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]
Denver Legalizes the Reefer

By mtrisk in Culture
Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:12:29 PM EST
Tags: Focus On... (all tags)
Focus On...

On November 2, the residents of Denver, Colorado passed the Alcohol-Marijuana Equalization Initiative. With 100% of precincts reporting, the final tally for the vote was 56,001 YES votes to 48,632 NO votes, approximately 54% - 46%. The measure changed city law to allow for possession of up to an ounce of marijuana for adults 21 and over. The act is largely symbolic, though, as state and federal laws supersede local law, and authorities have already stated that state possession laws would be applied. However hope remains, for the passage of the initiative marks Denver as the first area in the nation to legalize private use of marijuana, for recreational as well as medical use. Is the legalization of marijuana at the federal level now within our reach?


The history of the criminalization of marijuana in the United States has been discussed at length, here at K5 and elsewhere, so, to be brief: "Marihuana" was outlawed by Congress in 1937, against the advice of the American Medical Association, and a mere four years after the end of the Prohibition era with the Twenty-First amendment. The only major challenge to federal cannabis laws has come from the 1969 Supreme Court case Leary v. United States, which ruled against the act on a technicality. By then, all fifty states had outlawed marijuana, and a new federal law was in place shortly after. Since the case, marijuana has remained a Schedule I drug, alongside Heroin, LSD, and MDMA (Ecstasy).

The question is, is marijuana really all that bad?  The citizens of Denver don't seem to think so. The campaign to pass the initiative focused on comparing marijuana to alcohol, and the text of the initiative was as follows:



Alcohol-Marijuana Equalization Initiative

WHEREAS, according to the National Institutes of Health, an average of 317 Americans die annually as the result of alcohol overdoses; and

WHEREAS, there has never been even a single fatal marijuana overdose recorded in the medical literature, as noted by the British Medical Journal in September 2003; and

WHEREAS, according to U.S. Department of Justice, "About 3 million crimes occur each year in which victims perceive the offender to have been drinking at the time of the offense. Among those victims who provided information about the offender's use of alcohol, about 35% of the victimizations involved an offender who had been drinking"; and

WHEREAS, extensive research, documented in official reports by the British government's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and the Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs, among others, shows that -- unlike alcohol -- marijuana use is not generally a cause of violence or aggressive behavior and in fact tends to reduce violence and aggression;

WHEREAS, it is the intent of this ordinance to have the private adult use and possession of marijuana treated in the same manner as the private adult use and possession of alcohol;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER

TEXT OF PROPOSED INITIATIVE

(proposed addition in all caps, underlined)

Amend Art. 5, Div. 3, Sec. 38-175 (Revised Municipal Code)

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person UNDER THE AGE OF TWENTY-ONE (21) to possess one (1) ounce or less of marihuana. If such person is under the age of eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the offense, no jail sentence shall be imposed and any fine imposed may be supplanted by treatment as required by the court.



Indeed, the dangers inherent to recreational marijuana use are at the very worst no more than those posed by alcohol. If society can accept the legalization of alcohol, and the widespread use and abuse of that drug, why is there such significant resistance to cannabis use? Has the stigma surrounding marijuana actually affected the minds of the populace, and that of lawmakers, to such a degree as to continue the apparent hypocrisy?

The time appears ripe to start a national debate on the status of our treatment of marijuana, an open and frank discussion on the subject. The only information provided to most citizens comes in the form of the D.A.R.E. program and other anti-drug organizations, and news of marijuana-related arrests. Marijuana advocacy groups should both take heart in the situation in Denver, and take note that many in the U.S. view cannabis with the same filter as gay marriage. For the rest of us though, it's time to light up the bongs and joints with pride.

Sponsors

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

Login

Poll
What should be outlawed?
o Both Alcohol and Marijuana 8%
o Alcohol Only 6%
o Marijuana Only 3%
o Neither 81%

Votes: 59
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Also by mtrisk


Display: Sort:
Denver Legalizes the Reefer | 353 comments (350 topical, 3 editorial, 0 hidden)
Just a quick note (3.00 / 3) (#1)
by mtrisk on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 07:09:57 PM EST

I'm actually clean myself, but I believe in the right to be free from government control over your body. Do whatever you want to do to it, I really don't care.

______
"If you don't like our country, why don't you get out?"
"What, and become a victim of your foreign policy?"
Oh, also (none / 0) (#2)
by mtrisk on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 07:12:17 PM EST

This article was in response to this diary.

______
"If you don't like our country, why don't you get out?"
"What, and become a victim of your foreign policy?"
[ Parent ]
i'm for marijuana legalization, but you're wrong (1.33 / 6) (#4)
by circletimessquare on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 08:11:03 PM EST

crack, meth, and smack turns normal contributing members of society into addicted zombies who are a drain on their families, their friends, their society. they are worse than useless

your problem is you think drug use happens in a vacuum. if it did, you would be right, but it doesn't happen in a vaccuum

soft drugs legal, hard drugs illegal


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

[ Parent ]

I know plenty of people... (3.00 / 3) (#5)
by bighappyface on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 08:12:21 PM EST

...who use heroin or coke on weekends only, a few even smoke a little crack on weekends (not like every weekend, but sometimes).

They all have decent paying jobs (mostly in IT, one's a manager, and another is an accountant), and one has a fiance.

[ Parent ]

i know plenty of people... (2.38 / 13) (#9)
by circletimessquare on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 08:18:25 PM EST

...who drive 90 mph on the highway all the time weaving in and out of traffic

they all have decent paying jobs, and one has a pet poodle

(snicker)


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

[ Parent ]

Excellent counterargument. (2.80 / 5) (#14)
by bighappyface on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 09:49:18 PM EST



[ Parent ]
thank you ;-) nt (none / 1) (#19)
by circletimessquare on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 11:04:36 PM EST



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

[ Parent ]
does this include cigarrete smoking? (none / 0) (#43)
by speek on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 09:50:11 AM EST

Heroin addiction = driving 90mph = nicotine addiction? Do I have that right? I really want to understand what you're saying.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Excellent point... (none / 0) (#74)
by bighappyface on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 10:11:30 PM EST

Comparing nicotine's addiction and relapse rate to heroin's, as well as nicotine's negative health effects to (pure, pharmaceutical grade) heroin's.

[ Parent ]
not an excellent point (none / 1) (#85)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:02:10 AM EST

we can talk about inebriation and addiction when it comes to drugs

if something is highly addicting and highly inebriating like heroin, it is different than something highly addictive and not inebriating like nicotine

complexity and subtly, concepts in short supply here

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

[ Parent ]

Yes, it is different... (none / 1) (#101)
by bighappyface on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 01:49:50 AM EST

...it's better.

Who gives a fuck if it's inebriating if you can function on it?

[ Parent ]

glassy eyed, drooling, immobilized (none / 1) (#135)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 09:26:01 AM EST

welcome to functioning on heroin

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

[ Parent ]
Here's a clue... (1.50 / 2) (#149)
by bighappyface on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 11:41:36 AM EST

...just like alcohol, there are varying levels of tolerance to heroin, and varying levels of consumption.

[ Parent ]
here's a clue... (1.50 / 2) (#175)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:59:15 PM EST

...heroin is many more orders of magnitude more addictive than alcohol

go ahead, tell me that the sky isn't blue, that the sun isn't hot

go ahead and defy simple pharmacological fact and refute that you fucking propagandized prick

i dare you, break the mold on being the blindest most propagandized fuck i have ever met

like arguing with creationists, i swear

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

[ Parent ]

Always making things up (2.00 / 2) (#194)
by azurensis on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 02:49:29 PM EST

>...heroin is many more orders of magnitude more addictive than alcohol

There is nothing else to be said but that you are full of shit. You simply do not know what you are talking about.

If you can justify your statement, please do so. Then again, I know you can't.


[ Parent ]

cts: (none / 0) (#216)
by zenofchai on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 04:22:33 PM EST

...heroin is many more orders of magnitude more addictive than alcohol

and some people still will not become addicted to heroin. (it is not 100% addictive). why do we outlaw their use of heroin?
--
The K5 Interactive Political Compass SVG Graph
[ Parent ]

nicotine is highly addictive (1.50 / 4) (#86)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:05:03 AM EST

but not highly inebriating

lsd is not addictive, but highly inebriating

alcohol is mildly addictive, somewhat inebriating

weed is not addictive, but is inebriating

heroin?

that's highly addictive, highly inebriating

these different qualities of a drug MATTER when considering their legality and illegality

alcohol, weed, lsd, and nicotine should legal

heroin? nope

it's inebriation/ addiction profile is why


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

[ Parent ]

inebriation should not be your key (none / 1) (#124)
by speek on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 07:51:53 AM EST

Whether or not I'm feeling high should not be an issue for you. How does that affect you? In your previous posts, I got the impression your main complaint was the creation of non-functional citizens who are dependent on the state, and thus our tax dollars. In which case I would argue with your inclusion of heroin, since, in the past (ie, before it was criminalized), it has been a drug many people have used while maintaining professional careers. It does surprisingly little harm to the body over time (less than alcohol or nicotine certainly, possibly as little as thc).

If you want to argue coke should be illegal as a consumable for the same reason cyanide is, then I think you'd have a point, and we could rationally discuss the toxicity of all drugs, rather than some bogus addiction/inebriation calculus.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

x, y, z (2.00 / 3) (#133)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 09:22:29 AM EST

x. inebriation

y. toxicity

z. addictiveness

make a cube

plot lsd on it, nicotine, tetrahydrocannibinol, etc...

see the area with large inebriation, and addictiveness and toxicity?

that area should be illegal

for what it does to you, and your freedoms, and society


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

[ Parent ]

so heroin should be legal (none / 1) (#179)
by speek on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 01:17:02 PM EST

Seeing as how it's toxicity is extremely low.

I still don't see that inebriation is a valid axis to plot.

You are pro-choice, right? Let's say we both agree that heroin addiction is bad. I imagine we both agree abortion is bad as well. Yet you're pro-choice. Why? I suspect it's because you think the damage done by anti-abortion laws outweighs the damage done by abortions and probably because you think there are more effective ways to reduce the number of abortions that occur.

I submit that that is a better analogy/comparison than any you have mentioned.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

i think we have a glimmer of agreement here (1.50 / 2) (#192)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 02:39:31 PM EST

i said there was a REGION in the x,y,z graph where some drugs lie that should be illegal

i didn't say EXACTLY where

so... what are we arguing about now: WHERE the region is? or IF the region exists?

two very, very different arguments

talk to some dimwits here, and they think no drug should be outlawed

so: does the line exist or not?

because once you agree on that, i don't care about the rest

arguing about exactly WHERE the line lies is academic after that point, and an exercise in nitpicking minutiae i'm not interestd in here


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

[ Parent ]

Why? (none / 1) (#287)
by twickham on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 12:20:05 PM EST

i said there was a REGION in the x,y,z graph where some drugs lie that should be illegal Quick question : Why should they be illegal. I agree 100% with you that people addicted to crack/smack/coke is a bad thing overall for society... but honestly the people addicted to these drugs have absolutely no problems aquiring them now. I also think you are overdoing the addiction thing. Ive casually used soem of the drugs you mention and am fully aware of what I am doing and the dangers of addiction. You want to frame the problem of hard drug abuse in medical terms of the chemistry of addiction... fine by me... so treat it as a medical problem. Whats making it illegal gonna do. Most people dont *want* to be zombie addicts. There is a small minority that will sucumb and become addicts... thats a bummer but thats life.

[ Parent ]
possession should not be illegal (3.00 / 3) (#296)
by speek on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 05:33:38 PM EST

Period. I can possess cyanide and bleach - coke or heroin are pussies compared to those "drugs". The issue should be selling unsafely and with false advertising, proper labeling, and/or poor quality control, ala cigarettes and valium, alcohol and chemotherapy, nitrous oxide and red dye #6. Fit marijuana, heroin, crack, coke, speed, alcohol, nicotine, etc on that spectrum, but understand the only legal issue is with sales - never with possession. What you make/grow on your own is entirely your issue, for example.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Please stop repeating this dimwitted argument (3.00 / 2) (#117)
by schrotie on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 05:34:01 AM EST

I understand your point, but this speeding argument is so stupid ...

Where I live there are many highways without speed limits. When driving on these at 90 mph on the left lane your primary concern is not the traffic ahead but your rear view mirror where you'll quite frequently see cars approaching you at 150 mph.

