanders when kicking down the wrong door?  We already accept that this is a war.
  2. Who's going to complain?  Really, how many active voters would change their vote if this policy was enacted?  Liberals will protest and whine whatever we do.
Victims my huge hairy ass.  They are drop outs, the enemies of right thinking, hard working taxpayers and voters, and they are supporters of terror.  Kill 'em all and let God sort them out.

--
leftist, you don't love America, you love what America with all its wealth and power can be if you turn it into a socialist state. - thelizman
Helpful hint for you amateurs out there. (4.20 / 5) (#12)
by Torka on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 08:53:15 AM EST

Trolls rarely work when they're too obvious.

[ Parent ]
Not new[N/T] (3.00 / 2) (#24)
by cronian on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 11:50:12 AM EST

Aren't you describing the system they have been trying to use in many places in the United States. I don't think it worked.

We perfect it; Congress kills it; They make it; We Import it; It must be anti-Americanism
[ Parent ]
*laugh* (4.00 / 1) (#25)
by aphrael on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 12:47:26 PM EST

that would have worked better if you had managed to phrase it in the canadian context. Since Canada doesn't have a "war on drugs" in the same sense that the US does, your argument fails.

[ Parent ]
Give them the drugs. (4.41 / 12) (#9)
by brain in a jar on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 07:49:59 AM EST

The dutch worked out a long time ago that the majority of the problems associated with addictive hard drugs indirect rather than direct. The drugs are expensive so addicts have to steal to support their habit. Many of the negative health effects are associated with impurities rather than the drug itself (this is certainly true for heroin). The violence associated with drugs occurs because of different groups fighting over a lucrative illegal market.

Heroin (and probably cocaine too) can be manufactured cheaply, the cost of providing regular doses to addicts which they take under supervision in clinics is tiny compared to the costs of crime, and the medical costs of treating addicts made sick by impure drugs and dirty needles.

By providing addicts with a regular, safe supply they become able to hold down jobs and have relatively normal lives.

Whatever your moral judgement about addicts is, punishment achieves nothing, whereas giving them a safe supply renders them harmless to society.

Life is too important, to be taken entirely seriously.

You are wrong. (1.84 / 13) (#14)
by tkatchev on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 09:12:10 AM EST

Anybody who has ever lived in a moderately large city knows that there are very real physiological body changes that accompany drug abuse.

Most anybody from a large city can diagnose drug addiction at first glance. Hard-core addicts don't even look much like humans anymore.

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

Appearances are misleading. (4.28 / 7) (#17)
by brain in a jar on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 09:57:33 AM EST

The usual picture you have of a Heroin addict is of someone who is pale and underweight. People attribute this to the heroin, the effect is in fact entirely indirect.

The reason heroin addicts are often thin and pale is because if they have money they would rather spend it on drugs than food, and hence they don't eat as much as they should.

Once the initial high has passed a heroin addict is perfectly capable of holding down a job while using.  The dutch experience has proved this.  

Life is too important, to be taken entirely seriously.
[ Parent ]

Pale and underweight... (1.00 / 3) (#33)
by tkatchev on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 01:55:12 PM EST

What does being "pale and underweight" have to do with heroin addiction?

Like I said, addicts suffer from very serious metabolical changes in their physiology. Malnourishment has nothing to do with it.

Any sufficiently experienced person has no trouble spotting these metabolical changes with the naked eye.

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

Metabolic changes (none / 0) (#245)
by Mysidia on Sun Apr 13, 2003 at 12:07:19 AM EST

1. Malnourishment causes metabolic change: therefore the argument that malnourishment would have nothing to do with it is just wrong.

2. Metabolic changes are not necessarily bad, even if they can be viewed as harmful, they just "are": people who imbibe alcohol or drink caffeinated beverages for example get metabolic effects too. Metabolic processes fluctuate in activity level significantly with people who are not addicts.

That you can characterize a large change in physiology only means that something's changed: it might not be a very good thing, taken to an extreme metabolism changes could be fatal or at least harmful, but negative effects caused by the artificial scarcity created by law enforcement in order to make drug marketing highly profitable are more harmful: the whole impurities and violence things are physically LETHAL, not merely harmful and potentially very dangerous.



[ Parent ]
Your point? (1.00 / 4) (#256)
by tkatchev on Sun Apr 13, 2003 at 06:51:02 AM EST

Maybe I am an idiot, but I totally fail to see the point of your post.

Maybe this is some sort of weird druggie logic that the rest of us simply do not understand?

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

you missed the point (3.66 / 6) (#18)
by scatbubba on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 09:59:21 AM EST

if those 'hard core addicts' didn't spend the night sucking cocks in alleys trying raise the money for their next hit, they wouldn't look like the walking dead. These people trade their sleep, food, family, everything to get the drugs, so it's no surprise you can pick them out of a crowd.

[ Parent ]
What? (2.14 / 7) (#32)
by tkatchev on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 01:52:46 PM EST

Have you ever even seen (much less talked to) a hard core addict?

The vast majority of them hold down steady, low-paying menial jobs.

That is, until they suffer a personality meltdown (which all addicts eventually fall prey too) and turn into zombies. At that point they bocome biorobots and simply stop caring.

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

Jesus (4.00 / 1) (#72)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 06:36:18 PM EST

Reefer madness much?

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]
Hello incredible idiot. (1.80 / 5) (#167)
by tkatchev on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 02:08:13 AM EST

Where are you from, dude?

Even people from the worst, most secluded backwards rural areas have no trouble differentiating from heroin and "reefers".

In case your pot-addled brain didn't catch this: marijuana never even entered the discussion. Go troll somewhere else.

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

You dense, arrogant, pedant (4.25 / 4) (#174)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 07:51:02 AM EST

I was obviously referring to the blatant lies and sensationalism about addiction that you, for some reason, believe. I am certain that someone who makes such sweeping generalizations has experienced little of the real world, let alone seen or met an addict. Only a fool such as yourself would assume I was referring literally to marijuana, when I was actually using the 1930s era propaganda film as an example of the ridiculous misconceptions that uneducated sheep such as yourself consume willingly.

I have never trolled, and I take your accusation with the utmost seriousness. I believe you owe me an apology now.

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]

Hello idiot. (1.55 / 9) (#177)
by tkatchev on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 09:47:53 AM EST

a) Again, I ask you how this discussion at all relates to "the good herb". Perhaps we should also discuss hentai anime or the vagarities of baking rice cakes as well? Since we seem to have dropped the original topic?

b) I know what I am talking about.

c) Go get f-ked.

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

Where's my apology... (3.50 / 2) (#181)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 10:04:25 AM EST

...you apelike miscreant?

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]
Hard of hearing? (1.28 / 7) (#191)
by tkatchev on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 12:07:36 PM EST

Get f-ked.

Loser.

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

Still waiting (1.00 / 4) (#203)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 03:06:14 PM EST

Nobody accuses me of trolling, you uninspired pedestrian bastard.

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]
I don't like to repeat myself thrice. (1.25 / 8) (#229)
by tkatchev on Sat Apr 12, 2003 at 05:28:22 AM EST

OK. I'll put that down to your natural stupidity.

I repeat again: go get yourself f-ked.

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

re: What? (none / 0) (#91)
by ZorbaTHut on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 07:13:33 PM EST

So, you're telling me that "hard core addict" is another word for "technology worker in Seattle"?

Because every one of my friends (with the exception of me) is holding down a steady, low-paying menial job.

And I don't see what the harm is, really . . . they're alive, they're making a profit, life continues. In the case of a hardcore addict, they're probably spending their money on drugs, which is unfortunate, but if the prices were lower (read: if drugs were legalized/provided by the state if necessary) it wouldn't be as much of a problem.

[ Parent ]

There is a difference, though. (1.00 / 2) (#168)
by tkatchev on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 02:11:48 AM EST

For addicts, there are deep-seated physiological changes that accompany adiction. (Maybe they are permament, I don't know; there are different opinions on the matter.)

As for harm... ...well, yeah, they turn into vegetables. Aside from that, no harm at all...

I doubt that any government is going to spend billions of dollars just to support worthless meat puppets. Much easier to just throw them in jail.

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

Um, huh? (none / 0) (#182)
by ckaminski on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 10:11:17 AM EST

And spend billions of dollars arresting, prosecuting, jailing and supporting worthless meat-puppets who'll still get their drugs in the pen?  

Why is that better than legalization or decriminalization?

[ Parent ]

No, you misunderstand... (4.00 / 1) (#192)
by tkatchev on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 12:08:57 PM EST

...I'm just pointing out the obvious cost advantages of the totalitarian police state. That doesn't mean I support one or think that such a society makes sense. :))

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

Vegetables!? (4.00 / 1) (#223)
by Pihkal on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 07:37:50 PM EST

Vegetables, huh? Hmm, locally produced, pesticide-free, low in fat, what's not to like? Soylent Vancouver is people! IS PEOPLE!!!!

I do want to point out though, that jail is pretty expensive. Treatment, or even just giving them free drugs, would be way cheaper.

"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered!"
-- Number 6
[ Parent ]

I want a biorobot! (none / 0) (#158)
by KnightStalker on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 01:17:09 AM EST

Is it possible to buy these used up addicts on the black market? Will they clean my house and perform valuable acts of espionage? I don't have any children, so I don't have to worry about the well-known infantivorism rampant among the drug crazed community.

Thanks for your help.

[ Parent ]

Honestly, I don't know. (1.00 / 2) (#166)
by tkatchev on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 02:04:53 AM EST

Addicts suffer from numerous health problems, don't live very long (on average, the smack addict has a lifetime of 4 years) and tend to be exteremely stupid.

In short, they make horrible slaves.

Nevertheless, it is well-known that there are lots of prostitutes that are, indeed, druggie biorobots. It is one of the only "jobs" that addicts can still do moderately well.

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

But then (none / 0) (#175)
by gazbo on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 08:57:59 AM EST

Blacks don't live long when I get bored and organise a hunt, and there's no denying their stupidity. Despite this, I have yet to find a race of people with their genetic disposition for picking my cotton fields and / or frying my chicken.

-----
Topless, revealing, nude pics and vids of Zora Suleman! Upskirt and down blouse! Cleavage!
Hardcore ZORA SULEMAN pics!

[ Parent ]

Your point? (1.00 / 1) (#178)
by tkatchev on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 09:51:06 AM EST

Being black is not an existential choice.

If you get burned once, twice, thrice -- then do not complain when for the fourth time you end up with third-degree burns.

Besides, most addicts I know see addiction as a creative way of committing suicide -- since life sucks and all, you might as well go out in a way that is pleasant and soft.

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

Sir, you credit my comment too much (none / 0) (#179)
by gazbo on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 09:58:38 AM EST

It was meaningless - I just haven't been zeroed and flamed for a while and had begun to miss it.

-----
Topless, revealing, nude pics and vids of Zora Suleman! Upskirt and down blouse! Cleavage!
Hardcore ZORA SULEMAN pics!

[ Parent ]

Just wait (none / 0) (#207)
by trane on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 03:19:12 PM EST

until they pinpoint an "addiction gene", then being an addict won't be viewed as an existential choice, either.

[ Parent ]
Uh. (5.00 / 1) (#230)
by tkatchev on Sat Apr 12, 2003 at 05:29:15 AM EST

I'm still waiting for you guys to colonize Mars.


   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

Send me to mars (5.00 / 1) (#243)
by trane on Sat Apr 12, 2003 at 08:57:28 PM EST

with lots of drugs.

[ Parent ]
Good Lord! (none / 0) (#228)
by KnightStalker on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 10:06:40 PM EST

I wasn't talking about /slavery/. That's immoral! These biorobots you speak of are sure more analogous to domestic animals. And the quick turnover rate will help keep them in their place!

[ Parent ]
Yes but. (1.00 / 1) (#232)
by tkatchev on Sat Apr 12, 2003 at 05:32:26 AM EST

They have poor hyegine, unlike, say, cats.


   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

Question (none / 0) (#173)
by Talez on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 04:30:13 AM EST

Is a biorobot anything like a kurobot or a slashbot?

Si in Googlis non est, ergo non est
[ Parent ]
Very similar (5.00 / 2) (#185)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 10:23:31 AM EST

But biorobots get laid more.

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]
you found a flaw with legalization (none / 0) (#209)
by startled on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 03:41:06 PM EST

"if those 'hard core addicts' didn't spend the night sucking cocks in alleys trying raise the money for their next hit" Shit, there goes my enthusiasm for legalization. Even if the government starts handing out free drugs for the druggies, they sure as hell aren't going to provide me with cheap blow jobs.

[ Parent ]
you totally missed the point (4.20 / 5) (#42)
by thekubrix on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 03:11:29 PM EST

maybe they look like crap because they spend so much time and money trying to obtain drugs? Maybe its possible to not look like that it if were distributed legally at a resonable price??

[ Parent ]
Hello good Sir. (1.63 / 11) (#170)
by tkatchev on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 02:13:19 AM EST

Notice I said "metabolical changes", not "look like crap".

Stop smoking your reefer and learn to read.

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

So maybe (4.00 / 1) (#212)
by trane on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 04:06:18 PM EST

instead of letting these people experiment on themselves with unknown purities, cutting materials, etc., we could legalize it and do some research on how to minimize the harmful metabolical effects?

[ Parent ]
Why? (2.00 / 8) (#231)
by tkatchev on Sat Apr 12, 2003 at 05:31:19 AM EST

They're meat puppets. Really, who gives a s-t? Dropping money on etremely expensive research so that human vegetables could live a more comfortable life?

Why? Addicts don't care. I don't. The government doesn't. Society doesn't. So what's the point?

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

The point: (4.33 / 3) (#242)
by trane on Sat Apr 12, 2003 at 08:47:24 PM EST

The point is that you personally would benefit.

If I could get my drugs pure and without side effects, I could perhaps contribute something more to society than I am currently doing. If the negative physiological changes were minimized, I (or others who have been adversely affected by they negative side-effects of the drugs they're taking) might do something that would make your life more convenient or more enjoyable in some way. At the very least your taxes would go down if you didn't have to pay for hospitalization of addicts who overdose or suffer from stroke, etc.

So it is in your own best interests to support legalization and research into better drugs.

[ Parent ]

Look. (1.00 / 3) (#254)
by tkatchev on Sun Apr 13, 2003 at 06:44:45 AM EST

Society doesn't care about addicts at all. As far as society is concerned, addicts are of no more imporance than, say, rainworms.

Simple. Tell me again why research should be spent on improving the average addict's life?

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

Because (5.00 / 1) (#258)
by trane on Sun Apr 13, 2003 at 02:00:11 PM EST

Sigmund Freud, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Louis Armstrong, Bix Beiderbecke, Charlie Parker, John Coltrane, Timothy Leary, Carl Sagan, and countless others who have contributed much to my personal happiness and well-being, were addicts.

These were extraordinary men who made significant contributions often despite the barriers placed before them by society's laws.

How many other less extraordinary talents have been wasted because of our laws?

My contention is, I would personally benefit from those contributions that would be made by addicts who currently spend all their time trying to get enough money for their next high, and whose health is currently adversely affected by impure substances.