We have a population of 80 million and 3000 deaths in car accidents each year. The vast majority of these deaths is not on highways but pedestrians being hit in cities and drunk teenagers hitting trees on country roads.

This might be hard to believe when you're used to 60 mph and you'd probably find our highways rather scary (I do) but still your argument does not work.

[ Parent ]

are you immune to the laws of physics? (none / 1) (#134)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 09:25:01 AM EST

so the faster you speed, the higher your statistical chance of crashing, right?

could you hurt someone else on the road?

now substitute the laws of medical pharamcology and addiciton and withdrawal for the laws of physics, and you understand the hubris that is people saying "i can speed, i won't hurt anyone" and saying "i can take hard drugs, i won't hurt anyone"


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

[ Parent ]

NSL (3.00 / 2) (#193)
by azurensis on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 02:45:36 PM EST

>now substitute the laws of medical pharamcology and addiciton and withdrawal for the laws of physics, and you understand the hubris that is people saying "i can speed, i won't hurt anyone" and saying "i can take hard drugs, i won't hurt anyone"

Except that you just made up those laws of "medical pharmacology and addiciton and withdrawal" out of thin air. There are no such laws. None of the drugs you listed will lead most users of them to ever become addicted, ruin their lives, rob banks, etc.

Punish the people who cause havoc, not the people who are capable of being responsible in their drug use.

[ Parent ]

Cut the pharmacology crap ... (none / 1) (#233)
by schrotie on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 07:14:27 PM EST

I really can't stand it anymore. I'm talking about highway speed limits and their connection to accident rates. As I said, I understand your point; I also understand that speeding in principle increases the probability of crashing. Look I'm only half halfwit. It's just that the connection is obviously - you just have to look at the world's most dense, most trafficked and least controlled highway network - not as simple and monocausal as you paint it. Indeed the connection appears to be so complex that the effect you postulate can become completely masked by other effects. I wonder if the same might not be true for the rest of your analogy. But as I said, I'm thoroughly fed up with this discussion - don't expect an answer to your reply to this comment.

[ Parent ]
They're called Germans (none / 0) (#142)
by procrasti on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 11:06:20 AM EST

and they don't weave.  They just know how to drive fast AND safely.

Drop your stupid analogy.. If I want to go 90MPH in the safety and privacy of my own house, what does that have to do with you?

I have a pet hamster.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

if you speed, you might crash (none / 0) (#173)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:56:19 PM EST

if you do it on your private course, so be it

if you take heroin, you become addicted

this is an alteration of your brain chemsitry

this is an alteratin of your behavior

it follows you out your door, into public life: your job, your friends, you family, your loved one

lsd, weed, nicotine: legal

heroin, coke, meth: not legal

because of their addictive and inebriating effects, there is absolutely no way you can ever make the case for their use happening in a vaccuum like racing on your private track

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

[ Parent ]

If I find one mistake in your reasoning (none / 1) (#184)
by procrasti on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 02:10:46 PM EST

it means all of your conclusions are wrong.

if you take heroin, you become addicted

Rat Park says your wrong about this... What other beliefs of yours are falsehoods?

What do you want to argue now? That it can be safe to drive without speed limits on public roads (cause speeding == taking drugs)? That heroin turns you into a homeless zombie? That coke does this too? That raping heroin users in custody will cure their every problem and turn them into CEO's of megacorps? Or perhaps how prohibition increases the number of children addicted to hard drugs?

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

like arguing with a brick (none / 0) (#191)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 02:33:16 PM EST

now explaining anything about my analogy that requires an iq above 80:

if you speed, you can speed for months and not crash

if you take heroin, you can take heroin for months and not get addicted

risky behavior

get it now dimwit?

do i need to throw you any more intellectual chairty your way to get the basics of my analogy?


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

[ Parent ]

Its a bit more fundamental than that (3.00 / 4) (#201)
by procrasti on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 03:25:13 PM EST

You want to carry on with your retarded analogy, no worries.  You see, your analogy breaks down where the infrastructure is good, the drivers are educated and the law allows it.  The Germans have been speeding since WWII, I guess a few of them crash occasionally. To continue your analogy, with good health care, clinics, clean supplies and educated people, society can tolerate the rare drug related death and certainly the minority that become dependent on what are simply cheap substances.

Rat Park shows not that you have to take heroin for months before you get addicted, but that if your environment is good enough, you would never get addicted in the first place, even if you did take it, and EVEN IF YOU HAVE BEEN addicted you will come off of it.  Rat Park shows that rats will self medicate when their environment is too horrible.  Now look at those homeless zombies you go on about and tell me why they are on drugs. You think that drugs implies homeless zombies, and maybe so... but perhaps it is being poor with no future and living a shit life implies homelessness and drugs.

risky behaviour... is the point of freedom, no?  The right of the individual to choose the amount of risk they desire?  Isn't this the basis of capitalism, balancing risks and rewards?  Some people have higher risk requirements than others and that is natural. Speeding is a risk to others, being addicted to inebriating substances is not (necessarily) a risk to others, except that society makes it so.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

So let me get this straight (3.00 / 3) (#344)
by der on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 06:49:13 AM EST

Hardcore alcoholics are productive members of society because drinking happens in a magical vacuum, but do coke once and you're an instant drain on the world with no benefit to to provide to anyone? I assume this is because cocaine is full of magical evil?

None of this has anything to do with the drugs that you personally have done before, I'm sure.

Your rambling incoherence would be amusing if you abstained from regurgitating it as a response to every single fucking post, but your ability to transcent funny-stupid and attain annoying-stupid is matched by none.



[ Parent ]
Big in Finance? (2.50 / 4) (#11)
by mtrisk on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 08:25:42 PM EST

From what I hear, many stock brokers, investment bankers, and others in the financial sector have quite the cocaine addiction.

______
"If you don't like our country, why don't you get out?"
"What, and become a victim of your foreign policy?"
[ Parent ]
What about politicians and cops? (none / 0) (#16)
by bighappyface on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 09:50:52 PM EST



[ Parent ]
What's your source, (3.00 / 2) (#61)
by Insoc on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:49:33 PM EST

American Psycho?

[ Parent ]
Four legs good, Two legs bad (3.00 / 4) (#32)
by mettaur on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 05:21:13 AM EST

crack, meth, and smack turns normal contributing members of society into addicted zombies who are a drain on their families, their friends, their society. they are worse than useless
Actually, a lot of people with ADD and similar conditions rely on amphetamines (and variants) to be "contributing members of society". Otherwise they turn into zombies that can't sit down for more than a minute.
--
[Applying business theory to trolling]
[ Parent ]
and if i break my spine (1.50 / 6) (#36)
by circletimessquare on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:54:37 AM EST

i want a fucking morphine drip to save me from the pain

we're not talking about medical scenarios here einstein, we're talking recreation

do you understand the difference?


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

[ Parent ]

clueless (3.00 / 4) (#46)
by deadnancy on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 11:03:28 AM EST

And medical scenarios are so very clear these days... depression + weed = BAD depression + SRIs = GOOD add + coke = BAD add + ritalin = GOOD And recreation? Way to completely ignore self-medicaters. Granted, you're not one for grasping the finer points, but comparing something highly misunderstood like AD(H)D (if it exists at all) to a broken spine is pretty lame, even for you. Still, congrats on maintaining your lead in the contest for poster child for logical fallacies... DN

[ Parent ]
huh? (2.00 / 3) (#96)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:39:47 AM EST

what are you babbling about?

are you trying to tell me that medicine and recreation are the same?

and you're talking to me about logical fallacies?

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

[ Parent ]

Medicine and recreation? (3.00 / 2) (#51)
by Back Spaced on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 01:52:12 PM EST

No difference. Take a look at Viagra.

Bluto: My advice to you is to start drinking heavily.
Otter: Better listen to him, Flounder. He's pre-med.
[ Parent ]

there is a difference (none / 1) (#95)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:37:59 AM EST

unless you want to say we should all be our own doctors

excuse me, i just diagnosed myself with appendicitis, i'm going in the kitchen to get a knife and cut open my belly to fix myself...


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

[ Parent ]

Please go ahead; PLEASE!!! [nt] (3.00 / 3) (#116)
by schrotie on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 05:21:55 AM EST



[ Parent ]
it hurts so bad (none / 1) (#132)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 09:20:40 AM EST

give me morphine PLEASE ;-P

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

[ Parent ]
ignore them (none / 1) (#320)
by skmch on Sun Nov 13, 2005 at 12:33:33 AM EST

Drug use does happen in a vacuum.

Theft, violence, leeching off of society via welfare and coming to family & strangers to beg for handouts are things that don't happen in a vacuum.

The first two are already illegal, and welfare is time limited. If their family members are tired of the nagging, then they can have the addict arrested for trespassing and get a restraining order.


[ Parent ]

Mutually exclusive ideas? (3.00 / 2) (#54)
by ClaimJumper on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 02:33:35 PM EST

There seems to be two main camps on the side of those who would legalize or decriminalize marijuana: Those who believe that the government has no right to prohibit what adult citizens 'put in their body," whether it be marijauna, heroin, a dildo, what have you; Those who fundamentally acknowledge legitimacy in government prohibition of substances (and behaviors) for certain reasons (and of course this camp is varied in beliefs about what can be considered a legitimate reason). My question is: Are these mutually exclusive ideas? I actually think both points of view are valid in a free society. We DO have a need for government regualtion of things, including drugs, so as not get impure, dangerous, or flat out bunk medicines, foods, drugs. Does anyone here dislike the USDA regulation and grading of meat? Ever read The Jungle? Having said that, however, I don't think someone who eats bad meat should go to prison. Likewise, I think heroin addicts should not go to prison for heroin use per se. They do need treatment, and will face consequences, legal and otherwise, if they don't get it. Heroin is highly addictive (yeah, sure, there are users who aren't addicts, but as cts noted there are people who dirve 100 mph who don't get into accidents, too. That doesn't mean it's safe). Anyway, provably dangerous substances must be made illegal to produce and distribute. There is medical science to back this up in the case of heroin. There is also medical science to back up the absolute non-danger of marijuana. The Nixon administration infamously chose to ignore its own study on this. Cleary the prohibition on marijuana use is nothing more than ideology, on the part of likely racist and elitist beliefs.

[ Parent ]
Nice... (3.00 / 5) (#6)
by bighappyface on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 08:13:04 PM EST

...but I think we need to discuss the prohibition of all drugs, not just marijuana.

wrong (1.25 / 4) (#8)
by circletimessquare on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 08:17:18 PM EST

mary jane legal

smack, crack, meth illegal

hard drugs and soft drugs: addictive profile means something


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

[ Parent ]

as history shows... (none / 0) (#110)
by leukhe on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 04:07:31 AM EST

This might not be a wise thing... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition#Prohibition_in_the_United_States

[ Parent ]
marijuana being illegal is racist (1.91 / 12) (#7)
by circletimessquare on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 08:16:30 PM EST

the reason marijuana is illegal, if you look at the rules historically, they were passed because mary jane was primarily the drug of scary brown people

alcohol has worse physiological effects than weed, but alcohol is something irish and german cops were familiar with: there was a drunk somewhere in their family. familiarity with anything, especially a societal evil, goes a long way towards acceptance

if you are familiar with something, you accept it, even if it is bad for you. if you are unfamiliar with something it scares you and you outlaw it, even if it is much less harmful than you think it is.

common sense about weed is in short supply with how our drug laws are made. our laws have a history which needs to catch up with the pharmacological reality of thc.

oh, but btw: smack, crack, meth: should fucking stay illegal, don't get my position wrong. these drugs are addictive, weed and alcohol is not (COMPARATIVELY SPEAKING, DEAR FUCKING NITPICKERS)


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

I think AA disagrees (none / 1) (#12)
by mtrisk on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 08:28:15 PM EST

Alcohol can certainly be addictive. Anything can, really.