Also, predicted effects such as lowered crime, higher tax revenues (from legal drug companies), less tax money spent on treating destitute addicts' health problems, etc. should benefit you (and me).

[ Parent ]

Look. (1.25 / 4) (#260)
by tkatchev on Sun Apr 13, 2003 at 03:47:51 PM EST

Neither do the addicts themselves care nor does society itself cares.

End of discussion.

If the addicts in question have at least a shred of human decency left, they are able to support themselves. If not, then why bother?

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

Bullshit (4.42 / 7) (#51)
by Domino on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 04:28:36 PM EST

I live in Chicago and can't diagnose drug addiction at first or second or third glance. Neither can anybody I know, including cops. Well, maybe drunks and smokers.

The doctor who did my dad's cornea implant did a perfectly good job, far as anyone could tell. Nobody knew the good doc had been a mophine addict for a couple decades, until he died at 70 or so. But then we didn't have the supersight of tkatchev at our service.

[ Parent ]

Whatever. (1.70 / 10) (#169)
by tkatchev on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 02:12:41 AM EST

Just keep on trolling, dude...

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

Quick to yell Troll, aren't you? (4.16 / 6) (#240)
by Herb User on Sat Apr 12, 2003 at 08:18:47 PM EST

Herb User is back with a puff of the stuff.

http://www.drugtext.org/library/reports/cu/cu5.html
(for example)

Excerpt:

"The United States Supreme Court's 1962 characterization of the drug addict as "one of the walking dead" can no doubt be illustrated many times over among addicts living under twentieth-century conditions of high opiate prices, vigorous law enforcement, repeated imprisonment, social ignominy, and periodic unavailability of opiates. The court's major error was to attribute the effects it so vividly described to the drugs themselves rather than to the narcotics laws and to the social conditions under which addicts live today. To illustrate, let us consider the effects of opiate addiction on a few distinguished addicts who throughout their lives had adequate access to continuing supplies."

I'll summarize:

A great doctor, W.S. Halsted, was addicted to cocaine injections after researching its medical uses and experimenting on himself.  The cocaine caused problems in his performance.  Later, though his associates thought him cured after several attempts, he had actually become a morphine addict - performing excellently as a surgeon the entire time, but keeping the addiction secret until his death.

He never became a walking dead type, never lost his physical strength apart from aging.  The problems we see with heroin junkies (who could just as well be on morphine, they are quite similar in effect) are from the societal problems and economic problems brought upon them by our War on Drugs.  Certainly not because of the addiction or the effects of the drug.

God damn it, this is not a fucking troll, you hear me?  Read up on this.  A drug addict was essential in the establishment of one of America's best hospitals.  Yeah, I'm SURE he was a zombie while performing all those surgeries, and acquiring the title "Father of modern surgery".  Oh, and he also died an early death - after beginning the morphine addiction at the age of 34 - at the incredibly young age of 70, in good health.

Whew, I learned that opioid addicts suffer and die from their horrible drugs, yeah.  I know junkies too, by the way - and they are varied in their intellect, morality, interests, etc., JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.  They just have the problem of finding an illegal "fix" all the time, which wastes more of their time than anything else.
Personally, I don't consider them scum.  Just boring, because they have to work on getting what they need and do little else, not because that's all they want, but because there's so little time in the day.

Also, I'll bet they'd be glad to work if they could be guaranteed drugs and no prison.  Couldn't an enterprising person make an industry of this?  Lower wages, extra labor capacity!  No dealers, less drug cops, less full prisons, safer cities, and some clean, well-earned money for the druggies, too!  All at a lower tax cost.
I wager almost all heroin addicts would go for this...

Anyway, my point is -
I really fucking hate WoD propaganda and fact-free disinformation.
Consider the weak factual basis for what you're saying or STFU,
for this article definitely debunks most of that bunk.

Thank you :)-~

[i'd gladly take more drug addicts
to have a more open, civilized society
as i'd risk death by terrorism over
the loss of our rights and liberties.
freedom is risky, did we forget that?
are soldiers our only brave people, now?
fuck all these wars on ideas / objects!]

Slackware GNU/Linux for Desktops!
OpenBSD for Servers!
WinXP for expensive game consoles!
[ Parent ]

Hello troll. (1.66 / 6) (#255)
by tkatchev on Sun Apr 13, 2003 at 06:49:46 AM EST

I didn't read your post, since it was too long and I actually have a life that I wouldn't like to waste.

But anyways, like I said -- addicts are not economical as far as work is concerned. They have a very short lifespan, and eventually most turn into lifeless vegetables. You could, though, use them as prostitutes -- and this is what the criminal underworld has exploited for decades.

Unfortuately, nobody as of yet has found a way to utilize addicts on more conventional venues.

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

Fucking Liberalists (3.00 / 1) (#308)
by godspeed on Tue Apr 15, 2003 at 11:29:59 AM EST

Judging by your subject header you attack this argument based on the fact that it follows a libertarian train of thought e.g. If my actions do not harm anyone else, they should not be prosecuted. However, I would propose that your blind following of a Liberalist standpoint means that you really can't make a rational argument on the matter.

On of the main assumptions of this standpoint is that all people are positioned on a level playing field and that success is simply a marker of individual effort. That anybody at all can still blindly adhere to this amazes me. Structural inequalities are so firmly embedded in society that it becomes nigh on impossible for people from marginalised race, ethnic, class, sex and sexuality backgrounds to become "successful". Just because we can see Colin Powell and Tiger Woods doesn't mean that all black people could be just as successful if they tried. For every one that is successful, I don't want to think about the amount that will end up with nothing in their lives. I think the other end of the argument is much more convincing: 12% of black men over 20 are in jail. You can't look at something like that and tell me that those 12% made free, clear choices to be "lazy" and go to jail instead of becoming rich and powerful. Lack of access to education, social stigmatisation and minimal economic access are just some of the reasons why those that are constructed as inferior end up in the gutter (and frequently on drugs) in much greater numbers then those born into wealthy, white, middle class families (they can use the drugs, but usually won't end up in the gutter). In the future actually think about the implications of what you're saying before they end up on here.
"This is the most exciting thing to happen since Halley's Comet hit the moon" - Homer J. Simpson
[ Parent ]

What is the problem? (1.56 / 30) (#10)
by jann on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 08:37:32 AM EST

Shooting up crack is really good ...

Take it from me ... if you haven't tried it don't criticise. It can be the most mindblowing experience. I KNOW why people give up everything for it. IT IS SO GOOD!

When you have some slut on her knees moaning whilst you pound your rock hard cock up her arse there is nothing more satisfying than shooting your load up her ass crack. UMMMmmmmm.

I can understand the addiction ... but don't get what needles have to do with anything.

J

You must make your man very happy (n/t) (5.00 / 1) (#92)
by HidingMyName on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 07:16:08 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Darwin (2.50 / 2) (#11)
by n8f8 on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 08:45:26 AM EST

Darwin had the answer.

Sig: (This will get posted after your comments)
Yeah, but (2.00 / 1) (#13)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 09:07:26 AM EST

Canada has socialized medicine; so Darwin has broken down up there.


--
Note that the depiction of the president as a deranged or Nazi paranoid is coming mostly from people who constantly tell us how passionately they
[ Parent ]

not really (4.83 / 6) (#36)
by Run4YourLives on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 02:48:37 PM EST

we've just evolved a little further away from the jungle you call the USA down there.

Darwin is alive and well, it seems.

:-)

It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown
[ Parent ]

Ow! I've been hit! (5.00 / 3) (#43)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 03:14:46 PM EST

Sharp point you've got there.

:-)


--
Note that the depiction of the president as a deranged or Nazi paranoid is coming mostly from people who constantly tell us how passionately they
[ Parent ]

Yep (none / 0) (#29)
by tang gnat on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 01:41:50 PM EST

Those who constantly seek pleasure get lots of bebbies!

[ Parent ]
What was it? (5.00 / 6) (#107)
by dipierro on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 08:04:30 PM EST

Randomly generate and mutate laws until one set eventually works?

[ Parent ]
Drugs (3.87 / 8) (#16)
by Terence J Crewcut on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 09:14:27 AM EST

I know a lot of K5ers have chosen to use drugs, so I was going to post a troll wherein I maintained the a) drugs were pure evil and b) people who used them were highly unintelligent. But seriously, this is a big problem. The way the system currently works, we have a lot of violence, sickness and death. That's no good. Instead of baiting everyone, I'd like to take this opportunity to create a top-level comment under which we can begin a fresh and focused examination of the issues.

Sorry for my earlier flip attitude.

Let them have it (1.91 / 12) (#19)
by SanSeveroPrince on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 09:59:44 AM EST

Starting from the principle that anybody requiring drugs for their daily lives should be shot anyway, the simplest way to end any drug epidemic is for the governement to give out big doses of it for free. Within two weeks, all junkies would be dead. They'd curl up and die, and who knows, perhaps decomposition will improve the way they smell....

----

Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think


No (5.00 / 4) (#22)
by jt on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 11:44:38 AM EST

  1. Government legalizes all drugs
  2. Tax-o-rama
  3. PROFIT!


[ Parent ]
RE: No (4.75 / 8) (#44)
by illustro1a4 on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 03:21:17 PM EST

jt said:
  • Government legalizes all drugs
  • Tax-o-rama
  • PROFIT!
  • Here's my 2 cents:
  • Legalize marijuana. Make it available under the same rules as alcohol with the "tax-o-rama". The US will make billions of dollars between taxes earned and money saved on prohibitionist enforcement.
  • Allow MDs to prescribe any other drug for maintenance. I've known a couple of people that were addicted to heroin. They spent 5% of their time high and the rest looking for money to get high. A habit can cost more than $500 per week. Let them go to a clinic, get counseling and buy their fix for about $5. Watch property crimes drop by at least 50%.

    With that said it will never happen. The police have way too much control on the politicians and courts to let this go through. It would mean a reduced need for LEOs (Law Enforcement Officials) requiring the remaining ones to work on "real" crimes and not busting peaceful potheads. Add in the Drug Czar's recent comments about how he wants to make illegal drugs even more expensive and the quality to greatly vary, and you have a recipe for more property crimes, more people suffering from ODs and more deaths.

    For a few years starting in the '80s I was a LEO working exclusively on the WoD (War on Drugs). We made some big busts and really thought we'd have it under control in little time. Now the busts are bigger than we could had ever dreamed of. Our work has only made things worse, costing too much money and too many lives. I can honestly say I'm ashamed of what I did for the govt. It's time to end the WoD now.

    illustro
    --
    Get the facts about marijuana and the true cost of prohibition.

    [ Parent ]

  • The problem with this (4.66 / 3) (#154)
    by truth versus death on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 12:35:23 AM EST

    Is you use the word "legalize." This word is not comprehensible to many people. They think you mean make drugs an unregulated mess. Even if you say tax them, many people still think you still mean make drugs an unregulated mess. Unfortunately, you have to be very specific to avoid this effect.

    "any erection implies consent"-fae
    [ Trim your Bush ]
    [ Parent ]
    woah (3.66 / 3) (#41)
    by thekubrix on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 03:09:06 PM EST

    so your saying we should just legalize it?!

    hell ya!

    I say we legalize EVERYTHING and let evolution/nature take its course.

    [ Parent ]

    Good (none / 0) (#264)
    by Silent Chris on Sun Apr 13, 2003 at 10:59:02 PM EST

    Because I have a shotgun, and find the laws against killing people to be way too strict.  I can't wait until I take my gun to the streets of NY

    [ Parent ]
    i've never seen anyone (5.00 / 1) (#270)
    by suntzu on Sun Apr 13, 2003 at 11:53:34 PM EST

    with such a hard-on for analogizing guns and drugs. get over it, your analogy is flawed. guns are legal. murder is not. if drugs were legal, that doesn't mean DUI would be legal. you can still regulate drugs and drug use. legalizing drugs won't lead to the immediate destruction of society. look at it this way: if drugs were legalized, would you immediately go buy and shoot heroin? i doubt it. what makes you think the rest of society is so much less responsible than you?

    [ Parent ]
    Re: let them have it (4.50 / 2) (#187)
    by MooseMorals on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 11:08:10 AM EST

    Starting from the principle that anybody requiring drugs for their daily lives should be shot anyway

    Can we start with the tobacoo addicts? And then everyone who drinks coffee. And then maybe people with too much sugar (or salt) in their diet? And what about all the evil people who eat complex carbohydrates (like starch)? If we have any ammo left, we can start on the people recovering from organ transplants on anti-rejection medication....



    [ Parent ]
    I knew (1.00 / 3) (#238)
    by SanSeveroPrince on Sat Apr 12, 2003 at 07:11:49 PM EST

    there was a reason the phrase 'bleeding heart liberal' was coined. It's people like you.

    ----

    Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think


    [ Parent ]
    try this: (4.00 / 1) (#271)
    by suntzu on Sun Apr 13, 2003 at 11:57:52 PM EST

    reply with some substance next time. you said daily addict deserve to die. do you realize that caffiene and nicotine (not to mention alcohol) are addictive substances, and that many members of society (probably many of your family members even) need these substances to function normally? do you agree that they should be shot? because if you don't, you're changing your original statement. it's as simple as that.

    what you probably meant to say was that "people who need to use drugs that i don't accept should be shot." at least be more forward about your irrational prejudices.

    [ Parent ]

    Righteous Anger does not Become you (none / 0) (#297)
    by SanSeveroPrince on Tue Apr 15, 2003 at 05:32:07 AM EST

    I love how you transfer all your frustrations in your mail.

    For your information, these days I DO consider any drug that is debilitating and dangerous to other people disgusting. That DOES include alcohol, which I do not drink.

    Pot and smoke, while they may or may not be dangerous to the individual smoking it, are tolerable because they do not cause too much harm to those around.

    Instead of bleeding all over my comments, why don't you consider that people with a predisposition to pickling their brains can abuse ANYTHING? With the exception of a few heavyweights, most drugs can be managed successfuly, and more power to you.

    It's the people that abuse the drugs, goddamn idiots, not the other way around.

    ----

    Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think


    [ Parent ]
    Credit your damn sig (3.00 / 1) (#235)
    by Kasreyn on Sat Apr 12, 2003 at 01:47:07 PM EST

    Chris Rock said that.

    Plagiarism = bad mmkay?


    -Kasreyn


    "Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
    We never asked to be born in the first place."

    R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
    [ Parent ]
    One of the interesting things (4.22 / 9) (#28)
    by aphrael on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 01:20:18 PM EST

    One of the interesting things about that particular neighborhood, at least from my perspective, was that, for all that it was vaguely scummy and unpleasant and icky to walk through, it did not carry the threatening feel of similar neighborhoods in large American cities. It managed to be scummy and disgusting without being threatening, which was quite an achievement.

    What about actually *fixing* the problem? (1.92 / 14) (#31)
    by tang gnat on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 01:51:47 PM EST

    Many solutions to the drug problem that I have seen are rather short-term ideas. For example, won't helping the addicts just encourage their numbers to increase? Also, won't punishing them just drive them underground?

    One cruel but seemingly workable long-term solution is to kill all the drug users and/or dealers on the street. That would solve the street problem at least. Who would want to start using addictive drugs after that?

    Short of such an atrocity, what can be done?

    lawdy lawdy lawdy (3.33 / 3) (#39)
    by thekubrix on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 03:03:57 PM EST

    I know this is just a troll, but what the hay....

    Kill all the druge users and/or dealers? Wow. And who exactly would do this? You're going to kill every dealer/user in the world? Seems like you would have to, no? Hell lets kill alcholics and smokers while were at it, then we'll kill red-meat eaters.

    Even if you limit it to just a locale, how in the hell could you EVER eliminate all drug users/dealers? One of the most powerful agencies in the world, the DEA, can't even REMOTELY control even a fraction of dealers, and you want them all gone? There will ALWAYS be a demand.......ALWAYS.

    Just legalize EVERYTHING and let evolution/nature run its course.

    [ Parent ]

    Geez, a little restrictive aren't we? (none / 0) (#64)
    by jt on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 05:18:48 PM EST

    Just kill all humans! Hell, don't discriminate, kill all life forms on the planet!  Total nuclear annihilation!

    [ Parent ]
    I dont think so (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by thekubrix on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 06:07:54 PM EST

    I don't think a full scale global nuclear war would eliminate all humans. The earth is far to large and there are too many people. You need a dooms day device of sorts. For example, eliminate sunlight and its all over.

    [ Parent ]
    Go the other way (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by ZorbaTHut on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 07:30:40 PM EST

    Don't eliminate sunlight - cause the sun to go supernova. There's plenty of life that lives in the lightless underground and could eventually evolve to use heroin, but the heat of a supernova from 1au away would likely sterilize the entire planet, if not plasmify it entirely.

    [ Parent ]
    Oops... what I meant was... (none / 0) (#95)
    by tang gnat on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 07:23:34 PM EST

    I was asking if there is any other way to stop the drug problem, short of a massacre of drug abusers.

    Everything I've seen implemented does not reduce the problem, but just "deals with it". (The problem is that people waste their whole lives on getting their next fix of some narcotic)

    [ Parent ]

    Stopping the problem (4.00 / 1) (#100)
    by CaptainSuperBoy on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 07:34:33 PM EST

    Who said that stopping the drug problem was synonymous with stopping drug use?

    --
    jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
    [ Parent ]
    I Don't Know... (none / 0) (#287)
    by virg on Mon Apr 14, 2003 at 04:07:11 PM EST

    ...but it wasn't Tang Gnat. Try again.

    Virg
    "Imagine (it won't be hard) that most people would prefer seeing Carrot Top beaten to death with a bag of walnuts." - Jmzero
    [ Parent ]
    Thailand (none / 0) (#47)
    by drivers on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 03:57:54 PM EST

    Aren't they doing just that in Thailand recently? Extrajudicial killings a la Judge Dredd.

    [ Parent ]
    Rape (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by CaptainSuperBoy on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 06:32:54 PM EST

    Wouldn't you say that rape is a more heinous crime than drug use? I believe we should kill all men, this would drastically reduce the incidence of rape.

    --
    jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
    [ Parent ]
    again, an atrocity (none / 0) (#93)
    by tang gnat on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 07:18:34 PM EST

    Perhaps it would be a valid long-term solution to rape to kill all men or kill all women (although I don't think so - the cost would be the entire human race), but again, is there a better solution, or will this problem never be fixed?

    [ Parent ]
    but, (3.00 / 4) (#106)
    by treat on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 07:50:19 PM EST

    Wouldn't you say that rape is a more heinous crime than drug use? I believe we should kill all men, this would drastically reduce the incidence of rape.

    Rape has been on the decline for the past thousand or so years. Drug addiction has been getting worse.

    The soulution is, of course, to rape the drug addicts.

    [ Parent ]

    ala Singapore (3.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Sikpup on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 09:19:34 PM EST

    Possession = Death.  Works well. Occasionally you will read about some stupid tourist who brought some drugs with them being convicted and sentenced to death.  The vast majority have figured it out - do NOT bring drugs to Singapore.

    [ Parent ]
    There is nothing to be done. (1.00 / 1) (#196)
    by tkatchev on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 12:17:02 PM EST

    You can't stop people who desperately want to turn themselves into meat puppets.

    I'm afraid there is nothing to be done; it is a deep-seated social sickness. A sort of collective suicide.

       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    eh? (3.75 / 4) (#40)
    by thekubrix on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 03:07:19 PM EST

    so only poor/unhappy people do drugs? Granted that tends to be a majority of the clientele, but I have an itchy feeling that many rich folks out there like to dable in nose candy, even happy going people enjoy drugs.

    I say legalize EVERYTHING and let evolution/nature take its course.

    probably not (none / 0) (#49)
    by thekubrix on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 04:06:44 PM EST

    Because they have the money to afford those unreasonable prices AND get good health insurance. Maybe if it was legal and controlled the lower income drug addicts wouldn't be so poor and take such risks.

    [ Parent ]
    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by thekubrix on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 05:03:42 PM EST

    First off, your assuming that poverty is directly related to unhappiness. There are many poor people that are happy and there are many unhappy people that are very rich.

    Second, you also assume that unhappiness is the leading cause towards druge use. Granted many people go down that path because of that state, but many people use drugs for experimentation or sheer boredom.

    And the reason towards addition have many answers. Some peopel are inherently disposed to becoming addicts in anything, whether it be alcohol, cocaine, or bubblegum. Some people should be helped, others are not a threat.

    Making drugs illegal simply makes the situation worse. It skyrockets the price, thus, if poor people dwelve into drugs, they screwed more than a middle income group. It brings out bad company, simply to make a purchase. It gives a good possiblity to getting bad product.

    Just legalize and let people do what the hell they want. Lets evolution/nature run its course.

    [ Parent ]

    Two words: (none / 0) (#124)
    by davidduncanscott on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 09:19:45 PM EST

    Steven Tyler :)

    [ Parent ]
    As someone who's lived in Vancouver (4.81 / 16) (#50)
    by cyclopatra on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 04:18:17 PM EST

    I'd like to point out to the non-Canadians on the site that while Main and Hastings is definitely an undesirable place to be, and almost indisputably the worst part of town, it's not a particularly dangerous place, at least not in the way that similarly drug-ridden neighborhoods in the US are. You couldn't pay me to park my car there and walk away from it, but I never once felt physically threatened walking through the area.

    This is one reason why I feel that enforcement couldn't be farther from the answer to Vancouver's drug problems. The addicts in the Main & Hastings area are poster children for legalization and/or harm reduction: they're not hurting anyone but themselves, and maybe property values (but that's sort of a chicken-or-the-egg question, as that part of town was nasty when my mom lived there 30 years ago). There's quite a bit of property crime, but violent crime is almost nil. Any program to reduce the drug problem in Vancouver is going to need to focus on helping the addicts, not locking them up. Not only is it cheaper in the long run, but it's a lot more likely to garner public support.

    Cyclopatra
    All your .sigs are belong to us.
    remove mypants to email

    I feel exactly the same about the area (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by Alannon on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 10:11:58 AM EST

    I spent several years working in the area, and then a bit over a year living right on the edge between Gastown and 'cracktown'.  I'm also down in the area at least twice weekly.  I've had exactly the same experience.  It's an terribly ugly and depressing place to be, but I never once felt that my safety was threatened by the people around me.

    That said, I am glad that I am no longer living and working in the area, though.  It was extremely depressing living right beside such poverty and despair.  Also, how many times should it take asking the SAME person "crack?", or "up or down?" (crack or heroin, I assume) before they figure out I'm not down there to buy drugs?  I seriously considered wearing a large badge on my front saying, "No, I would not like any drugs" in hopes that it would make an impression. Every time I walk into the area, I am openly solicited drugs.  I see people selling and smoking crack, not even bothering to duck into an alleyway.  The city's main police station and court house is 2 or 3 blocks away.  I see police cruisers regularly drive past and most of the dealers and addicts don't even blink at their presence.

    I'm especially glad that I'm no longer living down there with the recent Woodwards building business.  To those (most of you) who don't know about it, here's the scoop:  A very large department store closed down in that area about 15 years ago.  Since then, the building, which covers an entire square block has sat vacant.  There has been talk of since then, at various times, of turning the building into social housing.  This idea was dismissed several months ago and for good reason.  Filling an entire square block with social housing would be a complete nightmare.  Since then, various squatters moved into the building, deciding they'd live there anyway.  Shortly after that, the city decided it was too big of a safety hazard and kicked everyone out and locked the building up tighter.  In response, hundreds of squatters decided they would, in 'protest', squat OUTSIDE the building, in tents and boxes.  This went on for weeks until the city finally asked the police to kick everyone off the street in the area.  As far as I know, the fate of the building is still in question, but is likely to be demolished and turned into condos or commercial space.

    Most people find it hard to believe, but this area is right on par with the worst areas in the worst American cities in terms of drugs, drug-related violence and poverty.  Nothing like this area exists in any other city in Canada, including Toronto and Montreal.  In fact, many of the homeless migrate to Vancouver because of its mild climate -- it's the only city here where it almost never freezes in the winter.

    Also frustrating has been the city's policy of containment in the area.  Basically, this means that the area is purposefully not 'cleaned up' for fear of moving the problem to other areas.  Recently, a new city government has been elected that appears to have a sincere goal to deal with the problem somehow.

    In the longer term, I believe if Vancouver wins the Winter 2010 Olympic bid (and it seems a pretty sure thing at this point), it will have to deal with this problem in a more direct manner.  This worries me, however, since the 1986 Expo in Vancouver was the cause of the removal of a huge amount of low-income housing in a nearby area, pushing many people onto the street.  I hope a better solution than that can be found.

    [ Parent ]

    Somewhat Offtopic. (3.50 / 2) (#205)
    by Anoymous 22666 on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 03:07:17 PM EST

    I work in on the edge between downtown and cracktown (probably near where you used to live). In the time that I have lived in Vancouver, I have found this part of town to be really interesting. I like to take the time to look around and see what goes on.

    The is the only city I've ever been to that seems to have such a sudden, drastic change from "nice" to "wasteland." You can, quite literally, go from the best part of downtown to the worst part in three or four blocks. I work in those three or four blocks. Because of this sudden change, you get a large variety of people in the area. For the most part, the homeless and the addicts keep to themselves, and the working class people keep to themselves. Two completely seperate groups of people exist in the same space at the same time. I don't worry about the safety of myself or others for just this reason: it seems to be mostly a friendly co-existance where one group ignores the other.

    I just farted... And I blame the fiction section. - Psycho Les


    [ Parent ]
    [o/t] Vancouver residents (none / 0) (#226)
    by Alannon on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 08:14:38 PM EST

    It seems with quite a few interesting downtown-Vancouver dwellers, it would be quite interesting to have a meetup at some point.  If anyone's interested, send me an email at k5@al.NOSPAM.insomniaque.net

    remove NOSPAM if you actually want it to get to me.

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah... (none / 0) (#208)
    by faustus on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 03:39:18 PM EST

    ...I pick up money from parking machines in that area. I can have $200 by my feet when opening the machine, and another couple grand in my car, and I don't feel threatened at all.

    [ Parent ]
    Vancouver Does Crack Because It Is Unhappy (3.60 / 5) (#57)
    by squidface on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 04:55:54 PM EST

    I've had more than a passing familiarity with the crack problem of Vancouver having spent some time down along East Hastings in my youth. As the years go by the trash bin of failed attempts to solve the crack problem grows fuller and fuller to overflowing. Those addicted to crack are a sad bunch; women turned to hooking, men who've lost their families, hustlers of both sexes wheeling and dealing. But if we think of their problem as purely a crack problem we miss the point.

    People aren't sad because they're addicted to crack; they're addicted to crack because they're sad. The rush of happiness that follows the ill crackle of a hit cannot be matched - it is a cure for sadness, at least for a short time.

    Vancouver is a sad, lonely place in the wintertime when the rains come. As beautiful a city as it is in the summer, Vancouver is one of the most depressing cities in the world in the wintertime. The clouds roll in and the sun is not seen for months, day and night the temperature hovers just above freezing and it rains, rains, rains.

    What should be done to stop the drug epidemic is to pay particular attention to the happiness of the citizenry. Find out what's troubling them, solve that, and the crack epidemic will go away. The plague of crack is not the problem in itself, it is a symptom of underlying social problems that must be dealt with first. Until then any plan to deal with the crack problem will fail.

    huh? drugs=product of the weather? (2.00 / 5) (#61)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 05:05:01 PM EST

    the way you speak, the drug problem is a product of the weather! you're an idiot! a funny one at that! LOL i guess that explains seattle's caffeine addiciton then? the further north you go the harder the drugs you need? jesus christ, poor fairbanks, they must have to speedball heroin! HAHAHA

    ok genius, now explain miami's drug problems.

    lol ;-P

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Miami's Drug Problems (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by squidface on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 05:10:30 PM EST

    Too humid, of course.

    [ Parent ]
    sanfran = earthquake jitters! lol ;-P (nt) (none / 0) (#63)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 05:15:18 PM EST



    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    re: huh? drugs=product of the weather? (2.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Slippy on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 05:37:04 PM EST

    Why are you calling this person an idiot for your ignorance? Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD) is a documented cause of depression. SAD boils down to a lack of sunlight and cause depression. Yes, it's obvious that SAD does not completely explain the problem, but you shouldn't insult this person just because you think this idea came out of his butt.

    [ Parent ]
    HAHAHAHA what bullshit! (1.60 / 5) (#66)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 05:43:03 PM EST

    yes, you are right, i admit it. i am so sorry. for example, iceland is a hotbed of SAD initiated hard core drug use. LOL

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    I concede bullshitboy. (none / 0) (#224)
    by Slippy on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 07:41:55 PM EST

    You're right, what was i thinking? How would i know more about this subject than you? You've obviously done lots of crack in your day. I can tell by your abrasive personality. Keep up the work dr. crackhead. Have a nice day :)

    [ Parent ]
    well, (none / 0) (#310)
    by MX5 on Wed Apr 16, 2003 at 01:46:38 PM EST

    The Scandinavian countries do have a greater alcoholism problem than mediterranean ones. However this "fact" is admittedly based on rumour and hearsay and I can't back it up with any sources or links to anything even vaguely reputable :)
    "Next week on the programme, bats. Are they really blind or are they just taking the piss?" -tfs
    [ Parent ]
    this is a joke (1.00 / 2) (#74)
    by the77x42 on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 06:41:47 PM EST

    crack/cocaine is a physical addiction. it doesn't matter if you send them down to disneyland, they're still going to do crack.


    "We're not here to educate. We're here to point and laugh." - creature
    "You have some pretty stupid ideas." - indubitable ‮

    [ Parent ]
    Less Crack Smoked in Disneyland than Vancouver (none / 0) (#112)
    by squidface on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 08:22:20 PM EST

    Maybe if you sent some of the crackheads down to Disneyland it would show that someone cared. Physical addiction is never without psychological cause. No Disney character I know of smokes crack, though I suspect Goofy of smoking weed.