______
"If you don't like our country, why don't you get out?"
"What, and become a victim of your foreign policy?"
[ Parent ]
eating shit can be addictive (2.40 / 5) (#13)
by circletimessquare on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 08:46:52 PM EST

that's not the point

how EASILY can something be addicted/ habituated?

that matters, especially if it's by orders of magnitude

likewise, the detrimental effects of whatever it is that is being habituated/ addicted to matters too


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

[ Parent ]

You made me laugh there IAWTP$ (none / 1) (#26)
by Lemon Juice on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 01:53:26 AM EST



[ Parent ]
It's better if you smoke it. (none / 0) (#28)
by partialpeople on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 02:11:22 AM EST



[ Parent ]
they cut weed with shit (2.00 / 3) (#31)
by circletimessquare on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 03:24:44 AM EST

i'm not joking

there's a famous case where there was a salmonella poisoning outbreak across the southern usa that followed no good epidemiological models

until the cdc folks figured out that all the sufferers were smoking the chronic and were getting salmonella from the human shit that the weed dealers were cutting their product with

one of the benefits of legalization: quality control ;-P

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

[ Parent ]

samonella? (none / 0) (#77)
by keefer55 on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 11:44:59 PM EST

I might have believed that fairy tale if you'd said E-coli. It sounds like anti-drug bullshit, not human shit. "he got sooooo high, he thought he could fly;he jumped out a 5th floor window."

[ Parent ]
proof (none / 1) (#87)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:11:34 AM EST

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&lis t_uids=7070444&dopt=Abstract

i'm pro-weed legalization moron

so can i please talk about medical fact without being branded a victim of anti-drug bullshit?

you're one dimwitted fuck you know that?

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

[ Parent ]

Why the fuck... (none / 0) (#254)
by Russell Dovey on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 09:34:14 AM EST

...would you cut marijuana with shit?

You might fertilise it with shit, if you were poor, but mixing it with the final product? Why not just use some other plant?

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

Only fucking Americans... (none / 1) (#342)
by der on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 05:52:08 AM EST

... would not notice and/or actually smoke weed laced with shit.

I pity you people, the weed in your country is the most incredibly horrible trash ever, and it costs about twice what it does in any remotely sane place.



[ Parent ]
Don't forget William Randolph Hearst (3.00 / 3) (#66)
by 87C751 on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 08:56:55 PM EST

Hearst jumped on the bandwagon of marijuana prohibition, backing up Harry Anslinger's ambition-fueled agenda, because hemp paper threatened his newsprint manufacturing business. (see here) He also hated Mexicans, which lined up well with the "scary brown people" part you mention. Hearst baldly used his newspaper chain to publicize Anslinger's campaign. It was a good fit, since the lurid stories he published were good for selling papers, as well as whipping up public anxiety. Gotta keep 'em scared, right? (the motto of the DHS, today)

My ranting place.
[ Parent ]

yup, marijuana laws= racist legacy (nt) (none / 1) (#172)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:52:46 PM EST



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

[ Parent ]
DEAR FUCKING NITPICKERS (none / 1) (#241)
by GojiraDeMonstah on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 11:35:12 PM EST

If there isn't already a punk band out there with an album called "DEAR FUCKING NITPICKERS," I'm calling dibs now.

[ Parent ]
mairjuana legalization proponents: LISTEN UP (1.58 / 17) (#10)
by circletimessquare on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 08:24:05 PM EST

there are morons who want to lump the legalization of mary jane with hard seriously addictive drugs like smack, crack, and meth

just look at some of the fucking morons commenting in this thread

if these idiots are successful in linking these two issues, weed will stay illegal, as there is no fucking way you can compare weed to these harder drugs

but if these morons keep talking, then the issue will be linked in the minds of the general public, and the right-minded effort to right a historically racist legacy of weed illegalization will be doomed by some clueless idealistic morons who don't know a fucking thing about pharmacology and addiction

so weed advocates, listen up: you need to distance yourselves from these morons, every word they say ensures weed stays illegal

avoid them and castigate them for being so idiotic about the subject matter and not knowing shit about what they are talking about pharmacologically

legalize weed now! that alcohol is legal and weed illegal, since alcohol is worse than weed pharamacologically, is ridiculous

but if anyone actually thinks weed has anything to with the seriously addictive hard drugs, they are fucking clueless


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

I bet you consider LSD a hard drug too, don't you? (3.00 / 6) (#15)
by bighappyface on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 09:50:11 PM EST

You don't get the issue at hand.

It's that how 'harmful' the drug is, is irrelevent to prohibition.

It's a freedom issue.

[ Parent ]

nope, i don't (1.75 / 4) (#17)
by circletimessquare on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 09:55:48 PM EST

it's not addictive

so add psilocybin, lsd, peyote, corn smut, saliva divinorum, the works, to the list of things that should be legal

ADDICTIVENESS is my problem

anything else i can help you with? ;-)


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

[ Parent ]

whoever uses peyote outside of religious ceremony (3.00 / 5) (#18)
by zrail on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 10:29:00 PM EST

deserves our pitty.

[ Parent ]
maybe even our pity ;-P (nt) (3.00 / 4) (#20)
by circletimessquare on Sat Nov 05, 2005 at 11:06:34 PM EST



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

[ Parent ]
mescaline is teh sex (none / 0) (#59)
by Linux or FreeBSD on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 05:49:04 PM EST

what are you talking about

[ Parent ]
mescaline == synthesized peyote (none / 1) (#253)
by Have A Nice Day on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 07:59:38 AM EST

But peyote itself (from reports from people I've met who have tried it) makes you really quite sick.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
mescaline itself makes you quite sick (none / 1) (#265)
by Linux or FreeBSD on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 03:53:34 PM EST

the vomit is part of the fun

[ Parent ]
CTS doesn't think LSD should be illegal. (3.00 / 2) (#302)
by procrasti on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 06:32:11 PM EST

Here's a simple guide that demonstrates his ignorance:

CTS has taken said drug => LEGAL

CTS hasn't taken said drug => SLOW, PAINFUL AND CERTAIN DEATH

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

in the words of braveheart FREEEEEEDOOOOOOOOOM!!!! (2.60 / 5) (#23)
by Lemon Juice on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 01:47:40 AM EST

It is all about liberty and the right of the government to regulate behaviour. We are heading towards a gigantic police state worse than George Orwell's worst nightmares. We must stop in totality the idea that man cannot choose for himself. You are no better than an islamisic fascist saying  you can't drink alchohol.

[ Parent ]
wow (1.33 / 3) (#30)
by circletimessquare on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 03:20:09 AM EST

perspective

scale

context

amazing intellectual gifts that most elementary school kids can appreciate and apply to the issue before us

something you apparently lack


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

[ Parent ]

No compromising. (none / 1) (#33)
by Lemon Juice on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 05:26:41 AM EST

I will kill you before I give up my freedom to you.

[ Parent ]
(snicker) (1.00 / 2) (#35)
by circletimessquare on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:51:13 AM EST

freedom's on my side baby, not yours ;-)

ask yourself two questions:

  1. what iron and stone bars made by the most orwellian police state can compete with the slavery and zombification of hard drug addiction? in prison, your mind is at least free. in addiction, you don't even own your mind! where's my next fix? where's my next fix? no punishment or type of incarceration that the most sadistic evil controlling bastard can imagine can compete with hard drug addiction... unless of course, if said sadistic bastard injected you with heroin and made you addicted LOL ;-P
  2. do i have the right to be free of the financial and emotional burden of drug zombies on my street, in my family, amongst my friends, in society? whose freedom is being violated? freedom is about you doing something that doesn't effect anyone else, right? i have no fucking right to tell you not to do something that doesn't hurt anyone else, right? so answer me this einstein: is hard addictive drug use something that doesn't effect anyone else? aaahhh...
you're so fucking deluded. if heroin were made 100% legal tomorrow, and you witnessed otherwise coherent artists and lawyers and doctors and musicians and directors stop pursuing their interests and instead slaving all of their time and money on the pursuit of a fix, do you know what a fuck up like you would say about that?

you would say that the government made heroin legal to shut up all of the loud misfits in society who would otherwise make great art or music or movies that might challenge the state and offend the sheeple... that gw bush made herion legal to turn good humanist righteous souls into zombies... to ROB THEM OF THEIR FREEDOM ;-P

hard drugs: just another means of state control bub

so, i've made a coherent case for why freedom is on my side here. now if i give up my freedom to you because you become a burden on me emotionally and financially by being a hard drug zombie, do i have the right to kill... as you so poetically state above? ;-)

moron


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

[ Parent ]

no (3.00 / 5) (#42)
by speek on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 09:45:37 AM EST

freedom is about you doing something that doesn't effect anyone else, right?

No, not right - that's a Libertarian myth. We are not able to do anything that doesn't affect others, so this test of freedom is impossible. You've got to find a new definition of freedom.

If you think someone else getting their daily dose is taking away your freedom, you aren't any different than the religious right arguing against gay marriage because it damages "normal" marriage.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

wrong (1.00 / 2) (#84)
by circletimessquare on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 11:59:36 PM EST

it's all about logic, right?

i can't make a logical, if then, therefore, else argument against gay marriage: if gays marry, there is no effec ton me whatsoever that is discernable to my life

i CAN make a logical argument against hard addictive drug use: if heroin is legal, a try anything once attitude among teenagers and a get you hooked quick habituation profile means quick spread

now we have people who otherwise contribute to society wanting to do nothing but get a fix, that's all they care about

go to vancouver between gastown and china town, and speak to me otherwise ;-)

read up on china's experience during the opium wars and speak to me otherwise ;-)

we use prohibition as a historical case about why soft drug illegality is stupid. the lessons of history apply to other soft drugs like weed

but hard drugs, HIGHLY ADDICTIVE DRUGS: look to history again to teach us what will happen

no ideology about it at all

just hard science about pharmacology and social dynamics and i can prove my case, cold and hard and reasoned


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

[ Parent ]

you didn't finish your logic (none / 1) (#125)
by speek on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 08:05:47 AM EST

now we have people who otherwise contribute to society wanting to do nothing but get a fix, that's all they care about..

Firstly, you may be overstating your case about heroin significantly. And second, a few people ruined by addiction to heroin is likely less damaging as a whole than the toll of the war on drugs. It's amazing how often freedom is cheaper than the alternative.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

study the opium wars (1.00 / 2) (#131)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 09:19:49 AM EST

heroin used as a weapon to incapacitate an entire society

lsd: legal

weed: legal

heroin, meth, coke: illegal

there's a line you cross, combining high addiction and inebriation, where the drug robs individuals and societies of more freedom than the laws against them destroy

give me every proven, theoretical, and imaginative negative effect of making hard drugs illegal you can list: increase crime, uneven quality, increased price, etc: every single one, taken all together, is still less of a negative effect than these high addictive + high inebriation drugs being made free and clear: the legions of zombies that would create

study the opium wars

you understand the lessons of history with prohibition, and i agree with all of them

except that the lessons of history, the opium wars, OUTWEIGHS the lessons of prohibition when it come sto HIGHLY ADDICTIVE + HIGHLY INEBRIATING HARD DRUGS

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

[ Parent ]

used as a weapon (none / 1) (#177)
by speek on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 01:12:08 PM EST

Since it was used as a weapon, doesn't strike you as a poor analogy to simple decriminalization? Alcohol used as a weapon would be pretty damn awful too.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

alcohol was used as a weapon (none / 1) (#189)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 02:25:31 PM EST

reference native americans and "firewater"

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

[ Parent ]
exactly my point $ (1.50 / 2) (#297)
by speek on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 05:34:11 PM EST


--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Re: (snicker) (none / 1) (#44)
by tantrum on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 10:20:56 AM EST

If heroin were made 100% lagal, i really doubt that heroin usage would increase by a noticeable amount.

Much in the same way as very few people practise cliff diving, as it is really scary and people know it is quite dangerous. I doubt that any normal person (perhaps exluding _your_ doctor, lawyer and director :p ) would try to use a drug they know is rather dangerous and lead them into a situation that can be rather hard to get out of again.

Then again I won't really use any effort to legalize hard drugs, but I can't comprehend why weed is illegal

[ Parent ]

ever hear of the opium wars? (none / 1) (#81)
by circletimessquare on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 11:54:47 PM EST

if heroin is legal it's use will spread considerably

kids try anything their friends put in front of them. glue sniffing is pretty obviously harmful too, but that shit goes on all the time

the difference is, glue sniffing isn't hardcore addictive

combine a try anything once attitude with a drug that hooks you quick, and boom: use spreads like wildfire

we can look at prohibition in the usa why making soft drugs illegal doesn't work as a historical case

same with china's experience with morphine before and during the opium wars as a historical case about why hard drugs should stay illegal


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

[ Parent ]

kids? (none / 1) (#140)
by thejeff on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 10:35:21 AM EST

There's a good argument that legalizing drugs will actually make it harder for kids to access them. Any realistic legalization proposal will restrict drugs to legal adults, which will be sufficient to gut the black market. The licensed dealer will face prosection if he's found selling to minors. What's the motivation for the current black market dealer not to sell to anyone. He can be busted regardless.