    [ Parent ]
    You haven't watched much Donald Duck. (none / 0) (#133)
    by metalfan on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 10:11:33 PM EST

    Have you?

    [ Parent ]
    Donald's not a Crackhead, he's a Meth Freak (nt) (none / 0) (#135)
    by squidface on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 10:32:18 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Beg to differ... (none / 0) (#204)
    by misfit13b on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 03:06:28 PM EST

    He's a needle freak.

    [ Parent ]
    what to do (2.90 / 11) (#59)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 05:01:57 PM EST

    first, legalize marijuana.

    its effects are commensurate with alcohol, so it is hypocrisy to make one legal and the other not.

    ecstacy, heroin, cocaine, speed, lsd: too hard, they stay illegal.

    crack down hard on the dealers, real hard. police brutality? how about rotting communities. smack them over the head with nightsticks and throw them in jail to rot. giuliani time all the way. no sympathy for these maggots.

    then: treatment centers, needle programs, methadone programs, safe dance outreach, psychological counseling, housing for the hardcore addicts, all of that and more. any ideas that work, fund the smart, in-community activists who are respected and have the best ideas and the best street cred. the addicts need help. they can be redeemed. society should help them.

    but if, over a period of time, they prove to be chronically unredeemable, then they should go to jail as well, unfortunately. some people are just lost to their addictions, and their lives are permanently shattered. most can be redeemed, but a minority hardcore group is psychologically set in their ways. this is very sad, but true. they are the real permanent victims of society's inability to deal realisitically and pragmatically with the scourge of hardcore drugs. conservatives in denial and liberals with bleeding hearts for the cockroaches as well as the victims: neither help.

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    LSD == heroin? (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by YelM3 on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 06:48:16 PM EST

    I'd like to know why you grouped LSD, a non-addictive non-toxic psychedelic, with these other highly addictive (perhaps with the exception of ecstacy) and clearly dangerous substances.

    There are no communities rotting due to LSD.

    [ Parent ]

    good point (1.66 / 3) (#81)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 06:51:37 PM EST

    it's not addictive

    but it is dangerous. walk out of a ten story window, stab your girlfriend, etc.

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    well then, (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by YelM3 on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 06:56:21 PM EST

    In that case certainly alcohol should be made illegal as well.

    I'm quite sure that the number of deaths due to LSD is nearly nothing compared with alcohol or crack, heroin, etc. Also, many people believe that LSD taken by a mentally sound person in a good environment is nearly perfectly safe.

    [ Parent ]

    lsd flashbacks, 1920s prohibition, 'nuf said (nt) (2.00 / 2) (#89)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 07:12:57 PM EST



    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    Eh, flashbacks? (5.00 / 3) (#156)
    by truth versus death on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 01:03:13 AM EST

    Not sure why you see that as debunking LSD use as suggested above. Btw, alcohol and pot are in no way commensurate. Alcohol is many times worse for your health and well-being than cannabis.

    "any erection implies consent"-fae
    [ Trim your Bush ]
    [ Parent ]
    alcohol vs. pot (4.50 / 2) (#237)
    by b166er on Sat Apr 12, 2003 at 06:17:02 PM EST

    Not only is alcohol much worse for your health, alcohol also causes violence, while marijuana prevents it :D

    [ Parent ]
    flashbacks? (4.50 / 2) (#171)
    by YelM3 on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 03:12:42 AM EST

    LSD 'flashbacks' are really not a big deal. Usually people just feel trippy or see some tracers or something. No real harm has ever come from an LSD flashback. Shit, half the time they are fun.

    Alcohol hangovers are worse.

    [ Parent ]

    LSD flashbacks = Bullshit (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by tonedevil05 on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 12:32:43 PM EST

    and you are full of one or the other. In so much as I know, flashbacks are considered rare and generaly associated with some other current drug use.

    [ Parent ]
    Urban legend (4.50 / 2) (#84)
    by CaptainSuperBoy on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 07:03:33 PM EST

    Those examples are based entirely in myth. LSD is, for the most part, a very safe drug. For a small number of people it may be very unpleasant, but that's about as dangerous as it gets.

    --
    jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
    [ Parent ]
    what about lsd flashbacks? (nt) (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 07:12:22 PM EST



    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    99% myth (4.33 / 6) (#98)
    by CaptainSuperBoy on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 07:33:00 PM EST

    Most LSD users never experience flashbacks, and for those who do it is rarely as intense as the trip itself. Flashbacks certainly don't cause violent or dangerous behavior.

    --
    jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
    [ Parent ]
    just go for your salvia divinorum and shut up (nt) (1.00 / 6) (#111)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 08:18:44 PM EST



    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    I see (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by CaptainSuperBoy on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 08:28:43 PM EST

    "Shut up" - it's the mature response to being politely corrected.

    Are you saying I'm wrong, or are you just being a baby because I corrected you? Don't feel bad, there are many common misconceptions about LSD.

    --
    jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
    [ Parent ]

    talk about widely used, addictive drugs, please. (2.00 / 2) (#114)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 08:36:58 PM EST

    you are right. you win. i am an asshole.

    who cares. who cares about lsd. it is not widely used or addictive. so let's go off into a sidethread flaming each other repetitively completely off target of the main thread and the main story and no one gives a shit. ok? yawn. next.


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry I offended you, thread nazi (4.50 / 4) (#117)
    by CaptainSuperBoy on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 08:46:52 PM EST

    I'll try to stay on your strict definition of topic from now on. Forgive me.

    --
    jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
    [ Parent ]
    talk about whatever you want to. (2.00 / 1) (#119)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 08:56:14 PM EST

    but don't expect me to care.

    in fact, why don't you write a story about lsd use?

    it's a free world. don't be angry at me because i don't care about lsd. it is fringe. it is offtopic here.

    am i a nazi for that? no. i am not trying to control your behavior. i'm just pointing out the simple fact that lsd use is not the thrust of this story. but feel free to go ahead and write about it.

    i feel the eyes of thousands of readers glued to this flame thread, rivetted by our genius level analysis of lsd use in the context of this story.

    snore.


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    Rate me 1 or 0 please (5.00 / 5) (#122)
    by MMcP on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 09:18:40 PM EST

    I love it when arguments get really long and pushed all the way to the right because I have threading on.  It seems symbolic of the fact that long message board discussions never go anywhere.  

    [ Parent ]
    i gave you a 5 ;-) (nt) (3.00 / 2) (#126)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 09:27:24 PM EST



    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    Back at'cha brudder (1.00 / 1) (#130)
    by MMcP on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 09:48:31 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    hahaha (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by Matt Oneiros on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 10:02:53 PM EST

    as someone who is currently on LSD I find this highly amusing :P

    :P !!!

    Lobstery is not real
    signed the cow
    when stating that life is merely an illusion
    and that what you love is all that's real
    [ Parent ]

    Why did you use it as an example (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by CaptainSuperBoy on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 10:13:24 PM EST

    Why did you use it as an example if you don't care to discuss it?

    --
    jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
    [ Parent ]
    it was mentioned in passing, you focused on it(nt) (3.00 / 1) (#136)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 10:32:47 PM EST



    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    right.. (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by Fuzzwah on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 11:55:31 PM EST

    So it's fine to be incorrect as long as it's just in passing?

    --
    The best a human can do is to pick a delusion that helps him get through the day. - God's Debris
    [ Parent ]

    close: (1.00 / 2) (#152)
    by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 12:29:01 AM EST

    it's fine to say something in passing, but not to read into what someone is saying

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    hmmm (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Fuzzwah on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 01:21:26 AM EST

    I don't think there was much "reading into" needed for this: lsd: too hard, they stay illegal How far over to the right can we get this?

    --
    The best a human can do is to pick a delusion that helps him get through the day. - God's Debris
    [ Parent ]

    on and on we go, where we stop... (nt) (1.00 / 1) (#165)
    by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 02:01:12 AM EST



    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    LSD isn't widely used? (4.00 / 3) (#139)
    by cyclopatra on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 11:00:42 PM EST

    I mean, I'll agree about the "not addictive" part...but I only know three people who *haven't* used LSD at some point - and two of those have never used *any* illicit drug. It's the cheapest drug ever, and next to pot, the easiest to get, in my experience.

    But maybe you move in really non-psychedelic circles, and I happen to know a bunch of mad hallucinators, who knows?

    Cyclopatra
    All your .sigs are belong to us.
    remove mypants to email
    [ Parent ]

    good lord. stuck in a sidethread from hell (nt) (1.00 / 1) (#146)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 11:38:46 PM EST



    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    You, good sir, (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by skim123 on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 03:43:03 AM EST

    are why k5 needs a foes list, so I can opt to not read the postings of those whose debating skills are limited to a "shut up." Please, do not bother to reply, because I will not read it!

    Money is in some respects like fire; it is a very excellent servant but a terrible master.
    PT Barnum


    [ Parent ]
    not just LSD (5.00 / 1) (#307)
    by kableh on Tue Apr 15, 2003 at 11:24:04 AM EST

    Vietnam vets have flashbacks too. I imagine any traumatic event can lead to flashbacks, and a hard LSD trip would certainly constitute traumatic.

    And yes, a lot of the urban legends about LSD are just that, but I've met a guy who was one of those folks who, well, went on a trip and never came back. He was a nice guy, just only vaguely resembled a human being anymore.

    I don't agree with it being illegal, but I'm not naive enough to think LSD is harmless.

    [ Parent ]
    Walking out of 10th floor window (5.00 / 1) (#278)
    by Sebb on Mon Apr 14, 2003 at 11:30:30 AM EST

    Man, the guy who jumped off a building cause he though he could fly sucks so bad. If he thought he could fly, why didn't he start from the ground? just  to make sure.

    'An asshole on the internet is an asshole in real life'
    [ Parent ]
    I'm sure you've thought that out by yourself... (none / 0) (#301)
    by tekue on Tue Apr 15, 2003 at 09:19:26 AM EST

    ...but it's nice to attribute quotes to their authors, in this case to Bill Hicks.
    --
    A society that puts equality ahead of freedom will end up with neither. -Milton Friedman
    [ Parent ]
    I dunno about that (5.00 / 1) (#239)
    by electricmonk on Sat Apr 12, 2003 at 08:08:08 PM EST

    I talked recently with a recovering hardcore alcoholic and asked her if she got to know any psychedelics addicts during her recovery. She said she didn't know anyone who could be called addicted, necessarily, but she knew some near-catatonic people who had done a lot of psychedelics a while back that seemed to have rewired their minds or burned them out somehow. I'd be wary.

    --
    "There are only so many ways one can ask [Jon Katz] what it's like to be buried to the balls in a screaming seven-year-old" - Ian
    [ Parent ]

    exactly - alchohol should be illegal too [nt] (3.00 / 2) (#85)
    by tang gnat on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 07:04:39 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    already tried prohibition 1920s failed (nt) (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 07:10:21 PM EST



    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    That's because (1.50 / 2) (#96)
    by tang gnat on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 07:29:31 PM EST

    The damn druggies couldn't go without their fix of poison, so they decided to (re)legalise their problem. As for pot... just because society shoots one of its feet doesn't mean it should make them match by shooting the other.

    [ Parent ]
    wtf? 1920s prohibition is a lesson, learn it (nt) (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 08:17:27 PM EST



    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    drug use is parasitical (1.66 / 3) (#118)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 08:52:28 PM EST

    soft drugs like alcohol, marijuana are ok.

    hard drug use destroys lives.

    if you care about users, you will get them off hard drugs. we will always be fighting this war. drug use is a parasitcal slime on society and psychology. there will always be pedophilia to. should the continued existence of pedophilia depress us and move us to stop fighting this scourge? no. same with hard drug use. that is just the price of civilization. just like the war on terrorism. there will always be timothy mcveighs born in society. we will always be fighting terrorism, hard drugs, pedophilia. this does not depress me. this does not move me to inaction. why does it move you to inaction? why does it depress you? do you lack a moral backbone?

    fighting these scourges is just like taking out the trash. there will always be trash that needs to be dragged to the curb. just because you don't like this job doesn't mean you can stop doing it. or do you prefer trash to build up and stink in your house? so it was, so it is, so it will always be.

    some users though are hardcore self-destructive types of which drug use is only a facet of their psychological downfall. they will go to jail for many reasons, continued hardcore drug use is just one of a number of self-destructive behaviors that will probably get the chronics busted.

    most users can be saved. i repeat, MOST USERS CAN BE SAVED. don't misread me or misunderstand me or misquote me.

    but it is not evil of me to admit some can never be saved. it is folly for you to counter this simple truth. some people are just royal fuck ups. is that sad? yes. but it is also true. crash your bleeding heart on those rocks of truth, but don't shoot the messenger.


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    i am an atheist (3.00 / 2) (#125)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 09:26:41 PM EST

    hard drug users lose jobs, rob to support an addiction, destroy families. they are parasites on society. they start out as contributing members of society and wind up being noncontributing parasites due the psychological addictive effects of hardcore drugs. they suck, literally.

    drug use is a psychosocial disease. if you have ever had a child, a a parent, a friend, a loved one who self-destructed on drugs, you would care. and you would want to "save" them. no religious connotation there at all.

    so now you know my motivations as well.

    i am glad you are proud of yourself. i wonder if anyone cares about you. i wonder if they think like you, or they think like me.

    drug use has victims. all of us. in a world where no one cares about anyone else is the only way drug use can be victimless. since such a world does not exist, then drug use victimizes society and individuals in the exact same way terrorism and pedophilia do. my analogies stand.

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    go to my psychoanalysis post (nt) (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 09:42:41 PM EST



    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    but... (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Fuzzwah on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 12:07:00 AM EST

    I know people who use hard drugs who lead what would otherwise be classed as normal lives. Go on, say "exception to the rule". I double dare ya.

    --
    The best a human can do is to pick a delusion that helps him get through the day. - God's Debris
    [ Parent ]

    exception to the rule (nt) (1.00 / 1) (#151)
    by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 12:27:14 AM EST



    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    thanks [nt] (1.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Fuzzwah on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 01:18:57 AM EST


    --
    The best a human can do is to pick a delusion that helps him get through the day. - God's Debris
    [ Parent ]

    Heh (1.00 / 1) (#160)
    by truth versus death on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 01:20:33 AM EST

    You fell for the DARE.

    "any erection implies consent"-fae
    [ Trim your Bush ]
    [ Parent ]
    hehe (3.66 / 3) (#163)
    by Fuzzwah on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 01:24:24 AM EST

    I'm glad too, I thought I was going to have to physical challenge him.