[ Parent ]
yes, yes, yes (none / 0) (#153)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 11:56:05 AM EST

that and every other real+proven, theoretical, and imaginative benefit of making drugs illegal, i recognize all those pluses

i also recognize all the negative associated with keeping hard drugs like heroin illegal: impurities that lead to deaths, increased criminal funding and activities, high prices that drive people to criminality, etc...

and i say that that all of those effects are outweighed by the sheer number of increased addicts and their drain on society and the lives that would be ruined by making something highly addictive and highly inebriating available

it's a choice between two negatives: outlaw heroin, you get negatives, make it legal, you get negatives

i am saying making it legal results in a more negatives

get me?

lsd is highly inebriating, but it's not addictive: make it legal

make weed legal

nicotine highly addictive, but it's not inebriating: make it legal

do you hear me now?


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

[ Parent ]

That's fine (none / 1) (#168)
by thejeff on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:47:51 PM EST

but recognizing that plus means you can't use the "kids try anything their friends put in front of them" argument against legalization. If you accept that hard drugs could be less available to kids that means kids will be less exposed, and thus less kids will be addicted.

Adults are another matter, but don't use the "protect the children" argument.

[ Parent ]

i didn't mention it anywhere, you did (nt) (none / 1) (#171)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:51:50 PM EST



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

[ Parent ]
You didn't? (3.00 / 2) (#183)
by thejeff on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 01:54:47 PM EST

From the post I first replied to:
kids try anything their friends put in front of them. glue sniffing is pretty obviously harmful too, but that shit goes on all the time
....
combine a try anything once attitude with a drug that hooks you quick, and boom: use spreads like wildfire

That really sounds to me like "use will spread like wildfire, because irresponsible kids will try anything." With an implied, therefore heroin, etc, should be kept illegal.

You didn't actually say "protect the children", but you made the rest of the argument.


[ Parent ]

you got me, but then let me challenge you (none / 1) (#188)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 02:24:44 PM EST

on something

if they banned cigarettes, would it be easier or harder for kids to get cigarettes?

but otheriwse you are right, i apologize, i mentioned kids

you were right, i was wrong on that point


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

[ Parent ]

Banned cigarettes? (none / 1) (#196)
by thejeff on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 02:59:22 PM EST

Harder, of course. At least for the near future.

But unless you think heroin will have the same ubiquitous presence and acceptance cigarettes have, I really don't think the analogy applies. I wouldn't envision hard drugs being sold in every convienence store.

[ Parent ]

religion is more dangerous than cocaine (2.66 / 3) (#53)
by Lemon Juice on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 02:25:18 PM EST

herioin and any other drug. But why don't we not ban it?

[ Parent ]
religion IS like drugs (2.00 / 3) (#80)
by circletimessquare on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 11:50:54 PM EST

mild religion should be legal, hard fundamentalist religion SHOULD be illegal


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

[ Parent ]
That is nonsense. (none / 1) (#143)
by Harvey Anderson on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 11:26:17 AM EST

Everyone should have the right to prosetylize and to associate with others for this purpose, no matter how extreme.

[ Parent ]
no matter how extreme? (none / 0) (#152)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 11:52:14 AM EST

you can't imagine a fundamentalist movement that should be outlawed?

what do they believe?

do they believe nonbelievers are subhumans worthy only of extermination?

aum shinrikyo, tokyo subway sarin attack, 1995: it's ok they have a right to prosetylize and associate, NO MATTER HOW EXTREME?

yes, dorothy, there is such a thing as too extreme

we can argue about where the line exists between extreme and not extreme all you want

but that doesn't mean the line doesn't exist, mmkay?


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

[ Parent ]

distinction (none / 1) (#158)
by ensign on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:22:05 PM EST

Their acts should be illegal, not their thoughts.
Find your friends online
[ Parent ]
be careful (none / 0) (#170)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:50:19 PM EST

if you have a guy who tells people to kill, and they do so, are you saying we can't punish the mastermind? he didn't act, he only spoke, he only thought


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

[ Parent ]
Free Charles Manson! (none / 1) (#338)
by omestes on Fri Nov 18, 2005 at 03:10:38 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Where? Are there enough for everyone? ¥ (none / 0) (#349)
by Have A Nice Day on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 12:19:21 PM EST



--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
ensign up there said it well. (3.00 / 2) (#165)
by Harvey Anderson on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:35:16 PM EST

If someone wants to set up a center in the middle of Manhattan and proclaim, "Change the law so that it's legal to kill non-Muslims!", I have no legal problem with that.  I obviously have a moral problem with that but not a legal one.

But if they say, "Kill the non-Muslims!" that is something more akin to solicitation of murder.  I believe that is illegal as it should be, but it's not really a speech issue at all.

[ Parent ]

Stop posting your comments (3.00 / 3) (#55)
by Lemon Juice on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 02:35:33 PM EST

they hurt my feelings and the government should come in and kill you because they are restricting my freedom. Time is money you know.

[ Parent ]
The freedom to post gay comments? [nt] (3.00 / 2) (#38)
by Patrick Chalmers on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 08:03:19 AM EST


Holy crap, working comment search!
[ Parent ]
IAWTP /nt (none / 0) (#40)
by localroger on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 08:59:00 AM EST



I am become Death, Destroyer of Worlds -- J. Robert Oppenheimer
[ Parent ]
sorry, (none / 0) (#108)
by CAIMLAS on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 02:40:29 AM EST

you had me right up until that "racist" card was thrown in, and then I stopped reading.
--

Socialism and communism better explained by a psychologist than a political theorist.
[ Parent ]

it's completely 100% true (3.00 / 3) (#190)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 02:29:28 PM EST

study the history of the laws:

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html

The Mexican Connection

In the early 1900s, the western states developed significant tensions regarding the influx of Mexican-Americans. The revolution in Mexico in 1910 spilled over the border, with General Pershing's army clashing with bandit Pancho Villa. Later in that decade, bad feelings developed between the small farmer and the large farms that used cheaper Mexican labor. Then, the depression came and increased tensions, as jobs and welfare resources became scarce.

One of the "differences" seized upon during this time was the fact that many Mexicans smoked marijuana and had brought the plant with them.

However, the first state law outlawing marijuana did so not because of Mexicans using the drug. Oddly enough, it was because of Mormons using it. Mormons who traveled to Mexico in 1910 came back to Salt Lake City with marijuana. The church was not pleased and ruled against use of the drug. Since the state of Utah automatically enshrined church doctrine into law, the first state marijuana prohibition was established in 1915. (Today, Senator Orrin Hatch serves as the prohibition arm of this heavily church-influenced state.)

Other states quickly followed suit with marijuana prohibition laws, including Wyoming (1915), Texas (1919), Iowa (1923), Nevada (1923), Oregon (1923), Washington (1923), Arkansas (1923), and Nebraska (1927). These laws tended to be specifically targeted against the Mexican-American population.

When Montana outlawed marijuana in 1927, the Butte Montana Standard reported a legislator's comment: "When some beet field peon takes a few traces of this stuff... he thinks he has just been elected president of Mexico, so he starts out to execute all his political enemies." In Texas, a senator said on the floor of the Senate: "All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff [marijuana] is what makes them crazy."

Jazz and Assassins

In the eastern states, the "problem" was attributed to a combination of Latin Americans and black jazz musicians. Marijuana and jazz traveled from New Orleans to Chicago, and then to Harlem, where marijuana became an indispensable part of the music scene, even entering the language of the black hits of the time (Louis Armstrong's "Muggles", Cab Calloway's "That Funny Reefer Man", Fats Waller's "Viper's Drag").

Again, racism was part of the charge against marijuana, as newspapers in 1934 editorialized: "Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice."

Two other fear-tactic rumors started to spread: one, that Mexicans, Blacks and other foreigners were snaring white children with marijuana; and two, the story of the "assassins." Early stories of Marco Polo had told of "hasheesh-eaters" or hashashin, from which derived the term "assassin." In the original stories, these professional killers were given large doses of hashish and brought to the ruler's garden (to give them a glimpse of the paradise that awaited them upon successful completion of their mission). Then, after the effects of the drug disappeared, the assassin would fulfill his ruler's wishes with cool, calculating loyalty.

By the 1930s, the story had changed. Dr. A. E. Fossier wrote in the 1931 New Orleans Medical and Surgical Journal: "Under the influence of hashish those fanatics would madly rush at their enemies, and ruthlessly massacre every one within their grasp." Within a very short time, marijuana started being linked to violent behavior.



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

[ Parent ]
not to mention (3.00 / 2) (#221)
by zenofchai on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 04:46:06 PM EST

the current state of things. crack cocaine and powder cocaine. two similar drugs. two dissimilar demographics. two vastly different records of imprisonment.
--
The K5 Interactive Political Compass SVG Graph
[ Parent ]
Cocaine too, read up on it (none / 0) (#306)
by procrasti on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 07:37:47 PM EST

http://www.drugpolicy.org/about/position/race_paper_history.cfm

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]
what do you think of benadryl? (3.00 / 2) (#218)
by Linux or FreeBSD on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 04:28:31 PM EST

or other antihistamines?

[ Parent ]
I've never met a person (3.00 / 3) (#256)
by wuckers on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 10:49:55 AM EST

who wants pot legalized that I didn't like, until now. I hope your "activism" doesn't reach past this low-brow forum.

[ Parent ]
What about other so called lite drugs like (3.00 / 4) (#21)
by richarj on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 12:02:43 AM EST

Kava? Or Beetle Nut in Papua New Guinea.

"if you are uncool, don't worry, K5 is still the place for you!" -- rusty
i prefer qaat, and its betel nut, not beetle (nt) (none / 0) (#78)
by circletimessquare on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 11:45:15 PM EST



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

[ Parent ]
Yeah I had trouble remembering the name (none / 1) (#105)
by richarj on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 01:55:34 AM EST

I do remember the stories of the negative social impact. I was going to use kava but they made it illegal in Australia before I could try it's effects as say against the effects of Clonazepam. Funny how a lot of illegal drugs are medicines.

"if you are uncool, don't worry, K5 is still the place for you!" -- rusty
[ Parent ]
had it in the philippines (none / 1) (#169)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:47:53 PM EST

not really that impressed... maybe they give the bad nuts to tourists... i would ;-P

i didn't have any lime tho, you need to eat it with lime, like most any plant alkaloid, you get a bigger dose...

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

[ Parent ]

lol cathinone (none / 1) (#266)
by Linux or FreeBSD on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 04:09:48 PM EST



[ Parent ]
I'm tempted to -1 this (2.40 / 5) (#22)
by Pirengle on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 12:06:46 AM EST

just because circletimessquare's running his mouth. But it's a pretty good article.


♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫
A sure-fire way to make friends and influence people: transform the letters "l" and "i" into "-1"s whenever posting. Instant wit!
cts is such an asshole (nt) (2.00 / 3) (#29)
by circletimessquare on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 03:19:04 AM EST



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

[ Parent ]
No. (3.00 / 3) (#47)
by deadnancy on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 11:11:02 AM EST

Assholes keep us from exploding. Very useful, that.

You're an anal fissure.

DN

[ Parent ]
holy shitnuggets! (3.00 / 6) (#24)
by Jobst of Moravia on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 01:47:49 AM EST

Is cannabis really in the same category as heroin in the US? Are there any limits on amount for possession, or will crumbs in a bag get you the same punishment as heroin?

If true that's seriously bizarre. Perhaps the legalisation crowd should focus on getting that reduced before fighting for any more.

---
              __
   .,-;-;-,. /'_\ ---Did this Negro say "Street Moor"?
 _/_/_/_|_\_\) /
'-<_><_><_><_>=\
 `/_/====/_/-'\_\
  ""     ""    ""

Yes, it's true (3.00 / 3) (#25)
by mtrisk on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 01:51:41 AM EST

It's not legal to own any amount of marijuana in the USA. And yes, I agree that it's pretty bizarre.

______
"If you don't like our country, why don't you get out?"
"What, and become a victim of your foreign policy?"
[ Parent ]
No, its not true (none / 1) (#69)
by triddle on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 09:50:51 PM EST

In California the state law is a small fine if an adult has something like less than an ounce (I can't recall exactly); the same goes for Oregon and they even include exemption in their intent to sell legislation that includes gifting of pot. For your average day to day person who gets nailed by their local police you'll probably get a warning and your pot taken away, unless you have more than an ounce or so. In Washington you can spend a night in jail. Other states could be more strict; Oregon and California happen to be the most lax about pot possession.

The kicker is the Federal law however. Keep in mind that your average day-to-day pot smoker will probably never run into a DEA agent but if they did the Federal agent could arrest them under Federal law. The Federal laws are very strict and include large fines and prison time for even simple possession. Since most people never run into the Feds the big time growers most often get the brunt of aggression.

[ Parent ]

Wouldn't it be nice... (none / 1) (#245)
by hershmire on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 01:16:54 AM EST

Boy, I'd love to live in the US you describe. The one I live in arrested over 700,000 people for marijuana violations in 2003. Do you still believe it's only the "big-time" growers who take the brunt?
FIXME: Insert quote about procrastination
[ Parent ]
It's about rights (3.00 / 8) (#27)
by bsoft on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 01:57:04 AM EST

Personally, I don't use alcohol, tobacco, or marijuana. But it's not the role of the government to tell adults what they can or cannot put in their body. Drug abuse in the United States is a cultural problem - one that cannot be legislated away.

As a college student, I think that making marijuana illegal is fundamentally extremely stupid. Alcohol is the problem, and the fact that most of the students are under legal age does not stop it. We are putting people in prision for foolish reasons - when there are plenty of real criminals out there.

except for hard drugs (1.50 / 6) (#34)
by circletimessquare on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 06:38:29 AM EST

your operating principle is that what you do to your own body has no effect on anyone else. this is true for all drugs except for the extremely addictive drugs: meth, heroin, coke. with these drugs, your use doesn't happen in a vacuum. when you use these drugs, you cease to be a self-sufficient human being, and you become a burden on society

of course there are people who can claim complete independence from addiction. there are also people who claim they can speed down the highway at 100 mph and never get in an accident

do you believe them? does society have the right to arrest them for speeding?

so do you believe the people who claim independence from the rules of medical pharmacology? so does society have the right to arrest them for taking hard drugs?

what doesn't hurt anyone else is nobody's business. but unfortunately for those who think themselves to be immortal and superhuman, their hard addictive drug use DOES hurt someone else. and so it IS our business. society will not suffer because some jackass thinks he can control the simple undeniable rules of biological addiction. he will be arrested so he doesn't hurt anyone

just like a speeder on the highway who thinks he can never get in an accident

got it?


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

[ Parent ]

your addiction to falsehood and logical fallacy (2.25 / 4) (#41)
by speek on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 09:35:35 AM EST

is hurting me. You should be arrested.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

no kidding... (none / 1) (#48)
by kcidx on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 12:17:20 PM EST

..I was just sitting here thinking, "oh no....not this again..."

[ Parent ]
i agree (none / 1) (#94)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:35:25 AM EST

it's painful how clueless people are about hard addictive drugs


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

[ Parent ]
i agree (2.00 / 6) (#103)
by QuantumG on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 01:54:13 AM EST

it's painful how clueless you are that you're a cocksmoker.

Gun fire is the sound of freedom.
[ Parent ]
i am a flaming homosexual (2.25 / 4) (#111)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 04:09:57 AM EST

i'm here for you, i love you, i want your manmeat


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

[ Parent ]
my words (2.00 / 3) (#93)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:35:02 AM EST

are logical and true

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

[ Parent ]
All generalizations are wrong. (3.00 / 4) (#50)
by Back Spaced on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 01:49:21 PM EST

Firstly, you left the most addictive drug known to man off your shitlist - nicotine.
And while you make fun of the idea that most people can take a "hard" drug without getting addicted, it is certainly true. All you have to do is pull out the list of statistics for any given hard drug, and compare the % of the population that has _ever_ tried a drug with the % that has used it in the last month.
Except for nicotine, the drop is pretty staggering. Obviously most people who use a "hard" drug don't become addicted. This is consistent with what has been known in psychiatry and substance abuse treatment for years - that certain individuals seem to be predisposed to addiction, and that this predisposition runs in families. You may not like it, but it seems that most people can drive 100 mph just fine. However, if you have a history of alchoholism or substance abuse in your family, you should probably watch out.

Bluto: My advice to you is to start drinking heavily.
Otter: Better listen to him, Flounder. He's pre-med.
[ Parent ]

nicotine is highly addictive (1.40 / 5) (#92)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:33:52 AM EST

and not inebriating

make it legal

lsd is not addictive and highly inebriating

make it legal

alcohol is mildly addictive and somewhat inebriating

make it legal

weed is not addictive and inebriating

make it legal

heroin is highly addictive and highly inebriating

make it ILLEGAL

happy now?

You may not like it, but it seems that most people can drive 100 mph just fine.

see your problem is you think it's about generalizations

it's not, it's about statistics

sure, you could probably find me someone who speeds 100 mph for years, and never hurts a fly

howabout at 120 mph?

  1. mph?
  2. mph?
where do you draw the line?

does society have the right to draw the line?

no body is superhuman, ther eis a speed at which they will drive, and they will crash

now we can argue until we die about what that speed limit shoul be, but are going to argue with me that there should not be a speed limit, at any speed?

the SAME with drugs: are there ANY drugs you can imagine, with an inebriation/ addiction profile that would warrant their illegality

are you saying you can NEVER draw the line?

really?


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

[ Parent ]

So which is it? (1.50 / 2) (#136)
by sirmeili on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 10:09:24 AM EST

Do you make a drug illegal due to how addictive it is or it's ability to inebriate you? What you don't seem to realize is that alcohol is a little more than somewhat inbriating, and BTW it's also not safe to drive 30 MPh if you are drunk, but that doesn't seem to matter at all to you. What you fail to realize is that how inebriated something makes you has no difference. That is if you are using the actual definition of the word: 1 : to exhilarate or stupefy as if by liquor 2 : to make drunk : INTOXICATE Since that specifically relates to alcohol let's go ahead and include the definition for intoxicate: 1 : POISON 2 a : to excite or stupefy by alcohol or a drug especially to the point where physical and mental control is markedly diminished b : to excite or elate to the point of enthusiasm or frenzy (both definitions taken from m-w.com) Now, I am not going to argue with you about how "inebriated" a drug makes you. It shouldn not matter. Mostly because how "inebriated" you are in your home matters not when it comes to alcohol so it should not matter with anything else. Now if you are talking long term affects, please stop using the term "inebriated" since it only refers to a short term affect (as long as you don't continuously use it to maintain the "high" or "buzz" indefinately). On a personal note, I believe all drugs should be legal. It's called natural selection, and since society already provides treatment centers, then even if use increased, the taxes generated from the increase should help fund more treatment centers. What we all fail to understand is that perhaps we should teach our children what is right and what is wrong. Which ever it is depends on your experience I guess. And yes, one more thought for you to ponder. It is merely unsafe for us in the US to drive at higher speeds because we are not trained to do so (the vast majority that is). In some places around the world you are required to take a 6 month course in order to drive legally. Even though there speed limit is much higher (30% of the autobahn has no speed limit) there is no real correlation to speed lmit and accident and casualty rates. Check out this page for more info (and more can be found easily by googling the subject): http://www.abd.org.uk/speed_truth.htm Perhaps speed isn't as closely related to accidents as you may be suggesting. (I am not in any way trying to relate this to drugs as you are. I am merely trying to let you know that you shouldn't be using this analogy). Sir Meili

[ Parent ]
So which is it? (HTML Formatted) (2.50 / 2) (#137)
by sirmeili on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 10:12:20 AM EST

Do you make a drug illegal due to how addictive it is or it's ability to inebriate you? What you don't seem to realize is that alcohol is a little more than somewhat inbriating, and BTW it's also not safe to drive 30 MPh if you are drunk, but that doesn't seem to matter at all to you. What you fail to realize is that how inebriated something makes you has no difference. That is if you are using the actual definition of the word:

1 : to exhilarate or stupefy as if by liquor
2 : to make drunk : INTOXICATE

Since that specifically relates to alcohol let's go ahead and include the definition for intoxicate:
1 : POISON
2 a : to excite or stupefy by alcohol or a drug especially to the point where physical and mental control is markedly diminished b : to excite or elate to the point of enthusiasm or frenzy

(both definitions taken from m-w.com)

Now, I am not going to argue with you about how "inebriated" a drug makes you. It shouldn not matter. Mostly because how "inebriated" you are in your home matters not when it comes to alcohol so it should not matter with anything else.

Now if you are talking long term affects, please stop using the term "inebriated" since it only refers to a short term affect (as long as you don't continuously use it to maintain the "high" or "buzz" indefinately).

On a personal note, I believe all drugs should be legal. It's called natural selection, and since society already provides treatment centers, then even if use increased, the taxes generated from the increase should help fund more treatment centers.

What we all fail to understand is that perhaps we should teach our children what is right and what is wrong. Which ever it is depends on your experience I guess.

And yes, one more thought for you to ponder. It is merely unsafe for us in the US to drive at higher speeds because we are not trained to do so (the vast majority that is). In some places around the world you are required to take a 6 month course in order to drive legally. Even though there speed limit is much higher (30% of the autobahn has no speed limit) there is no real correlation to speed lmit and accident and casualty rates. Check out this page for more info (and more can be found easily by googling the subject):
http://www.abd.org.uk/speed_truth.htm

Perhaps speed isn't as closely related to accidents as you may be suggesting. (I am not in any way trying to relate this to drugs as you are. I am merely trying to let you know that you shouldn't be using this analogy).

Sir Meili

[ Parent ]

make a graph (none / 1) (#151)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 11:48:52 AM EST

x, y, z

x=inebriation

y=addictiveness

z=toxicity

now plot various drugs according to their addictiveness/ inebriation/ toxicity effects

you can't possibly imagine a region on that graph where there are drugs that exist that are society's best interest to outlaw, whose outlawing, which comes with many harmful negative effects, still outweighs the greater damage to society and individuals due to that drug's pharmacology?

meth, cocaine, heroin: nope, never legal, period: the prohibition era lessons outweighed by the opium war lessons

maybe people cant look back far enough in history to learn their lessons

those who dont learn from history, doomed to repeat it

lsd, weed, alcohol: all ok, the opium war lessons outweighed by the prohibition era lessons

get me now?

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

[ Parent ]

ok..let's graph (none / 0) (#156)
by sirmeili on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:07:07 PM EST

Since you have all the numbers (and no approximations here), give them to me and I will more than happy to graph them out. That means numbers, not "this is greater than that".

About history:

Tell me if you know for fact that the people were education on the side effects of opium in the opium wars. Please don't confuse that what you apparently assume is common knowledge to be just that, common knowledge.

Now, let's take another side of this. What if we say that we allow the "hard core" drugs to be legal and educate our citizens of their porential harm. Would you not say that the same addage could be applied? Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

That is to say that we should be able to legalize them and educate people so that addictions don't go rampant? And what if they do? Well, (at least in the USA) we are Free. Your rights stop at my nose. Me doing drugs doesn't affect your person unless I force them upon you.

Sir Meili

[ Parent ]

let me get you straight (1.00 / 3) (#162)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:27:58 PM EST

if a group of people are highly educated about addictive drugs, they will avoid addiction, right?

that even though heroin was readily avaiable, the chinese would have avoided heroin in the 1830s ifd they were educated, right? (i guess you don't have much respect fo rhte chinese... how fucking smart do you have ot be to saee your fellow citizens turn into zombies and not figure out heroin is bad stuff)

you're telling me education is stronger than addiction, do i understand you right?

just making sure ;-)

tha tno matte rhow much you are exposed to addictive drugs (which legality would do, right?) you could keep off them with a sound understanding, right?

so if i showed you a population of highly educated pharamacologists who were addicted to drugs (not an anecdote, a TREND), that might surpirse you?

oh, psssttt...

would you consider an annesthesiologist a highly educated person about drugs?

ADDICTION BEATS WILLPOWER AND EDUCATION

you would know that if you fucking UNDERSTOOD ADDICTION

INCREASED AVAILABILITY RESULTS IN INCREASED ADDICTION

NO MATTER HOW FUCKING EDUCATED YOU ARE

YOU DON'T FUCKING UNDERSTAND ADDICTION

IT BEATS WILLPOWER

read, you blind asshole:

May 2001
Volume 65 Number 5

Anesthesiologists: Addicted to the Drugs They Administer

Eric B. Hedberg, M.D.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many anesthesiology departments have experienced the trauma of a member of its staff becoming addicted to an anesthetic drug. Anesthesiology reportedly has a higher incidence of addiction than any other medical specialty (Healing the Healer: The Addicted Physician Angres DH, Talbott DG, Bettinardi-Angres K; 1998). This most likely is due to the fact that anesthesiologists administer highly addictive drugs, have greater access to controlled substances and seem to have a greater curiosity about drug effects than other physicians. Due to the increasing awareness of addiction symptoms, anesthesiology departments are becoming leaders in identifying impaired professionals and referring them to treatment. It would be rare for a department to have a member of the anesthesia staff who at some point will not need treatment for chemical dependency.