    --
    The best a human can do is to pick a delusion that helps him get through the day. - God's Debris
    [ Parent ]

    Actually the rule. /nt (1.00 / 1) (#195)
    by tonedevil05 on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 12:15:08 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    psychoanalysis (3.00 / 2) (#128)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 09:42:11 PM EST

    don't ever try to fucking save me because i will spit in your face for your trouble. you and YOU'RE type are the reason i need to escape. do you comprehend this? YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.

    wow. look at those words. i think you are the real deal. let's do psychoanalysis. anyone else reading this thread back me up or something. i think this guy is the real deal.

    let me try:

    you seem to me to be a victim of a classic quote: "sometimes those who mean the best do the most damage." i think someone close, perhaps a parent, royally fucked you in the head. so you have learned behavior: no salvation in the caring of another person. because those who cared for you before only eventually bought you pain. more trouble than its worth, it seems to me.

    hmmm.

    i believe you, that you are damaged goods. and that it was done by someone caring about you.

    let me think...

    however, the principle of caring about someone else is never going to go away. and it is mostly sound. it is however a real psychosocial phenomenon that caring about someone can hurt them too. you seem to be the victim of this phenomenon.

    but recognize this: you are the exception, not the rule. for the vast majority of human beings, caring about someone else is a good thing. so mostly, people will try to care about you, rather than give you want you want: escape from human contact.

    so you need to escape? fine. but recognize this:

    those who might care about you in the future are not the same people who damaged you. fuck religion. i am an atheist. i think whoever fucked you up, perhaps a parent, was very religious, given the strong anti-religious undertone of your post.

    so listen to me: you can care about someone without religious overtones. look for those poeple in your life. ignore the religious fundamentalist idiots, of whom one is probably the person that fucked you up in the first place.

    your avoidance of religious fundamentalism is a healthy instinct.

    your avoidance of human caring is not.

    no man is an island. get help.

    save yourself. no religious connotation involved.

    hard drugs are your downfall, not your escape. believe this, if nothing else i have written.

    good luck dude. i am crossing my finger for you.


    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    i tihnk you are trolling me (nt) i fell for it ;-P (none / 0) (#140)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 11:05:55 PM EST



    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    hey man whatever gets you off (none / 0) (#143)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 11:18:58 PM EST

    but don't think you are doing a service to humanity

    you are just doing a service to yourself

    enjoy! ;-P

    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox

    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]

    fuck roast beef. i want some humanity (nt) (5.00 / 0) (#145)
    by circletimessquare on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 11:36:12 PM EST



    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    give me my props (nt) (none / 0) (#150)
    by circletimessquare on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 12:26:17 AM EST



    The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    Most users don't want to be saved (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by tonedevil05 on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 12:10:39 PM EST

    any more than most of K5 wants to read your long winded rants.

    [ Parent ]
    hah (1.00 / 1) (#306)
    by kableh on Tue Apr 15, 2003 at 11:13:25 AM EST

    most users can be saved.
    most muslims can be saved. i repeat, MOST MUSLIMS CAN BE SAVED.

    [ Parent ]
    Alcohol (3.00 / 4) (#189)
    by Silent Chris on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 11:37:31 AM EST

    "first, legalize marijuana.

    its effects are commensurate with alcohol, so it is hypocrisy to make one legal and the other not."

    Exactly the reason alcohol should be illegal.

    [ Parent ]

    Solution already failed. (5.00 / 3) (#190)
    by tonedevil05 on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 12:05:32 PM EST

    You are reusing an idea that already had a try, with disastrous consequences.

    [ Parent ]
    Why do you feel the need to legislate... (4.00 / 3) (#259)
    by Kaki Nix Sain on Sun Apr 13, 2003 at 02:09:03 PM EST

    ... the entertainment options of others. Do you have any respect at all for the idea that humans are born with the right to liberty? If so, do you realize that your insistence that we outlaw such victimless activities contradicts liberty?



    [ Parent ]

    Good thing (1.00 / 1) (#266)
    by Silent Chris on Sun Apr 13, 2003 at 11:06:06 PM EST

    Because I love killing people.  It's entertaining to me as all hell.  Hand me a shotgun and I could take out loads of people in New York City.

    Wait, there's legislation against shooting people?  Most people are for it?  Damn, what the hell?  What about my "entertainment"?

    Dumbass.  Finish the analogy.

    [ Parent ]

    I would have thought... (3.50 / 2) (#272)
    by Kaki Nix Sain on Mon Apr 14, 2003 at 12:19:03 AM EST

    ... it quite obvious that, given my later use of the term "victimless activities", my use of the term "entertainment" was also thus constrained. Not so obvious that you couldn't willfully ignore it, I suppose. You seem to have latched on to the first nit you could find in an effort to pick at something rather than answer.

    Perhaps you should try reading what others write using the principle of charity. Oh, and answering the actual thrust of my post, instead of using a cheap terminology dodge.

    Now that I have elaborated on the terms in play, perhaps you have a real answer. Or shall we repeat this cycle on another nit?



    [ Parent ]

    Ok (3.00 / 2) (#276)
    by Silent Chris on Mon Apr 14, 2003 at 09:27:19 AM EST

    "If so, do you realize that your insistence that we outlaw such victimless activities contradicts liberty?"

    To you, it's victimless.  To me, who was nearly killed in a car accident (with my dad and brother) from a guy who had been smoking pot, it's not victimless.  To the mother whose son gets involved with pot from his "friends", wastes all his money on the drug, it's not victimless.

    Your definition of "victim" is internal to you and (outside the rosy confines of K5) most people would disagree with you.

    [ Parent ]

    That extended definition of victim... (4.60 / 5) (#283)
    by Kaki Nix Sain on Mon Apr 14, 2003 at 02:09:48 PM EST

    ... leads to absurdity.

    First, let me be a sympathetic human and say that I'm glad you and yours weren't killed in the accident you spoke of.

    To the subject at hand: such car accidents can just as easily be caused by alcohol (to name but one reason that driving a car can become endangerment to others), however, that does not lead us to outlaw all use of alcohol (or other things that don't combine well with driving). It leads us to outlaw operation of a car while under the influence of alcohol. The difference is large and very important. We give adults the freedom to choose to use alcohol and then, when statistics show that the choice to use it, combined with an activity, can lead to endangerment of others, we put a law between the choice that we allow and combining it with the activity which would endanger others. One of the operational principles at work is tailoring the solution to the problem of DWI endangerment narrowly, so as to preserve as much freedom as possible for responsible adults.

    I see no reason to believe that "driving while intoxicated" laws would not apply to marijuana just as they do to alcohol.

    The other situation, involving a mother's disappointment, can similarly be caused by any one of a number of activities. Perhaps a great deal of mothers are made unhappy by learning that their child is dropping out of university business programs to pursue a life of painting, writing, and meditation. However, it is absurd to thus desire a law against painting, writing, mediation, or even dropping out of business programs.

    Nor should there be a law against a younger son spending all his time skateboarding, watching T.V., or otherwise not studying. The law, in general, does not exist as an instrument to prevent children from encountering temptations toward choices that their parents do not like. Where such laws are deemed necessary (against what would be my opinion on the matter) liberty requires they be narrowly tailored so as to not significantly impact the free choice of adults.

    Thus, I believe that your extensions to the concept of 'victim' in the notion of "victim of a crime" is absurd. Further, even assuming such an extension, it does not give justification to the current anti-drug laws of America.



    [ Parent ]

    What do you blame? (none / 0) (#302)
    by tekue on Tue Apr 15, 2003 at 09:35:18 AM EST

    Why do you blame drugs, not cars for your near-death? I mean, of course, most car don't hurt anyone, but some do! Shouldn't they be banned? Most cars are used for fun and pleasure, as people could do without them, taking buses and trains -- and deities know how much money and environment would they save! Those people not only hurt others, but also themselves, just look at the professional truck drivers, with their beer-bellies, teeth rotted by fast-food, and such.Or was I writing about drugs?
    --
    A society that puts equality ahead of freedom will end up with neither. -Milton Friedman
    [ Parent ]
    What do you blame? (5.00 / 1) (#303)
    by tekue on Tue Apr 15, 2003 at 09:35:36 AM EST

    Why do you blame drugs, not cars for your near-death? I mean, of course, most car don't hurt anyone, but some do! Shouldn't they be banned? Most cars are used for fun and pleasure, as people could do without them, taking buses and trains -- and deities know how much money and environment would they save! Those people not only hurt others, but also themselves, just look at the professional truck drivers, with their beer-bellies, teeth rotted by fast-food, and such.Or was I writing about drugs?
    --
    A society that puts equality ahead of freedom will end up with neither. -Milton Friedman
    [ Parent ]
    Alcohol / marijuana (4.00 / 1) (#293)
    by Repton on Tue Apr 15, 2003 at 12:25:45 AM EST

    first, legalize marijuana.

    its effects are commensurate with alcohol, so it is hypocrisy to make one legal and the other not.

    Part of me is susceptible to this kind of argument: rules / laws should be consistent, and ideally should be orthogonal too (different rules talk about different things).

    But ... You seem to be saying: "Alcohol is bad for you. Marijuana is bad for you. Alcohol is legal. So marijuana may as well be." This doesn't cut it. By (presumably) increasing the availability of something which is bad for people, we are not going to make things better. At best, things will stay the same. Some people will replace alcohol with marijuana. Their lives / health will not improve [still working on the assumption that alcohol and marijuana are both bad for you, and to the same degree]. But more likely, total use of marijuana and alcohol will increase. And we are assuming this is a bad thing.

    It's like ... computer science analogy: You implement an O(n) algorithm. Your friend leans over your shoulder and points out a couple of changes you could make which would speed your algorithm up by a factor of two. But you aren't interested, because it wouldn't change the theoretical efficiency --- it would still just be O(n).

    This is like what you seem to be saying: "Things would get an order of magnitude worse, so we may as well let them get a bit worse."

    This is all I have to say.

    [please note: I am not actually offering an opinion on marijuana, nor am I making verified statements about its health benefits (or lack thereof). I'm just saying that I think the "hypocracy" argument stinks]

    [note also that if you think "alcohol and marijuana are the same --- both completely harmless" then you can treat my post as mindless ranting and ignore it]


    --
    Repton.
    They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle..
    [ Parent ]

    what not to do (2.15 / 13) (#67)
    by lvogel on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 06:04:40 PM EST

    First off, don't legalize marijuana.

    -- ----------------------
    "When you're on the internet, nobody knows you're a dog!"

    -a dog
    any reason why not? nt (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Run4YourLives on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 06:44:56 PM EST



    It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown
    [ Parent ]
    attention span (3.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Fuzzwah on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 01:15:24 AM EST

    I'm guessing he had a massive post all lined up to make, but then decided he'd rather hit the bong than give any real explanation of the adverse effects of legalising pot.

    --
    The best a human can do is to pick a delusion that helps him get through the day. - God's Debris
    [ Parent ]

    Lets see... (4.25 / 4) (#161)
    by NaCh0 on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 01:21:26 AM EST

    You want to reduce the number of intoxicated people by throwing more intoxicants on the street? That's like reducing my masturbation habit by giving me more pr0n.

    --
    K5: Your daily dose of socialism.
    [ Parent ]
    that's bullshit (4.33 / 3) (#164)
    by the77x42 on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 01:35:23 AM EST

    it's legal for me to own guns, that doesn't mean i do.


    "We're not here to educate. We're here to point and laugh." - creature
    "You have some pretty stupid ideas." - indubitable ‮

    [ Parent ]
    Whilst that may be true, (none / 0) (#176)
    by BarryReiswerg on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 09:16:34 AM EST

    there would be significantly less people owning guns if it were illegal. On the same lines, if marjuana were legalized, more people would be more comfortable with it. Some people actually keep themselves from doing thing the law tells them not to. Humans are funny that way.

    btw... Let's not even touch the gun subject...

    [ Parent ]

    Marijuana usage in Holland lower than in USA (none / 0) (#188)
    by rujith on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 11:09:19 AM EST

    Sorry, don't have the statistics on hand regarding legal usage in Holland vs. illegal usage in U.S.A. - anybody more knowledgeable have them? Making it legal can actually reduce usage, for several, fairly obvious, reasons having to do with human nature. I would be happy to elaborate if you like.

    [ Parent ]
    It's a cultural thing, not a political one. (none / 0) (#194)
    by tkatchev on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 12:12:55 PM EST

    Marijuana use seems to be high in very hot, dry climates. (Central Asia, the Arab World, Mexico, etc., etc.)

    Just a climatic thing, IMO.

       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    Does more harm than good (3.00 / 2) (#220)
    by BarryReiswerg on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 05:34:27 PM EST

    Ok, so if you want to talk statistics... What is the % of the population in Holland that regularly uses marajuana? What is the % in the US? If you cannot quote both of these, then don't speak of statistics, because then it is just you saying, I heard from a friend of a guy who knew a guy that read an article from another guy a long time ago that said this...

    I don't see making it legal as reducing it's usage. Let's take the 20th amendment (outlawing Alcohol)... When the amendment was first passed, people who drank socially stopped using alcohol & obeyed the law. Other people who wanted to fight the law started drinking and those who already drank, drank more. I feel, given time this would have calmed down, but the government didn't have the luxury of waiting for it to cool down. People who were illegally making and distributing this alcohol were killing citizens and committing violent crimes. The government decided to pass the 21st amendment to help to curb this, which it did stop the crime, but didn't stop the drinking. Today, we are stricken with more people than ever suffering from alcoholism and the effects an alcoholic has on those around them.

    <sarcasim>
    So, yeah, I see how legalizing pot will help slow it's usage.
    </sarcasim>

    [ Parent ]

    The Netherlands VS USA (5.00 / 5) (#277)
    by Sebb on Mon Apr 14, 2003 at 10:45:02 AM EST

    Common Sense for Drug Policy Presents The Facts:

    The Netherlands

    The Netherlands and the United States:

    1. The Netherlands follows a policy of separating the market for illicit drugs. Cannabis
    is primarily purchased through coffee shops. Coffee shops offer no or few possibilities
    for purchasing illicit drugs other than cannabis. Thus The Netherlands achieve a
    separation of the soft drug market from the hard drugs market ­ and separation of
    the `acceptable risk' drug user from the `unacceptable risk' drug user.
    Source:
    Abraham, Manja D., University of Amsterdam, Centre for Drug Research,
    Places of Drug Purchase in The
    Netherlands
    (Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, September 1999), pp. 1-5.

    2. Comparing Important Drug and Violence Indicators
    Social Indicator Years
    USA                    Netherlands
    - Lifetime prevalence of marijuana use (ages 12+)
    1998 vs. 1997
    33%                    15.6%

    - Past month prevalence of marijuana use (ages 12+)
    1998 vs. 1997
    5%                     2.5%

    - Lifetime prevalence of heroin use (ages 12+)
    1998 vs. 1997
    1.1                    0.3

    - Incarceration Rate per 100,000 population
    1997 vs. 1996
    645                    77.3

    - Per capita spending on drug-related law enforcement
    1997 vs. 1995
    $81                    $27

    - Homicide rate per 100,000 population
    1995 vs. 1995
    8                      1.8

    Source #1:
    US Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
    Administration, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Main Findings 1998 (Washington, DC: US Department
    of Health and Human Services, March 2000), pp. 18, 24

    Source #2:
    Abraham, Manja D., Cohen, Peter D.A., van Til, Roelf-Jan, and de Winter, Marielle A.L., University of
    Amsterdam, Centre for Drug Research,
    Licit and Illicit Drug Use in the Netherlands, 1997
    (Amsterdam: University
    of Amsterdam, September 1999), pp. 39, 45.