Anesthesiologists addicted to anesthetic drugs face different challenges than other medical specialists. There are few medical specialties that require physicians to personally administer intravenous controlled substances. Additionally, few physicians handle drugs with the addiction potential of fentanyl or sufentanil. Also, opiate-addicted anesthesiologists face greater temptations than most other specialists when they return to clinical anesthesiology. For most physicians it is not difficult to create an aftercare plan that eliminates the necessity of administering controlled substances. In anesthesiology, however, it is impractical to attempt to limit the use of regularly administered, controlled anesthetic substances. Even if an anesthesiologist removes fentanyl from his or her anesthesia technique, that person will continue to be exposed to fentanyl while supervising or administering anesthesia. Opiate-addicted anesthesiologists need more from their recovery program than other recovering addicts.

In order to consider whether opiate-addicted anesthesiologists should return to anesthesiology practice, it is imperative that those anesthesiologists obtain adequate treatment. For opiate-addicted anesthesiologists, I strongly recommend treatment at a facility that specializes in health care professional addiction. During treatment, the addicted anesthesiologist should be evaluated carefully for the appropriateness of his or her return to clinical anesthesia.

At the Talbott Recovery Campus, Atlanta, Georgia, all anesthesia personnel are admitted to my service due to my training in anesthesiology, psychiatry and addiction medicine. From the beginning, I address with the anesthesiologist the issue of returning to practice. Patients are given a series of questions designed to allow them to carefully examine their choice of medicine as a career and anesthesia as a specialty. The assignment questions are as follows:

  1. If you were a freshman in college and could choose any profession, with the wisdom you now have, what profession(s) would you consider pursuing?
  2. If you could not re-enter the field of anesthesia, what are the possibilities you would consider in clinical or nonclinical medicine?
  3. What are the positives and negatives for you in the practice of anesthesia?
  4. What is stressful to you in the practice of anesthesia?
  5. The risk of relapse for opiate-addicted anesthesiologists returning to the operating room is potentially high. There is a high incidence of death among anesthesiologists who relapse. Why would you want to put yourself and your patients at such a risk?
  6. By returning to anesthesia, you are going to put your family and yourself through a lot of pain if you relapse. How does your significant other feel about your return to anesthesia and the risk you are taking?
  7. What safeguards would you put in place to help prevent relapse?
While the patient is working on this assignment, the treatment team is also carefully evaluating the anesthesiologist's progress, response to treatment, social support at home, professional support at work and relative safety for returning to clinical anesthesia. In the book Healing the Healer: The Addicted Physician, the authors outlined guidelines to help evaluate anesthesiologists who may desire to continue their career in anesthesia. In my work with anesthesia personnel, I have modified their criteria slightly to include some additional considerations. The categories based on Healing the Healer are as follows:

I. Return after appropriate treatment (for health care professionals)

  1. Accepts and understands disease of addiction
  2. Bonding with AA/NA with active sponsorship
  3. Good relapse prevention skills
  4. Other psychiatric disorders in remission
  5. Healthy family relationships
  6. Balanced lifestyle
  7. Anesthesia department supportive
  8. Committed to five-year monitoring program
  9. Confident to be in operating room, administer anesthetic drugs and not relapse
  10. All of the above required for immediate return to anesthesia
II. Possible return, with reassessment after one or two years
  1. Incomplete bonding to AA/NA but improving
  2. Some denial / minimizing
  3. Lacks complete confidence to be in operating room and not relapse to chemical use
  4. Recovery skills improving
  5. Brief relapse may have occurred
  6. Other psychiatric disorders improving
  7. Dysfunctional family members improving (may require therapy)
  8. Healthy attraction to anesthesia
III. Never return to clinical anesthesiology (any of these conditions)
  1. Prolonged addiction history
  2. Significant relapse despite adequate treatment
  3. Lacks confidence to return to operating room and not self-administer anesthetic drugs
  4. Significant Axis I or II psychopathology
  5. Inability to follow treatment and monitoring contract
  6. Poor bonding to AA/NA and recovery skills
  7. Significant family pathology
One of the most important factors to consider when assessing the appropriateness for return to anesthesia is the physician's confidence to remain in recovery while working in the operating room. There are many triggers and stressors present in the operating room that make it impossible for some anesthesiologists with a history of addiction to function in that setting. For some anesthesia personnel, the external drug addiction cues present in the operating room are overwhelming. Many anesthesiologists have severe autonomic responses to the sights, smells and environment of the operating room. Fentanyl ampules and the sight of other drugs can cause debilitating cravings and obsessions that distract some anesthesiologists from being able to concentrate on their jobs. Toward the end of treatment at the Talbott Recovery Campus, we arrange for anesthesiologists to visit an operating room to get a sense of how they may react if they were to return to clinical anesthesia.

Some anesthesiologists have an intuitive sense that they cannot be constantly exposed to their drug of choice and not eventually relapse. Like other psychiatric or physical illnesses, there is great variation among patients' responses to their illness. Other anesthesia personnel seem to have the ability to return to the operating room and not experience disabling cravings and distractions. These individuals are not only able to remain safe in their own recovery but also provide anesthetics to their patients in a safe and competent manner. In the experience of this author, about half of the opiate-addicted anesthesiologists who have successfully completed an extended treatment designed for health care professionals meet the criteria for return to anesthesia.

Those who do meet these criteria and have returned to clinical anesthesia have done well. Most of the anesthesiologists who were not able to return to clinical anesthesia have returned to other clinical or nonclinical medical careers. Many retrain in other specialties that allow them to work with patients recovering from addiction. A few anesthesiologists realize that they were not well-suited for medicine at all and have pursued nonmedical careers that they have found to be rewarding.

It is important to note that some anesthesiologists become addicted to nonopiate anesthetic drugs such as propofol, midazolam, ketamine, barbiturates and inhalation agents. Propofol is of particular concern because it is not a scheduled drug. Although fentanyl and sufentanil seem to have greater addictive properties, these other addictions should follow the same type of evaluation process to ensure the safety of the recovering addict and his or her patients. It is my experience that a substantially high percentage of anesthesiologists addicted to nonopiates are able to return to clinical anesthesia.

Addiction among anesthesiologists is a serious and, unfortunately, common problem. ASA has become a leader in the education of its members about the problem of addiction. Most anesthesia training programs have a high level of commitment to educating residents about addiction and consequently are better prepared to identify impaired physicians than are many other fields of medicine. Most state medical societies have excellent physician health programs that refer addicted physicians to approved treatment facilities. Physician health programs can be a wonderful help in obtaining appropriate treatment and even more helpful with monitoring recovering physicians after treatment. With appropriate treatment, careful assessments and adequate post-treatment monitoring, many addicted anesthesiologists can return to clinical anesthesia and practice in a safe and competent manner.



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

[ Parent ]
you seem to still miss the point! (none / 1) (#174)
by sirmeili on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:58:28 PM EST

Does education necessarily take addiction out of the equation? Well, the answer would be no. However, you seem to think that the majority of people are stupid. I have no suck disregard for the chinese, and you didn't answer my question. Where they educated on it's effects? You accredit them knowledge they would have had after the fact (" how fucking smart do you have ot be to saee your fellow citizens turn into zombies and not figure out heroin is bad stuff"). They would have not figured that out till after they themselves were taking it and were as you say "zombies".

Addiction does not necessarily lead to harm either. I was addicted to Cigarettes for 10+ years, yes I did not noticable harm to others. Did I harm myself? I'm sure I did. Was it my choice? Hell YEAH!

One point you may have not understand is that you apparently have no "respect" for your fellow man. Since you believe that everyone will jump at the chance to do heroine or any hard core drugs just because they are legal. And what if they do? Heroine is not necessarily a death sentence. Is it harmfull? Yes, but so it alcohol, cigarettes, mary jane (don't tell me inhaling smoke is in no way harmfull),LSD etc.

You seem to think that because someone is addicted that it will lead them to a dark path. I completely understand addiction, mostly because I have an addictive personality. Addiction is not a death sentence.

Another of your points knocked down: "ADDICTION BEATS WILLPOWER AND EDUCATION". If that statement were true, I would still be smoking. Oh but hold on, I'm not. Proof is in the pudding. I'm sure there are many that would point out that thier will power got them through some tough addictions.

Let me state this one last time so you are clear:

I know drugs are harmfull (to one's self), and I still believe it is my choice to do with my body as I wish. This includes: heroine, cocaine, nicotine, alcohol, even suicide (which I think should be legal). If you don't like it, I could care less!

I could care less to read your article you posted, mostly because I know it occurs. What you fail to realize is that this occurs with all drugs. Addiction is not the same as abuse. Some people drink alcohol and live long lives, some people drink themselves to death. Do I think "Hard Core" drugs will give you long life in moderation, no, but it doesn't necessarily do what you are saying. Just because someone does cocaine (for example) doesn't mean they can't lead productive lives. You just seem to apply that stigma to them.

Sir Meili

[ Parent ]

problems (none / 1) (#187)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 02:21:32 PM EST

it doesn't matter if your iq is 180 or 40, if you went to ivy league or dropped out of high school... your chance of getting addicted to heroin is directly proportional to your exposure to it, and no more

and then you go on about cigarettes and how you chose to quit... you smoked it for 10 years, no??? was it easy? did you try before? a number of times you bet, and let's just see about a relapse (like a stressful event won't drive you to grab a pack of smokes)... addiction is PERMANENT, it will be with you your entire life, you can fall off the hobby horse at any time

I know drugs are harmfull (to one's self), and I still believe it is my choice to do with my body as I wish.

it's not your choice... once addiciton takes over, you're not the one making the choice, it's beyond your will power

just reference you and your smokes

i still don't think you understand addiction

and finally: drug use doesn't happen in a vaccuum

society has every right to, for exampkle get the fucking smokers out of the workplace, right? well society also has the right to not be expected to support the legions of zombies that would sprout up should heroin be easy to acquire

if your use happened in a vaccuum, you would be entirely welcome to shoot up all you want

BUT IT DOESN'T

who will be there to pick up the pieces when (not if) addiction beats your willpower?


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

[ Parent ]

let's see about stress. (none / 1) (#195)
by sirmeili on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 02:54:01 PM EST

Since you do not know me I will forgive your ignorance on my personal situation. Cigatettes are highly addictive. Even you admit that. You say that addiction is forever. I agree. Still my body my choice. When I smoked and I chose to quit but didn't, it was my choice. In the end it is the choice of the person to continue doing it. No one is holding a gun to thier head. Will it be hard? Sure. Will it require some sort of help? Sure. I would not argue any of these points, but as a person with knowledge of addiction (not just drugs), it's always a personal choice. I wish I could say I've done every drug out there and walked away clean, but the fact is that I knew what they would do to me and didn't even try them once. Only cigarettes and alcohol. Cough it up to education, or common sense, either way is fine with me, though I prefer education was the key in my case.

Stress? I know more than a few things about stress, and yet I have yet to go back to smoking. Weeks without power after the hurricanes of 2004 (yes I'm in FL). Doing Computer tech support (and if you don't think this is stressfull, you'd be mistaken). How about daily life? I wake up every day wanting to smoke, but I don't. That's my choice.

My mom quit smoking when she was pregnant with my oldest brother (34-35 years ago). She has had more than her fair share of stress, having been a 911 operator, divorced and raising 3 kids on her own, and now having to take care of her parents and hold down a ful time job. Has she smoked since? No. You underestimate the people areound you. I have no dillusions of how hard it is to get over addictions, but I'll say again, it's no death sentence by any means. I've seen addiction through family members and seen the effects. It has yet to lead to an early demise.

Here's one last thing for you to ponder: If people like you don't stop telling them that addiction is the end, they'll never try to quit. Just because you couldn't overcome it doesn't mean it's not possible.