    Source #3:
    US Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
    Administration, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Main Findings 1998 (Washington, DC: US Department
    of Health and Human Services, March 2000), pp. 18, 24.

    Source #4:
    Abraham, Manja D., Cohen, Peter D.A., van Til, Roelf-Jan, and de Winter, Marielle A.L., University of
    Amsterdam, Centre for Drug Research,
    Licit and Illicit Drug Use in the Netherlands, 1997
    (Amsterdam: University
    of Amsterdam, September 1999), pp. 39, 47.

    Source #5:
    US Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
    Administration, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Main Findings 1998 (Washington, DC: US Department
    of Health and Human Services, March 2000), pp. 24, 62.

    Source #6:
    Abraham, Manja D., Cohen, Peter D.A., van Til, Roelf-Jan, and de Winter, Marielle A.L., University of
    Amsterdam, Centre for Drug Research,
    Licit and Illicit Drug Use in the Netherlands, 1997
    (Amsterdam: University
    of Amsterdam, September 1999), pp. 40, 45.

    Source #7:
    Bureau of Justice Statistics; Based on total U.S. population in 1997 of 267,636,000 as per the U.S.
    Census Bureau.

    Source #8:
    According to the Dutch Bureau of Statistics, CBS Voorburg, as of September 30, 1996 the Netherlands
    had 11,931 prisoners with an approximate population of 15,424,122. This data was provided by a statistician at CBS
    Voorburg and obtained from
    Statistics Netherlands: Statistical Yearbook 1998
    , p. 434, table 53.

    Source #9:
    Office of National Drug Control Policy,
    National Drug Control Strategy, 1997: Budget Summary
    ,
    Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (1997); MacCoun, R. & Reuter, P., "Interpreting Dutch
    Cannabis Policy: Reasoning by Analogy in the Legalization Debate,"
    Science
    , 278: 47 (1997); Based on total U.S.
    population in 1997 of 267,636,000 as per U.S. Census Bureau.

    Source #10:
    Drug-related law enforcement spending in the Netherlands in 1995 is estimated at 640 million Dutch
    gilders according to the Dutch Justice Department.

    Source #11:
    The FBI reported that the homicide rate in 1995 was 8 per 100,000 people, for a total of 21,597
    homicides. (
    Uniform Crime Reports: Dept. of Justice Press Release,
    10/13/96).

    Source #12:
    In both 1995 and 1996, the Netherlands recorded 273 homicides, which is a homicide rate of 1.8
    persons per 100,000 inhabitants. (
    Registered Murders in the Netherlands, Press Release,
    CBS Voorburg - Statistics
    Netherlands, 7/14/98).

    3. "There were 2.4 drug-related deaths per million inhabitants in the Netherlands in
    1995. In France this figure was 9.5, in Germany 20, in Sweden 23.5 and in Spain 27.1.
    According to the 1995 report of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and
    Drug Addiction in Lisbon, the Dutch figures are the lowest in Europe. The Dutch
    AIDS prevention programme was equally successful. Europe-wide, an average of
    39.2% of AIDS victims are intravenous drug-users. In the Netherlands, this
    percentage is as low as 10.5%."

    Source:
    Netherlands Ministry of Justice,
    Fact Sheet: Dutch Drugs Policy
    , (Utrecht: Trimbos Institute, Netherlands Institute of
    Mental Health and Addiction, 1999), from the Netherlands Justice Ministry website at
    http://www.minjust.nl:8080/a_beleid/fact/cfact7.htm
    .

    4. "The number of addicts in the Netherlands has been stable - at 25,000 - for many
    years. Expressed as a percentage of the population, this number is approximately the
    same as in Germany, Sweden and Belgium. There are very few young heroin addicts
    in the Netherlands, largely thanks to the policy of separating the users markets for
    hard and soft drugs. The average age of heroin addicts is now 36."

    Source:
    Netherlands Ministry of Justice,
    Fact Sheet: Dutch Drugs Policy
    , (Utrecht: Trimbos Institute, Netherlands Institute of
    Mental Health and Addiction, 1999), from the Netherlands Justice Ministry website at
    http://www.minjust.nl:8080/a_beleid/fact/cfact7.htm
    .

    5. "Cannabis use among young people has also increased in most Western European
    countries and in the US. The rate of (cannabis) use among young people in the US is
    much higher than in the Netherlands, and Great Britain and Ireland also have
    relatively larger numbers of school students who use cannabis."

    Source:
    Netherlands Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport,
    Drug Policy in the Netherlands: Progress Report September
    1997-September 1999
    , (The Hague: Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, November 1999), p. 7.

    6. "The figures for cannabis use among the general population reveal the same pictures.
    The Netherlands does not differ greatly from other European countries. In contrast,
    a comparison with the US shows a striking difference in this area: 32.9% of
    Americans aged 12 and above have experience with cannabis and 5.1% have used in
    the past month. These figures are twice as high as those in the Netherlands."

    Source:
    Netherlands Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport,
    Drug Policy in the Netherlands: Progress Report September
    1997-September 1999
    , (The Hague: Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, November 1999), pp. 7-8.

    7. "The prevalence figures for cocaine use in the Netherlands do not differ greatly from
    those for other European countries. However, the discrepancy with the United States
    is very large. The percentage of the general population who have used cocaine at
    some point is 10.5% in the US, five times higher than in the Netherlands. The
    percentage who have used cocaine in the past month is 0.7% in the US, compared
    with 0.2% in the Netherlands.*"

    Source:
    Netherlands Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport,
    Drug Policy in the Netherlands: Progress Report September
    1997-September 1999
    , (The Hague: Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, November 1999), p. 6. The report notes "*The
    figures quoted in this paragraph for drug use in the US are taken from the National Household Survey 1997, SAMSHA,
    Office of Applied Studies, Washington, DC".

    8. According to a report in the British Medical Journal in September of 2000,
    "Cannabis use among Dutch schoolchildren aged 10-18 years has fallen for
    the first time in 16 years, a national survey of risk behaviour among 10,000
    young people has shown." The story notes that according to Trimbos, the
    Netherlands Institute for Mental Health and Addiction ( www.trimbos.nl ),
    "about one in five young people had used cannabis at some point in their lives
    but less than a tenth had used it in the previous four weeks ("current
    users")."

    Source:
    Sheldon, Tony, "Cannabis use falls among Dutch youth," British Medical Journal (London,
    England: September 16, 2000), vol. 321, p. 655.

    Enough statistics? They speak for themselves really
    'An asshole on the internet is an asshole in real life'
    [ Parent ]

    Is that a good thing? (none / 0) (#216)
    by trane on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 04:51:50 PM EST

    Some people actually keep themselves from doing thing the law tells them not to. Humans are funny that way.

    [ Parent ]
    The law, not the weapon (3.50 / 2) (#265)
    by Silent Chris on Sun Apr 13, 2003 at 11:02:14 PM EST

    I own a shotgun.  I think the law is way too lax against killing people.  Killing people should be legalized.  According to my studies (see shotdot.org), killing people in no way negatively affects society.

    Finish the analogy.

    [ Parent ]

    ridiculous analogy (2.00 / 1) (#269)
    by suntzu on Sun Apr 13, 2003 at 11:29:10 PM EST

    if you think that murder is in any way analogous (in terms of harm to society) to the impact of smoking marijuana, or doing just about any other drug for that matter, you're a fucking moron. it is in no way, shape, or form, a slippery slope from the legalization of pot to the legalization of murder.

    [ Parent ]
    Says you (5.00 / 1) (#275)
    by Silent Chris on Mon Apr 14, 2003 at 09:22:04 AM EST

    I think pot is extremely dangerous.  A guy high on pot nearly killed my father and my brother (and myself, when I was 3) in a car accident.  To you, it may not seem dangerous, but that's just to you and a limited percentage of the population.  That doesn't make it not dangerous.

    [ Parent ]
    already illegal (2.00 / 1) (#292)
    by suntzu on Tue Apr 15, 2003 at 12:14:06 AM EST

    this is a stupid argument. driving under the influence is already illegal. so what was done to you would be illegal even if marijuana was legalized.

    again, your analogy is flawed. the situation you suggest (that people would be able to drive while high) is analogous to murder, in your warped little gun analogy. just because something is legal for certain purposes does not mean that it is legal in every situation. you're allowed to own a gun. you're not allowed to murder with it. you should be allowed to drink alcohol. you shouldn't be allowed to drive under its influence. same goes for marijuana. this is not a subtle distinction at all, in fact, it seemse quite obvious to me. legalization doesn't mean "repeal of all laws relating to it." it means stopping the total criminalization of it. these are very different things, and one does not lead to the other.

    i'm sorry that you had that brush with death. but there are plenty of people who smoke weed and don't go out driving and endangering people. most people who smoke weed, in fact. just as most people who drink don't drive drunk.

    [ Parent ]

    woah ... (2.00 / 6) (#109)
    by jann on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 08:11:17 PM EST

    looks like my mojo score just went to shit.

    J

    think before you post [nt] (none / 0) (#120)
    by the77x42 on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 09:04:30 PM EST




    "We're not here to educate. We're here to point and laugh." - creature
    "You have some pretty stupid ideas." - indubitable ‮

    [ Parent ]
    The American Liberal Solution (3.20 / 15) (#138)
    by jjayson on Thu Apr 10, 2003 at 10:48:18 PM EST

    Hold a rally and invite every freak with an alternative cause out there. Encourage them to muddle the issue by bring "Free Mumia" and "No Blood for Oil" signs. Throw some trashcans through storefronts that are part of the global coffee-industrial complex. Finally, law down in the streets to piss off all the drivers. Please do not fall off of a bridge while trying to hang a sign, though.
    _______
    Smile =)
    * bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
    <bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

    The American Conservative Solution (4.33 / 6) (#199)
    by aphrael on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 02:13:06 PM EST

    Arrest all of the drug users and throw them in jail for two decades.

    [ Parent ]
    I wish (1.66 / 6) (#219)
    by chunkwhite84 on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 05:03:30 PM EST

    If only this were true. It would keep those disease riddled crackheads out of my town. fuck diseased drug users.

    [ Parent ]
    The Silent Chris solution (4.66 / 3) (#267)
    by Silent Chris on Sun Apr 13, 2003 at 11:08:31 PM EST

    Ignore both extremes (one of which seems to dominate K5) and go right down the middle.  Both sides are idiots.

    [ Parent ]
    Which drugs (3.00 / 4) (#198)
    by meyou on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 01:45:52 PM EST

    Well, I think people in USA should make a distinction between different types of drugs:

    First of all, your prisons are stuffed with people who were arested smoking marihuana. Marihuana is a relatively harmless drug (compared to Alcohol or Tobacco) and it is a bit ludricous (if you ask me) to keep this type of drug illegal. Best option: make it legal so that the criminals can't make money of it and the police can focus on problem drugs.

    The real problem are drugs like coke/speed, yhe ``uppers'' , which are all lethal. These are the type of drugs that can destroy a person's life and the use of that should be stopped. The only problem is, as long as people remain addicted to these drugs, there will always be people making money of it. I think the only solution is to make it really hard for a person to remain addicted (send cops after them, etc).

    Heroine is highly addictive, but not lethal by itself. The dirty needles and the crime needed to pay for the addiction are the real problems. In Holland we have experiments with the free (and controlled) distribution by the government. The first results show a decrease in crime and a decrease in HIV infections caused by the use of Heroine. People even kick their habit. This works better than imprisoning these people.

    What I am saying is that in the USA you need to focus your "War on Drugs" more on the types of drugs which are harmfull for society and the people addicted to them. This reduces the costs and the burden on society.



    Really? (none / 0) (#200)
    by billx78 on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 02:21:55 PM EST

    When did Vancover, British Columbia become a part of the US? Did I miss something while the war was going on, or have we really annexed Canada?


    [ Parent ]
    Oops (none / 0) (#201)
    by meyou on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 02:32:18 PM EST

    Vancouver is Canada of course, but I tried to relate to the War on Drugs in America. But sorry, I should have made that clearer in my post..

    [ Parent ]
    Cites. (4.50 / 2) (#202)
    by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 02:42:47 PM EST

    I can't find statistics that break convictions down by type of drug, but my understanding is that most convicted drug users are *not* in jail for using pot, they're in jail for crack. Crack was the drug that kicked the "War" into high gear, remember?

    In addition, the percentage in prison for drug offenses has actually fallen slightly over the past decade.


    --
    Note that the depiction of the president as a deranged or Nazi paranoid is coming mostly from people who constantly tell us how passionately they
    [ Parent ]

    Eh? (4.50 / 2) (#281)
    by synaesthesia on Mon Apr 14, 2003 at 12:41:11 PM EST

    The real problem are drugs like coke/speed, yhe ``uppers'' , which are all lethal

    Heroine is highly addictive, but not lethal by itself

    Could you please give me a definition of the word 'lethal' which supports this combination of assertions?


    Sausages or cheese?
    [ Parent ]

    Lethal (none / 0) (#320)
    by meyou on Sun May 18, 2003 at 02:40:32 PM EST

    in this context: The use of this particular kind of drug causes death.

    [ Parent ]
    No... (2.42 / 7) (#211)
    by faustus on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 03:50:33 PM EST

    ...because addiction is antithetical to evolution.

    Nothing is antithetical to evolution, silly. (4.50 / 4) (#225)
    by gzt on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 07:51:00 PM EST

    It's SCIENCE.

    [ Parent ]
    bullshit (5.00 / 2) (#268)
    by suntzu on Sun Apr 13, 2003 at 11:20:28 PM EST

    1) as said in another post, nothing is antithetical to evolution. evolution has no purpose. it's a way of describing a process. evolution doesn't "want" things to happen. things evolve, that's it. it's not normative at all.

    2) how do you define addiction? if you simply define it as habituation, then you are addicted to food and water, as are all animals. why? because it's necessary for the process that we call evolution (for animals at least) to take place as we have known it. or maybe you define addiction as harmful habituation. in which case it causes things to be naturally selected out of a system. note, that that isn't saying anything about the goodness or badness of that type of natural selection. it is what it is. because evolution doesn't involve normative judgements.

    [ Parent ]

    A good start (3.40 / 5) (#214)
    by loudici on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 04:27:11 PM EST

    would be to convince the bush regime to stop using drugs as a tool to:
    -criminalize the poors
    -finance paramilitary terrorists in south america
    -make money to finance illegal covert CIA ops.

    http://www.csun.edu/~hfspc002/news/cia.drug.html

    gnothi seauton

    YOU are on crack. (1.66 / 3) (#217)
    by chunkwhite84 on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 04:59:54 PM EST

    You offer no proof of these preposterous alegations. You are probably wearing a tin-foil hat. grow up please!!

    [ Parent ]
    Learn to use google... (none / 0) (#251)
    by Kaki Nix Sain on Sun Apr 13, 2003 at 03:31:27 AM EST

    ... then you can find such things yourself.



    [ Parent ]

    Do you have trouble reading? (3.00 / 1) (#290)
    by fnkmaster on Mon Apr 14, 2003 at 05:24:27 PM EST

    You link to an article about the US funding spraying of chemicals to kill coca plants to stop cocaine. You realize that the grandparent post claimed that the US government is _supporting_ the sale of drugs as a tool to criminalize the poor and is using the proceeds from drug sales to make money to finance illegal covert CIA ops, right? In other words, crazy, tin foil hat shit.

    Nobody argued that the war on some drugs is good or that the tactics used in South America are admirable. But that's a far cry from making the claim that the US government is "the biggest drug dealer in the world" as is made in the article linked to by the original poster.

    [ Parent ]

    well ... watch this please (none / 0) (#309)
    by drgonzo on Wed Apr 16, 2003 at 07:39:45 AM EST

    and please don't denounce it as commi propaganda
    http://www.guerrillanews.com/crack/

    [ Parent ]
    Illegal government ops... (5.00 / 1) (#257)
    by skyknight on Sun Apr 13, 2003 at 08:56:33 AM EST

    Those with the guns make the rules, so whatever the government does, it is always "legal." Laws are arbitrary distinctions, social constructs, that derive meaning only from being enforced.

    This applies to everything, even something as fundamental as "property rights." Just ask those who have found themselves on the wrong end of eminent domain.



    It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
    [ Parent ]
    well in that case (none / 0) (#286)
    by loudici on Mon Apr 14, 2003 at 03:24:29 PM EST

    those operations were deemed illegal by the US judicial systems, and convictions were issued. that Bush Sr issued a pardon and that those criminal now end up in the administration is yet another tasty fact about the bush regime that is not widely publicized.
    gnothi seauton
    [ Parent ]
    injection clinics (1.10 / 10) (#218)
    by chunkwhite84 on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 05:01:47 PM EST

    Offering clean injection clinics will only worsen the problem.

    If people get diseases from using drugs, its their own damn fault.

    Offering a government sponsored location for them to do their illegal drugs is just plain stupid. It will only encourage drug use as people will no longer be worried about getting a disease.

    sick bastards.

    You tell em (5.00 / 5) (#222)
    by meyou on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 05:39:46 PM EST

    I'm sorry, but you think that more people will get addicted to drugs because 'the government offers them clean needles'. People aren't addicted to drugs because there are facilities for them, if you think that, then I can only argue how nearsided and stupid this argument is. Would you become addicted to drugs if the government provided the facilities? I hope for you that the answer is no, otherwise you have a serious problem.

    If you do not care if these people live or die, fine, it's an opinion and you're entitled to it. But a whole bunch of sick and criminal junkies costs the society (and you as an consumer) a lot more money than providing them with facilities. I think the battle could be fought more effectively if you focus on the cause of problems, not on what you think people should or shouldn't do...



    [ Parent ]
    Re: Diseases (5.00 / 2) (#288)
    by catseye on Mon Apr 14, 2003 at 04:42:58 PM EST

    "If people get diseases from using drugs, its their own damn fault."

    Yes it is.. but you know what? The taxpayers are the ones that will be paying for their HIV treatment, which can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

    I'd rather pay the pennies to supply them with clean needles.

    As well, they don't just seem to be content to keep the disease to themselves. They spread it to family members and sexual partners. They give it to their children.

    I'd like to see you explain your viewpoint to a child with AIDS. "I'm sorry you have AIDS, but your mother is a junkie whore and she deserves to be punished for being addicted to illegal drugs and being too stupid to use birth control. What did you do? Nothing.. you're just collateral damage."

    Needle exchange programs and the like don't encourage drug use. They encourage hygeine and they're cheaper for the taxpayer in the long run.

    ----------
    How can we fight Islamic Fundamentalism abroad if we do not fight Christian Fundamentalism at home?
    [ Parent ]

    teach people, let them decide for themselves (4.80 / 5) (#221)
    by theperfectelement on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 05:38:24 PM EST

    I would prefer to see legalization and education. People are allowed to choose for themselves whether they want lung cancer or not from cigarettes, and knowing full well the increased risk associated with smoking. Heroin, while a more extreme case, is a decision that the government obviously cannot make for a person. From reading accounts of heroin addicts (such as William S. Burroughs' "Junky") I've noticed that a lot of them believe that actually becoming addicted to junk is not so immediate as it's made out to be. It takes time to really develop a habit, maybe even a month of steady use before it really becomes an "addiction." Not having tried it yet myself, I can't verify this, and certainly some people will get addicted much faster due to their nature. Regardless, with the proper education about the dangers of abusing heroin, and any other drug, I can't see how any person (say in a family with dependents) would seriously risk it unless they had stopped caring about family and friends anyway. If it isn't heroin that they use to break away, something else will always be around. Face it, drugs of this caliber are a natural effect of the desperate side of life. Self destruction isn't something that can be outlawed and made to disappear just like that. It is futile to try, and I suspect it does much more damage than help when it is forced into the dangerous undercurrents of society.

    Heroin: (1.00 / 1) (#234)
    by tkatchev on Sat Apr 12, 2003 at 06:38:46 AM EST

    ---> K. Cobaine.

       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    Actually... (5.00 / 1) (#244)
    by Eccles on Sat Apr 12, 2003 at 11:34:00 PM EST

    ...it was a shotgun.

    [ Parent ]
    Well. (none / 0) (#253)
    by tkatchev on Sun Apr 13, 2003 at 06:43:08 AM EST

    You could say it was the fault of his mom 'n dad for giving him birth, while you're at it.

    In short, don't act like a dumbass.

       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    alcohol (5.00 / 1) (#262)
    by suntzu on Sun Apr 13, 2003 at 10:42:28 PM EST

    has been the downfall of many a person too. remember what happened when that was outlawed?

    [ Parent ]
    Druggie logic strikes again. (1.00 / 1) (#274)
    by tkatchev on Mon Apr 14, 2003 at 04:14:38 AM EST

    Stop toking the big one and learn to think.

    "Drugs are bad" doesn't imply "drinking is cool".


       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    Learn to stop being sarcastic. (5.00 / 1) (#279)
    by synaesthesia on Mon Apr 14, 2003 at 12:16:20 PM EST

    "Prohibition is bad" doesn't imply "Drug and alcohol abuse are good".

    Telling someone to learn to think, when you have simply failed to understand their point, simply highlights your own stupidity.


    Sausages or cheese?
    [ Parent ]

    OK I'm sorry I'm an idiot (1.00 / 1) (#285)
    by tkatchev on Mon Apr 14, 2003 at 03:08:37 PM EST

    What was your point then?

    That prohibition is bad?

    Duh. Nobody is arguing that.

    What people do argue is that the absense of prohibition is worse than the presence of it.

    See teh subtel point here?

       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    the subtle point (5.00 / 1) (#291)
    by suntzu on Tue Apr 15, 2003 at 12:06:46 AM EST

    See teh subtel point here?

    sorry, no. my argument was that prohibition was worse than lack of prohibition. there's a reason alcohol was legalized again. prohibition was a terrible failure. reply if you want. preferably with something more intelligent than "stop toking the big one." that sort of shit makes you look like a fucking five year old.

    [ Parent ]

    If that was your point... (1.00 / 1) (#295)
    by tkatchev on Tue Apr 15, 2003 at 01:56:40 AM EST

    ...then I am sorry to say that it somehow got lost on the way. Care to try again?

       -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
    [ Parent ]

    If that was his point... (5.00 / 1) (#298)
    by synaesthesia on Tue Apr 15, 2003 at 05:32:30 AM EST

    ...i.e., you've now got a handle on what his point was, why are you asking him to try again?


    Sausages or cheese?
    [ Parent ]
    Feh (5.00 / 1) (#304)
    by Eccles on Tue Apr 15, 2003 at 10:42:48 AM EST

    Kurt might have offed himself regardless of his heroin use. (There are tens of thousands of heroin-free suicides in this country every year, after all.) A reasonable man might infer that you were implying Cobain died of a heroin overdose, which is not true.

    [ Parent ]
    Go after their infrastructure (2.25 / 4) (#227)
    by KWillets on Fri Apr 11, 2003 at 09:15:13 PM EST

    The idea of a public nuisance is a fundamental part of property law.  If a property poses a burden to its neighbors, it doesn't get to remain a property much longer.

    You can sue businesses, housing projects, and even street gangs in small claims court for the nuisance they cause:  noise, crime, and other interference to the enjoyment of your property or residence.

    In California any property related to narcotics trafficking is deemed a public nuisance by statute, so a pattern of arrests at a given address will usually be enough to go to court.

    A Lawyer's Solution, alas (4.00 / 1) (#311)
    by mymantra on Wed Apr 16, 2003 at 06:23:54 PM EST

    When the only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail

    The minor fly in the ointment is that outlawing something may increase the "cost" of an activity but won't change the situations that create or preserve the problem: using property law to deal with a social problem like drug abuse will not stop people from taking drugs and may even increase drug use by making life that much more unpleasant requiring that much more "medication".

    The inane response I hear from far too many lawyers and legislators is: "We've passed a law. It's now illegal. The problem has been solved". Seldom do these fiats (legislation, contracts, enforcement, etc.) ever address the systems issues or lay the alternative infrastructure that will capture the underlying behavior/psychology/physiology urges and predilections that drive the situation in the first place and which can not be removed from humanity itself. Yes, this means that sappy touchy-feely stuff like treatment, rehabilitation, etc.

    Too many lawyers seem to have reset their own axioms for dealing with the abstraction of law so well that they forget that a legal proof is not the same as reality (physicist and mathematicians sometimes make the same mistake but fewer lifes are usually at stake). A wise friend once compared the legal profession to being like programming where the programs are only run for the first time by the judge once some sues. Since few lawyers have actual personal experience "running the program" few have direct experience with the actual consequences of their badly constructed abstractions. Imagine if computer programming worked like this! I won't mention Microsoft.

    This is compounded by the American predilection to "absolute problem, absolute solution" (good reference/exposition to this: Hellfire Nation) which precludes and forecloses a statistically-based managment solution that might actually improve peoples lives, individually or collectively, for zero tolerance, feel-good, moralistic dogma having the physical impossibility of actually acheiving the stated goals.

    [ Parent ]

    Descriminate Legalisation (3.40 / 5) (#246)
    by Space on Sun Apr 13, 2003 at 01:46:30 AM EST

    I volunteer at a community support center for drugs and aids and I am very reluctant to support descriminate legalisation of certain types of drugs. The evidence supporting these arguments is almost never consistent and relies heavily on misinformation and biased experts. I firmly believe that policy based legalisation of all drugs is more cost effective than prohibition If supporting community programs are also incorporated. As far as addiction is concerned the worst offender would have to be cigaretts (studies have found nicotine more addictive than heroine), but as far as illegal drugs are concerned heroine and marihuana seem to provide for the majority of cases in the inhouse detox unit's caseload. But most people will howl that marihuana's not addictive. They will cite common examples of people who smoke marihuana and aren't addicted. But when a person smokes 15 cones a day and can't go to sleep without having 3 cones they would rather pretend it isnt the case. Conversely I have personally known a large number of people who have tried heroine and continue to take it on an irregular basis and aren't considered addicted. My perspective on the issue is that addiction is a class illness rather than a medical one because addiction is more prevalent in lower socio-economic classes characterised by less goal orientated behaviour such as career or study. The counter argument that higher class people don't do drugs I believe is a fallacy because the majority of cocaine users are higher class and the statisticaly disparity is more representative of higher class peoples reluctance to seek institutional help or their ability to develope better coping strategies. Most research also seems to indicate that drug use is more representative of risk taking personalities than class. As far as danger is concerned statistics are also heavily influenced by misinformation and poorly correlated statistics. The most dangerous drug would have to be alcohol in both harm to it's user and social harm. People often ignore how commonplace alcohol poisoning (alcohol overdose), is and how many people die of it each year. Alcoholism is also a very dangerous condition that leads to incredible medical and social complications for it's users such as chirossis of the liver and neurological damage. The number of alcohol related deaths anually is also very high that range from drink driving to alcohol related violence. Alcohol is also responsible for the vast majority of cases of domestic violence that targets both women and children. Alcohol also ruins displaced ingigenous communities. Cigaretts are also far from mundane causing serious health promblems to its users but relatively few social problems aside from public health care expenditure. Heroine is often considered the worst of all drugs in the dangers it poses though I would encourage people to keep this in perspective. The incidence of heroine overdoses are more often attributable to changes in purity of the drug and it's additives as well as suicidal intent on behalf of the user than a mistake on the part of the user. Heroine in a medical environment supposedly has very few health related concers also. But long term heroine addicts are almost always in bad shape with collapsed veins in both their arms and legs as well as contagious diseases such as AIDs and hepatitis. But these health problems can be avoided If users take heroine in a medical environment (shooting galleries or heroine trials) and If users are supplied with harm minimisation measures such as drug education and sterile injection equipment. The social problems concerning heroine can also be offset by these measures as addicts will no longer be littering the streets, no more drug related crime to pay for addictions and no more siringes on the ground since users need to exchange them to get new ones. Also as I mentioned earlier these measures are more focused on the worst cases since people are often unaware of non-addicted functional users. Marihuana has relatively few immediate heath concerns but long term use harms short term memory and is comparable with cigarette smoking. It also has relatively few social problems as most users are relatively placid though can suffer from lack of motivation and goal orientated behaviour that can be devestating for long term heavy users who realise they wasted 5 years or more of their life doing nothing but gathering enough money to buy pot and getting stoned every day. Party drugs such as esctacy have few documented health problems though some degree of neurological damage is generally agreed upon though. Whether this impairs functionality is uncertain. The only immediate danger is dehydration associated with the hot and active environments at rave parties though rape is an unexplored and contentious issues. These concerns are often addressed by ravesafe programs that educate and encourage responsible behaviour at rave parties. There has only been 1 documented esctacy related death in Australia. Speed, cocaine and amphetamines are a touch blurry in their inherent danger and depend on method of administration. People who boot speed (inject), can have similar problems to those of heroine. Though people who snort speed or cocaine have fewer health problems except in circumstances of heavy long term use. Though overdose is a clear danger and shouldn't be understated. Psychosis is also a danger in long term users that can be particularly harmful and devestating. Though both these dangers can be significantly minimised through education and provision of pure substances. 1 in 5 American children are technically on speed since ritalin is an amphetamine though taken at comparably lower doses. Given that the current legal drugs are some of the most dangerous and that the dangers of illegal drugs are mitigated by social circumstances created by prohibition I believe that legalising marahuana but not other drugs while more realistic politically isn't consistent with community need or dangers posed by the drugs themselves. Opposition to drug legalisation is more often to do with insultingly paternalistic ideologies than it is to do with individual or social harm.
    <recycle your pets>
    One Word: Paragraphs (5.00 / 3) (#261)
    by Crono on Sun Apr 13, 2003 at 08:56:54 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Another word: spelling (n/t) (none / 0) (#299)
    by 6hill on Tue Apr 15, 2003 at 06:35:23 AM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Shooting Galleries will not help or hinder (5.00 / 2) (#252)
    by evil roy on Sun Apr 13, 2003 at 05:27:05 AM EST

    We have safe injecting rooms in Sydney - nicknamed "Shooting Galleries". Addicts are given clean needles and shoot their own drugs up with supervision and medical support if required. These rooms are not popular (would you like one next door?) and even the rate of usage is not what was targetted. These rooms serve only one purpose - protect that user while they are there. They are not a tool to reduce the drug use epidemic, they are not pro or anti drug use - they are only there to protect the user from overdose for that "hit". That's it-noble in intention, but not anything more or less than a safe haven.