Sir Meili

[ Parent ]

A small point. (none / 0) (#327)
by SoupIsGoodFood on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 09:17:31 AM EST

While I generally agree with you, tolerance levels etc do vary between people, so some people are less likely to get addicted than others. But people who can do a whole lot of coke or heroin then easly stop are probably in the minority.

[ Parent ]
false dichotomy (none / 1) (#222)
by zenofchai on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 05:07:35 PM EST

You've repeated this mantra over and over in this article: drug use doesn't happen in a vaccuum. society has the right to not be expected to support the legions of zombies that would sprout up should heroin be easy to acquire.

And instead of discussing both options -- attempting to keep heroin difficult to acquire, and not supporting the zombies -- you assume simply that if someone destroyed their own life by abusing heroin that society must "pick up the pieces".

Wrong. Private charities can take in burnt-out heroin abusers who could not manage their addictions. Hell, the "sin tax" on heroin could fund rehabilities centers directly, and thus the heroin users would be picking up the pieces for other heroin users.

But never mind. Stick to your narrow world of "heroin and cocaine bad, mm'kay?" and keep refusing to listen to any opinion without resorting to all-caps "ADDICTION ADDICTION ADDICTION" comments.

Personally I would not try heroin, but not because I am afraid of becoming dependent. I would not try heroin because I cannot stand injecting myself with anything.

Personally I would also not try crack cocaine, most directly because I am concerned with becoming dependent.

Personally I would also not try LSD.

But I do not think it right to demand that no human being may ingest some substance, as long as they accept the consequences of their actions.

To an analogy: You seem to imply that there is a problem with people walking a tightrope, because we have to build this expensive safety net to catch those who fall. I say screw paying for the net, tightrope walkers can buy their own or accept the risks of walking without one.

If someone voluntarily takes a injection of heroin (or drinks a fifth of whisky) and hops in their car and goes on a roadkill rampage -- they should be prosecuted for first degree murder. By injecting the drug they assume full responsibility for their own actions.
--
The K5 Interactive Political Compass SVG Graph
[ Parent ]

It was your choice to start smoking. (none / 0) (#326)
by SoupIsGoodFood on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 09:14:36 AM EST

But the more oftern you did it, the less choice you really had. Of course, it happened gradually, so you didn't notice the transition from choosing to smoke to being addicted.

I mean, why else would anyone choose to keep smoking?

[ Parent ]

D0esn't show rates 0f addicti0n [n0t] (none / 0) (#304)
by procrasti on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 07:15:40 PM EST



-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]
Your point? (none / 1) (#341)
by der on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 05:21:10 AM EST

America is by anyone's standards a nation of complete fatasses. Shitty food makes people fatasses.

Funny, you don't see anyone making McDonald's illegal do you?

P.S. Tobacco, alcohol. Both legal, both far more damaging than marijuana. Idiot.



[ Parent ]
Hahaha... (3.00 / 4) (#203)
by kcidx on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 03:47:10 PM EST

alcohol is mildly addictive and somewhat inebriating

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

[ Parent ]

You analogy is weak (none / 0) (#52)
by greenplato on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 01:59:03 PM EST

just like a speeder on the highway who thinks he can never get in an accident

So... do you mean that one is assured not to have an accident while driving 65? Or are you saying that an accident at legal speeds is not as dangerous as an accident at illegal speeds? Or does your analogy just not work?

your operating principle is that what you do to your own body has no effect on anyone else. this is true for all drugs except for the extremely addictive drugs: meth, heroin, coke. with these drugs, your use doesn't happen in a vacuum. when you use these drugs, you cease to be a self-sufficient human being, and you become a burden on society

Can you explain why you believe this to be true without crummy analogies or scare-tactics?

[ Parent ]

Sheesh (2.00 / 2) (#63)
by Stickerboy on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 08:25:53 PM EST

"So... do you mean that one is assured not to have an accident while driving 65? Or are you saying that an accident at legal speeds is not as dangerous as an accident at illegal speeds?"

Are you seriously asking this question, or do you not understand high school physics?  Kinetic Energy of object = 0.5 X Mass of object X Velocity, Squared.  

Not only that, but roads are graded and angled to be consistently safe to travel at a certain speed range.  A curve in a highway that is banked for 55 mph traffic is much less safe for a car traveling at 80 mph.

"Can you explain why you believe this to be true without crummy analogies or scare-tactics?"

This is endemic in populations with high levels of methamphetamine use and addiction.  Meth addicts are left unable to care for children, which are then left for the rest of society to raise.  Their paychecks go to more meth, since meth addiction is stronger than the drive for hunger or sex - until they lose their jobs, when they start trading food stamps for their next hit.

[ Parent ]

shhhh... (none / 1) (#90)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:24:22 AM EST

stop making simple common sense! it scares the morons! ;-P


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

[ Parent ]
But, but... (2.66 / 3) (#106)
by Smokin Juan on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 02:09:36 AM EST

Not only that, but roads are graded and angled to be consistently safe to travel at a certain speed range. A curve in a highway that is banked for 55 mph traffic is much less safe for a car traveling at 80 mph.

Highways are engineered for 80 mph and that was back with the highway system was created. Now we have cars that handle much better so theoretically the highways should be able to handle higher speeds than those which they were engineered to handle.

Speed limits were changed to 55 to conserve gasoline during the 70's. If you've gotten the reason for the speed limits wrong do you think most people have the reasons for drug prohibition wrong as well?

[ Parent ]
ummm... (none / 1) (#91)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:27:52 AM EST

do you know what addiction is and what it does to people?

i think that's the missing piece in your ability to understand me

are you immune to the hard medical pharamcological rules of addiction?

are you superman?

thus my analogy to speeders: they think they are superhuman, they think that the rules of physics don't apply to them?

likewise, speeders think their speeding only effects them... but they always get in car accidents that kill other people

when a drug addict gets addicted and becomes a zombie whose sole concern is getting more product, does this effect no one else? in their family? amongst their friends? their society?

be honest


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

[ Parent ]

try it from this angle (none / 1) (#248)
by Amarok1 on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 02:46:42 AM EST

What is the difference between this example of a burden to society and the extremely fat person who cannot get out of bed to clean themselves, work, etc? Are you going to suggest that we can one day regulate how much a person is allowed to eat?

[ Parent ]
false dichotomy nt (none / 0) (#337)
by omestes on Fri Nov 18, 2005 at 02:58:43 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Some people are good drivers... (none / 0) (#328)
by SoupIsGoodFood on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 09:21:50 AM EST

and can, generally, saftly drive above the speed limit. Others are not. But the only way to find out is to cross the line.

In the same way, the only real way to test if you will become dependant on a drug is to use it.

[ Parent ]

STFU (3.00 / 4) (#76)
by QuantumG on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 10:36:05 PM EST

we all know your opinion man, you don't have to post it every god damn time we try to have a civil conversation.

Gun fire is the sound of freedom.
[ Parent ]
civil conversation? (1.12 / 8) (#89)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:23:19 AM EST

is that what is going on around here?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


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

[ Parent ]

what about functioning addicts. (none / 0) (#354)
by empirical on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 02:57:24 AM EST

There are those people who can function throughout the day, while still being addicted to hard drugs (maybe not the heroine, that is rather expensive and would require the type of job you probably couldn't keep while being on heroin a lot..)

But I guess I agree with you today because the world is nowhere near that type of material approach. Marijuana is a good start, in Holland hard drug was down for several years, untill last year when they a bit of an economical lull and hard-use rose.
"For centuries, theologians have been explaining the unknowable in terms of the-not-worth-knowing." H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
[ Parent ]

Rocky Mountain High (3.00 / 9) (#37)
by Psycho Dave on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:45:59 AM EST

I think that most people in Denver were too distracted by the battle over Referendum's C and D this last election to pay much attention to I-100.

Many people complained that the campaign for I-100 was deceptive (their sound bite was the wonderfully obtuse "Make Denver Safer") but the language of the initiative was damn clear.

Not to say us Denver-ites can go sit on the hood of a cop car and spark up a joint. The city authorities will just arrest you under the state law instead, and the state law is not gonna change any time soon.

Denver is a Blue Island in the Red State of Colorado. The only other place in this state I could imagine an initiative like this passing is Boulder. The southern suburbs, like Littleton (a district represented by that noted humanitarian Tom "Nuking Mecca is Acceptable Retaliation for Terr'sm Oh and Fuck All Illegal Immigrants" Tancredo) would LYNCH anyone who even tried to take such a bill to a vote.

And if Littleton is suburban fascist-ville (whose favorite sons are Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold) then Colorado Springs is our official Jesus Land. When you drive south down I-25 to the Springs, one of the first signs you see is for the Focus on the Family complex, it's that important down here. The Springs is psycho religious. Those assholes think that Spongebob Squarepants will lead their children to Satan for chrissakes. What hope do you think a "legalize it" campaign would have there?

I-100 is pointless, but I voted for it anyway. I'm sick of the war on pot. Other drugs we can have a talk on, but pot is as harmless as asprin and the people who say otherwise are worthless abortions of human beings who get off on controlling people more than making sensible decisions regarding society.

(I will continue to maintain that currency circulation issues will forever keep the lucrative marijuana market black, but I need to find economists that would support this idea, or at least the jist. If you know any reading I should do on this front, please let me know.)

Don't forget Telluride (none / 0) (#207)
by curril on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 04:09:57 PM EST

I find it immensely amusing that Denver passed a pro-marijuana initiative and Telluride of Smuggler's Blues fame failed to pass one (to make marijuana a low enforcement priority).

[ Parent ]
currency circulation issues? (none / 1) (#231)
by JahToasted on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 06:39:37 PM EST

care to elaborate? I'm not really sure what the motivation for the whole "War on Drugs" thing is. The whole "drugs are bad mmkay" argument seems to be a pretty weak reason for the US to spend the vast amount of monetary and political capital on such a pointless exercise.
______
"I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames" -- Jim Morrison
[ Parent ]
The real reason marijuana will never be legal. (2.75 / 4) (#232)
by Psycho Dave on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 07:04:40 PM EST

This is a reprint of a comment I did here awhile back that explains my thoughts on the matter. It's a little long winded, but I'm a long winded person...

First, let's examine the reasons why it's not now.

The biggest argument used is that the War on Drugs ensures a huge law enforcement/prison system will be well funded. However the War on Drugs has been coming under a lot of fire lately while The War on Terror enjoys popular support as the government's favorite pork project. Ending or reducing the War on Drugs would allow the government to shift their funding towards anti-terror measures; law enforcement sees no hiccup in their bloated funding.

Marijuana supports "Terror". Umm, not really. When this ad came out in the Superbowl a couple of years ago, it was met with a peal of laughter from everyone in the bar. It doesn't really even support any vicious South American cartels. Most marijuana is grown domestically. An ounce of marijuana takes up more mass than an ounce of cocaine, is smellier so it is more likely to be intercepted, and has a lower street value. Freshness is also important to users of marijuana, so it can't be stored indefinetely without reducing it's value. Importation of marijuana is too much of a hassle for cartels, who do better with higher profit, more transportable drugs like coke, heroin, and ecstacy.

Domestic marijuana gangs are fairly benign. It is generally not sold on the streets (in fact, only a moron buys pot on the street; since it's probably either crap or oregano.) It is distributed at the individual level mostly through friends or friends of friends. It's the social networking drug. Though there is inevitably some violence associated with the trade, it is not frequent and would evaporate if legalized.

The health issues of pot are fairly non-existent as well. Most mainstream doctors and scientists will tell you that marijuana is less harmful than cigarettes or alcohol. I believe it is mildly addictive, mostly in a psychological sense, but to quote Bob Saget: "Have you ever sucked dick for marijuana?"

The anti-marijuana culture is rapidly disappearing. Many non-users I've talked to think it should be legal, or at least a low priority for law enforcement. Pot is also crosses things like the Red State/Blue State divide. People are as likely to enjoy toking ditchweed in a trailer in Texas as they are to enjoy smoking hydroponic in the middle of San Francisco. I think this is apparent in the fact that the opposition to marijuana is bipartisan.

With all these factors, why isn't marijuana legal?

I still believe it has more to do with currency and economics than it does with stamping out a harmful drug. Marijuana is the king of the domestic black market, meaning that it ensures that billions of dollars of cash are circulating through the domestic economy annually. Since most pot is grown domestically, there is little risk in those funds being used to support jihadis and South American drug cartels.

Think about it; marijuana is one thing you cannot buy with a credit card. You can't write a check for it. You have to buy it with paper cash that is not just a series of numbers on a bank statement. Realistically, it is getting to the point that one does not need to conduct any business by handling physical cash.