    No (5.00 / 1) (#273)
    by Space on Mon Apr 14, 2003 at 12:30:00 AM EST

    Perhaps you failed to consider that there are less people sitting on the curb shooting up at Kings Cross now? Their needles are also disposed of at the centre instead of littering the street.
    <recycle your pets>
    [ Parent ]
    No noticeable differences (5.00 / 1) (#289)
    by evil roy on Mon Apr 14, 2003 at 05:12:48 PM EST

    I don't disagree with the medical protection of addicts. Keeping them alive is the best service to be provided 'at the coalface'. The reduction in street use and needles is not an aim of the centre and in any case - has not occurred. Politicians sold it as a new way of dealing with the drug problem, maybe this is how it was sold to them, but the sole purpose of the centre is short term protection of the addict.

    [ Parent ]
    What epidemic? (3.60 / 5) (#263)
    by Silent Chris on Sun Apr 13, 2003 at 10:54:44 PM EST

    "What should be done to stop the drug epidemic?"

    K5: There is no epidemic.
    Everyone else: Well, while I agree the methods haven't been the best to fight any supposed "drug war", you've got to admit chemical abuse isn't the best thing for most people.
    K5: Drug war?  That's the "man", dude.  Anything for the man is wrong.  Anything against the man is right.
    Everyone else: Look, I'm not saying governments have been totally honest in revealing the facts about drug abuse, but I imagine that many independent scientific reviews are correct, and incorrect, on both sides.  
    K5: The government studies are always wrong.  Studies against them are always right.  Once you become government, you become a liar.
    Everyone else: So no one has integrity when they become government?  They cease being human, being both right and wrong, emotional and non-emotional on different topics?
    K5: Silence
    Everyone else: Whatever.  K5 just likes to FUD in the opposite direction.

    Silent Chris: Waits for the 1's to come in

    What debating technique? (4.00 / 5) (#280)
    by synaesthesia on Mon Apr 14, 2003 at 12:35:49 PM EST

    "What should be done about Silent Chris's debating technique?"

    Silent Chris: Look! I've defeated you! I've burned you to a crisp! See how you went up in flames so quickly!
    K5: That wasn't us you burned. That was a man made out of straw, which you made yourself.
    Silent Chris: But, I must have defeated you! See, you've gone! I can't see you any more!
    K5: That's because you've buried your head in a pile of sand.
    Silent Chris: But you all give me 1's, which proves that you're mindless idiots!
    K5: We have a word for the man who looks around and asks, "Why is everyone except for me a lunatic?" The word is "lunatic".

    synaesthesia: Waits for the 0 from Silent Chris to come in.

    Sausages or cheese?
    [ Parent ]

    From the FAQ (none / 0) (#282)
    by Silent Chris on Mon Apr 14, 2003 at 01:24:20 PM EST

    0's are given to comments that have no content.  I rest my case.

    [ Parent ]
    Ha, ha (none / 0) (#319)
    by Herb User on Sun Apr 20, 2003 at 07:16:54 AM EST

    Silent Zero, War on Drugs cheerleader: you'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes!  Wahahaha!

    Happy 4/20, dude.  Everyone here deserves a fat Joint today.

    ;)-~

    --
    Herb User, exceptionally Stoned this morning

    [ Parent ]

    2 things (5.00 / 1) (#294)
    by suntzu on Tue Apr 15, 2003 at 01:18:17 AM EST

    1) you're opinion of drug use and users isn't nearly this balanced in any of your other comments. you routinely take the hardline government-approved stance on drug use. once, you said that you knew people who got high once a week and if they couldn't get their weekly fix, they'd be gibbering insomniacs, desperately in need of a fix. no one gets effects like that from getting high once a week. heroin doesn't even do that sort of thing if you're using it once a week. if you believe that sort of thing, then you're either a troll, a moron, or both.

    2) as the other replying poster said, you've built a giant straw-man. if you look at even just the top level comments on only this story, it's quite obvious that the K5 population isn't a bunch of pro-legalization, anti-government druggies.

    [ Parent ]

    Blind leading blind (4.00 / 1) (#300)
    by Silent Chris on Tue Apr 15, 2003 at 08:44:52 AM EST

    In reference to 1, I knew people in college (a lot actually), who got high weekly.  A few managed to maintain their grades, get up Monday morning, and finish school.  The remaining often gave a "wait and see" approach, and the Friday night smoking binge was often counteracted by a Monday night "I'm jittery" hit.

    To them, no one in the group looked like they were hooked.  To anyone outside (including me and a few others), it was obvious.  At the time I thought it was very funny; now I think it's kinda disturbing.

    If you want to be pro-drugs, I assume (in most cases) you take drugs yourself.  That said, how can you honestly give an unbiased viewpoint when you are taking substances that change the way you think?  Wouldn't it be better to argue under a clear head (maybe after months of not smoking)?  

    I'm not saying my viewpoint is unbiased, because it isn't.  But I'm not going to listen to someone say "smoke weed" who doesn't even realize the act of smoking it might be making him say that.

    [ Parent ]

    Problems (5.00 / 1) (#305)
    by godspeed on Tue Apr 15, 2003 at 10:56:45 AM EST

    Ok, heres the two most obvious things I could pick up from that reaction: 1. As far as I can see you've constructed another straw man argument there by proposing that the legalisation of drugs is only being pushed by users on the basis that these substances are harmless and should be used by any/everybody. The problem here is in the conflation of legalisation and encouragement. I for one am in favour of the legalisation or at least decriminalisation of the majority of illicit substances, yet have never actually done any of these illicit substances and I certainly don't feel that I'd start recommending drug use as part of a legislative overhaul. Further, as a non-user, I guess that I'm perfectly placed to make a coherent, rational argument in favour of legalisation. 2. Don't confuse the concepts of dependency and addiction. Marijuana has been consistently proven to be non-addictive, not even the government tries to push that line anymore. It can create a dependency, but that happens in a minority of cases and is on its own not nearly reason enough to ban it. Many things can cause dependency and many of these are socially ratified. You need to look for other reasons if you want to argue against marijuana use.
    "This is the most exciting thing to happen since Halley's Comet hit the moon" - Homer J. Simpson
    [ Parent ]
    Do you drink alcohol? (5.00 / 1) (#312)
    by Vellmont on Thu Apr 17, 2003 at 12:44:40 AM EST

    Then you're a drug user, and apparently are affected by the substances you take, and can't have an unbiased opinion.  You act as if anyone who's used drugs before is constantly high (or drunk), and can't think properly.

    [ Parent ]
    Marijuana kills brain cells (1.00 / 1) (#315)
    by Silent Chris on Thu Apr 17, 2003 at 09:45:24 AM EST

    They may not be high, but they're missing parts of their brain.  Why should I trust their judgment?

    [ Parent ]
    Why are the necessarily blind? (5.00 / 1) (#313)
    by suntzu on Thu Apr 17, 2003 at 07:32:32 AM EST

    In reference to 1, I knew people in college (a lot actually), who got high weekly. A few managed to maintain their grades, get up Monday morning, and finish school. The remaining often gave a "wait and see" approach, and the Friday night smoking binge was often counteracted by a Monday night "I'm jittery" hit.

    I have a really hard time believing this. I don't have any anecdotal evidence that is at all similar (and I've known a pretty wide section of drug users, and I'd imagine an example of almost every type of college drug user). And all but the most extreme anti-drug propaganda wouldn't make such outlandish claims (this sounds like a scene from "Reefer Madness"). I find it hard to believe that you just happened to know such a high concentration of people with such an extreme and unusually manifested psychological addiction to marijuana.

    If you want to be pro-drugs, I assume (in most cases) you take drugs yourself. That said, how can you honestly give an unbiased viewpoint when you are taking substances that change the way you think? Wouldn't it be better to argue under a clear head (maybe after months of not smoking)?

    Nowadays that's a poor assumption. There are plenty of pro-legalization non-users. Am I a non-user? No. Does that automatically make me more biased than you? Not necessarily. I will say, if I thougth there was something inherently wrong about drug use, I wouldn't do it. There are plenty of things I might enjoy that I wouldn't do, either because they're illegal, morrally wrong, or both. So it's not like I'm trying to argue that something abbhorent is right just because I do it.

    And I've gotten "a clear head" many times since I've started using anything I've used (starting with alcohol at around 16). Most recently, I went "home" for the summer. I say "home" because I was on break from university and spending it with my family, but they'd recently moved, so the area wasn't really home. Consequently, I had no connections and things were dry other than the occasional couple of beers with dinner. I carried on. Worked from home programming (just as I would've if things hadn't gone dry). Read, watched TV, slept. Did whatever else I would've done, just without drugs. Sure, there were times when I felt like it'd be really nice to smoke a joint, but it was never all-consuming or even that intense at all. But when I got back to school, I started back again. The way I look at it, it's just something else I do, like playing video games or reading or whatever. I can live without it, but it's nice to have.

    I think most drug users are like this. And this is why I'm pro-legalization. Would you go get high first thing if drugs became legal? I doubt it. Why do you think every other non-user would? And obviously prohibition doesn't stop people from using. So why not eliminate the problems that illegality causes (unregulated supply quality, artificially inflated prices, lack of medical treatment comparable to alcoholism treatment options) while not introducing significant new problems?

    Understand, using a drug isn't inherently immoral. Certain actions while under the influence are. Outlaw those things, not a substance that might or might not be used in conjunction.



    [ Parent ]
    But what's the point of even having them? (1.00 / 1) (#314)
    by Silent Chris on Thu Apr 17, 2003 at 09:44:25 AM EST

    In my mind, most drug users are incredibly weak because they can't reach a "high" without injesting something into their body.  Plenty of people gain emotional and physical highs through "natural" means -- exercise, music... I know I reach new highs through writing.  Not once do I need to partake in a substance that isn't in my body already -- not once do I have to go against a law ("right" or "wrong") to reach that plateau.

    Here's an idea: strengthen yourself.  Learn to reach that other level through books, comedy, or bungee jumping.  As it stands, I think drugs users are too lazy to reach any level above them without tying chemicals to themselves like a prosthetic limb.

    [ Parent ]

    Problems II (3.50 / 2) (#316)
    by godspeed on Thu Apr 17, 2003 at 01:10:24 PM EST

    Excellent idea, lets all go bungee jumping. I'm sure the risk of serious injury/impairment is probably about on an even keel between that and marijuana use. Anyway, you seem to assume that if someone uses drugs they become hardcore users and their life only exists for them. Thats a pretty stupid assumption. Even though I don't, A lot of people I know use marijuana every now and then, but they get so many "highs" out of other factors: friends, loved ones, music, writing, etc. Don't collectivise people into an easily available sterotype, its incredibly condescending.

    As for "natural" means, considering marijuana can be cultivated alongside everything else in your garden, the actual chemicals inside it are somewhat of a moot point I feel. And as you've posited putting something thats not in your body already into your body as "unnatural" by implication, I guess that makes eating and drinking morally unpalatable? Further, while you do seem to realise that what's in law isn't necessarily correct, as we're talking about the possible abolishment of these laws I think what they say about the "rightness" of drug use is a bit invalid.

    And finally (I think, these were just initial thoughts) be very very careful about labelling drug users lazy. Its a dangerously simplistic, liberalist approach thats visible in most of the anti-drug rhetoric flying around. The reason it is dangerous is because it negatives every piece of social, economic and political conditioning, both individually and collectively, that might have affected someone and made drug use seem like a good option. Its more ok (but still shortsighted) from a white, middle class, male background, but in the wonderful world of minorities life ain't quite so rosy.

    (Nope, not final) And considering that you've admitted to ingesting alcohol into your body, I'd be even more wary of labelling drug users as "incredibly weak", as it would take a fairly creative logic stream to evade putting yourself in that group. Anyway you look at it, alcohol is an "unnatural" mind-altering substance, with the possibility of severe injury, dependence and impaired mental function.

    You ask why we should use them. I'm not sure if thats the right question, its more along the lines of why should we prevent people from using them if they want to. Theres nothing intrinsically wrong about doing marijuana, no matter what you try and say. It can be harmful, no doubt. But its not alone there. It can create dependencies, but again there its far from alone. Its not a simple question, but I find it fairly difficult to find a reason why we should permit excessive drinking of alcohol, with all its associated violence, crime, accidents, disease and death while banning even small amounts of marijuana which, on most bases, couldn't even begin to measure up to the damage wreaked by alcohol. My thoughts anyway.
    "This is the most exciting thing to happen since Halley's Comet hit the moon" - Homer J. Simpson
    [ Parent ]

    Reasonable Legalization is the Answer (5.00 / 1) (#317)
    by nostalgiphile on Thu Apr 17, 2003 at 05:06:57 PM EST

    I think legalizing it (along with boosting funding for clinics and rehabilitation wards and pushing drug ed [not propaganda]) would actually be the best way to acknowledging that there is a problem that has to be dealt with.

    And no, it's not like you'd be telling kids its ok to shoot up--instead, you get the ex-junkies to go around and teach kids what an awful thing an addiction can be.

    Drug laws simply reinforce the problem by making it appear that addiction is a crime problem and not a social, mental health one. Besides everyone knows kids and young people invariably, I'd dare say "naturally", get a kick out of transgressing laws just because they're the laws.

    "Depending on your perspective you are an optimist or a pessimist[,] and a hopeless one too." --trhurler

    What should be done to stop the drug epidemic? (5.00 / 1) (#318)
    by gcmillwood on Sat Apr 19, 2003 at 01:48:10 PM EST

    You ask what to do to stop the epidemic.  I say you are asking the wrong question.  You seem to be stuck at 'drugs are bad mmm-kay', and you have already decided that stopping people doing drugs is a good thing.

    What we need to do is reduce the harm that (illegal) drugs cause.  I include all kinds of harm here: overdoses (sometimes leading to deaths), drug-driving, robberies (to get money to pay for drugs), effect on the economy (whilst sorting out the next fix a drug user is non-productive), funding organised crime and terrorism, etc.

    I could now go on at length about the relative safety of different drugs.  How legalisation cannot fail to make drugs safer (for both users and non-users).  How moving drugs into pharmacies and off street corners will reduce funding for organised crime.  How drugs will become cheaper if they are legalised.  How drug education will work a lot better without the stereotypical 'drugs are bad and will make you die a painful death and make you unattractive to the opposite sex' slant on it.  None of that is really the point.

    Please try and think about what the problem really is.  Is it that drugs are bad?  Or is it that drugs cause harm?  Or is it that the illegality of drugs is harmful?  Or something else entirely?

    Cracking down on crack | 304 comments (255 topical, 49 editorial, 0 hidden)
    Display: Sort:

    kuro5hin.org

    [XML]
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
    See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
    Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
    Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
    My heart's the long stairs.

    Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!