Bills can be paid with a few clicks on your webbrowser. You can swipe a card for nearly any other transaction. Writing a check for anything other than rent is becoming rarer and rarer. In the meantime, the average household carries twenty-thousand dollars in credit card debt alone. This is money even further removed from any physical object than the dollar used to be.

The dollar is no longer backed by the gold standard. It is backed by the black market.



[ Parent ]

I don't see it. (none / 1) (#272)
by JahToasted on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 09:22:48 PM EST

If it were legalise, money would still be changing hands. Also, it would be taxable, which would benefit the government more. Cash or electronic money makes no diference economically speaking. Well cash actually costs the economy more since minting money has a lot of cost.

I think the bloated law enforcement angle might have something to it. How powerful are the various unions involved with law enforcement? Any big corporations connected.

Now the black market economy angle could be something if you consider it gives the various spooks (CIA et al) room to play in. They can't have secret dealings with drug lords if drugs are legal, right? And If marijauna is legal, cocaine and heroin would soon be too. Which makes it much harder for the CIA to play their games.

Yeah it sounds pretty much like a weird conspiracy theory, but when there are no logical explainations for something, you have to start considering the illogical ones.
______
"I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames" -- Jim Morrison
[ Parent ]

One problem... (none / 0) (#285)
by rtechie on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 08:23:57 AM EST

The American dollar is the currancy of the lucrative world black market. Dollars are used all over the world in black market transactions. I have no doubt that this relative strength of the dollar helps keep it strong in money markets.

Even so, marijuana cultivation and distribution simply isn't what keeps the "black market" going. What keeps the black market going is the HUGE, and little mentioned, illegal arms trade. And the United States in the #1 arms dealer in the world, legal or illegal. And the arms trade, unlike marijuana cultivation, is fully backed by the US government.

[ Parent ]

Strange, because (3.00 / 2) (#279)
by jungleboogie on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 01:48:57 AM EST

It seems that all my "conservative" friends are the ones who really think marijuana should be legal (and not government controlled.) I guess they must be the "true" conservatives who think we should really have small government. Then again, I guess my "liberal" buddies are all too stoned to care?

[ Parent ]
As a thought experiment (2.80 / 5) (#39)
by Hung Fu on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 08:24:47 AM EST

What would happen if "substances of abuse" like marijuana, heroin, cocaine, etc. were legalized tomorrow? I imagine that, like all other commercially available drugs, their production and sale would be regulated, licensed, quality controlled and taxed.

Without prohibition, the black market would collapse. Fringe operators just wouldn't be able to compete with legal competition from MBA-led companies with advertising budgets and large economies of scale. All the established means of illegal production and distribution, such as labs, machinery, equipment, expertise, contacts and known locations, would be abandoned overnight. It's the same principle as international trade wars - economies that are destroyed by competition are difficult to rebuild.

With the black market smashed, the government would then be in the prime position to re-prohibit any drugs that had actually proved to be too harmful in the meantime. The damage done wouldn't be too great; after all, heroin was widely available as a cough mixture for years and the world didn't descend into chaos. It seems the best way to win the drug war would be to lose it,  temporarily.

__
From Israel To Lebanon

Its already been thought (none / 1) (#57)
by harrystottle on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 04:55:03 PM EST

not that I'm the first or only one to think it, but I did make this comment right here as recently as August 3rd.

Mostly harmless
[ Parent ]
Yes. There are many positives to legalization. (2.40 / 5) (#60)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:03:26 PM EST

But the results would probably be much more complex than you make out.

First, which drugs would you legalize? All of them? Admittedly, pot's relatively benign but heroin and crack are not. Will you legalize them, as well? You mention heroin was legal as a cough mixture - a 1 or 2% concentration in an oral medication is hardly the same as a highly purified version injected into your veins.

Would you permit addicts to sue their dealers for causing their addictions? If so, what "legitimate" business would sell such things?

Who wants to end up the next R. J. Reynolds?

Also - do you really believe those huge illegal businesses would just dry up and blow away? After prohibition, the rum runners moved into other forms of crime. If we legalize drugs, will there suddenly be a huge push by organized crime into other areas? Gambling?

People who think "clown" is an insult have never met any.
[ Parent ]

Regulations are the answer (3.00 / 5) (#65)
by driptray on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 08:52:24 PM EST

First, which drugs would you legalize? All of them?

Yes.

Would you permit addicts to sue their dealers for causing their addictions?

Yes. But I would regulate the hell out of something like heroin sales so that no lawsuit against the dealers could ever be successful. Here's some regulations that would be necessary:

  • No advertising allowed. Not even point-of-sale advertising.

  • All product packaging must be in black and white. No pictures, graphics, or logos.

  • At least 50% of the surface of the product packaging must be used to display government warnings on the health dangers of the product.

  • No selling to minors.

  • Selling only by licensed retailers. No above-counter display. Perhaps limited to pharmacies.

You want a general principle for this issue? Here it is: You need to strike a balance between minimising the availability and attraction of dangerous stuff, and minimising the negative consequences of regulating it. The current regime of prohibition doesn't get the balance right. You need to scale the level of regulation back to the point where the incentive for a black market withers away. I think my five points above are good for that.
--
We brought the disasters. The alcohol. We committed the murders. - Paul Keating
[ Parent ]

One more thing (3.00 / 4) (#79)
by driptray on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 11:50:41 PM EST

I forgot to add that I'd tax it fairly heavily, but not so much that a black market will undercut you.

Consider the tax to replace the costs that the producers would normally have spent on advertising.
--
We brought the disasters. The alcohol. We committed the murders. - Paul Keating
[ Parent ]

Concentrate........ (2.50 / 2) (#104)
by Smokin Juan on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 01:54:18 AM EST

Admittedly, pot's relatively benign but heroin and crack are not.

How about this... we legalize everything in it's pure form. Pot ok, hash illegal. Opium ok, heroin illegal. Cocain ok, crack illegal. Not illegal to posess or manufacture, but illegal to trade.

You see, most drugs in their pure form are fairly benign and don't begin to cause great damage until they're made into a concentrated form. Those concentrated forms, in many cases, were developed to thwart drug laws... just as you buy orange juice concentrate at the store you can buy opium concentrate (heroin) on the corner. Of course opium and heroin are magnatudes more expensive than concentrated orange juice and therefore the cost/benefit ratio is higher. A smuggler can attemt to drag 2 cubic feet of pot across the border or 2 cubic inches of hash (rough estimate) and get the same number of people stoned.

Gambling - now that's a stupid habbit... that should also be legal.

[ Parent ]
Just fuckin' legalize it all (3.00 / 2) (#107)
by QuantumG on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 02:34:57 AM EST

No more drug cartels in foreign countries supressing their people. No more illegal subcultures in our society. No more drug addicts breaking into houses to steal your DVD player so they can afford the outragous price of illicit drugs. It's really simple.

Gun fire is the sound of freedom.
[ Parent ]
Its so simple and so obvious (none / 1) (#300)
by procrasti on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 06:23:52 PM EST

that almost nobody will be able to understand it.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]
Hey.. (2.50 / 2) (#109)
by mikael_j on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 02:54:21 AM EST

Why would you not legalize hash? Sure I prefer weed but hash is hardly more dangerous, it's just more concentrated so you smoke less.. (of course, I'm from a country where weed is hard to come by unless you know a grower and hash is readily available to any just about any teenager who wants it.)

/Mikael
We give a bad name to the internet in general. - Rusty
[ Parent ]

while I agree (none / 0) (#178)
by Altus on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 01:12:52 PM EST


that there is no reason not to legalize hash (anyone who wanted it could make it with an screen and an iron anyway) I think you would find it much easier to buy cannibis flowers if you lived in a country where it was legal.  

I suspect most of the reason that hash is so popular in europe is due to geography... so many countries... so many borders to cross and its so much easier to move a gram of hash than a quarter ounce of weed.

"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
[ Parent ]

Arbitrary rules. (none / 0) (#251)
by Smokin Juan on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 03:26:35 AM EST

I know, "one of these things is not like the other." My focus is more on crack and heroin even though hash is the first in the list. The reason to include hash is one of even handedness. It really has no rational function. I guess this was my own little thought excersize in behaving like a politician. You know, acting without knowledge and creating overly complex rules to hide the fact that I really don't have a single clue about what the fuck is going on in the real world.

Would you elect me or do I need more practice?

Anyway, where is this place you speak of? In the US weed is generally easy to come by and hash, not so much. Come to think of it, this goes against my "concentrated form" argument. Your country, on the other hand, is a shining example of efficiency and concentration. I can't help but wonder what the difference is.

[ Parent ]
based on addiction (none / 1) (#114)
by m a r c on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 04:15:31 AM EST

Would you base which drugs to legalise based on addiction? I would think that the idea was that if you are giving people liberty to use then you do regardless of the addiction level.

People may become addicted, but the role of goverment would be to be there to help those who want to help themselves. I don't think sueing for addiction would be appropriate, it would be accepted that a certain percentage of people will be addicted and these people would need help.

Take smoking for instance, which is highly addictive. Some people can go out on the weekends and have a few with their beers, which I would consider non addictive behaviour. The ones that are smoking 2 packs a day are quite addicted. But then again we have quit smoking programs to help them.
I got a dog and named him "Stay". Now, I go "Come here, Stay!". After a while, the dog went insane and wouldn't move at all.
[ Parent ]

if heroin were made 100% legal tomorrow (1.10 / 10) (#88)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:22:09 AM EST

otherwise coherent artists and lawyers and doctors and musicians and directors would stop pursuing their interests and instead slave all of their time and money on the pursuit of a fix

and the usual dimwitted sort of fuck you find posting under this article would say that the government made heroin legal to shut up all of the loud misfits in society who would otherwise make great art or music or movies that might challenge the state and offend the sheeple

hard addictive drugs as a means to control malcontents in society: sound farfetched?

the usual moron you find around k5 would say that gw bush made heroin legal to turn good humanist righteous souls into zombies

to ROB THEM OF THEIR FREEDOM ;-P ("don't infringe my freedom!" they shout now about making heroin illegal, it's fucking pathetic)

hard drugs: just about one of the most effective means of state control in orwellian society you could possibly imagine

the usual moron who talks about the need for heroin to be legal, about their right to be "free" (addicted to heroin is freedom?) is also the usual sort of mindlessly kneejerk counterculture moron who also whines about opiates of the masses like tv, religion, videogames etc keeping people stupid and uninterested in what really matters in this world

key low iq moron: there is a reason these mindless pleasures are called OPIATES of the masses

go look up the word "opiate" in the dictionary of you don't get it ;-P


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

[ Parent ]

If it were legal... (3.00 / 3) (#97)
by bighappyface on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:59:24 AM EST

...they wouldn't be spending time and money in pursuit of their fix. That's what you do on the black market.

Instead, you'd go pick up a few grams at the store at night, shoot up when you woke up, and go to work.

...

[ Parent ]

yes, and? (1.14 / 7) (#115)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 04:17:38 AM EST

addictiveness?

hello???????????????????????????????????????

ANYONE FUCKING HOME?????

understand the FUCKING concept???

and please, you fucking morons, do NOT bring up nicotine, NICOTINE DOESN'T TURN INTO A DROOLING GLASSY EYED ZOMBIE FOR HOURS YOU STUPID FUCKS

why is the concept of addiction so utterly beyond you fucking moron's abilities to grasp????


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

[ Parent ]

Alcohol (2.50 / 2) (#120)
by atrius on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 06:28:28 AM EST

Because we all know no one has ever become addicted to alcohol or cigarettes.

I would imagine the point they are trying to get across is that most of the "evil" drugs are no worse in their immediate damage than what we already have legal.

Besides, it is not the government's job to keep me safe. Especially from myself.

I was raised on the command line, bitch

"Nemo me impune lacesset"
[ Parent ]

hig addiction + high inebriation (1.00 / 5) (#130)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 09:13:48 AM EST

what does that mean to you?

nictoine doesn't inebriate: make it legal, even though it's highly addictive

lsd doesn't addict: make it legal, even though it's highly inebriating

but wehat happens if you combine both concepts

WAKE THE FUCK UP

are you immune to the hard cold medical pharmacological facts of addiciton and withdrawal?

what does becoming a glassy eyed, drooling zombie for hours do to your ability to have a job, a lover, a family, friends, a life?

and when you become unable to take care of yourself why do i have to pay for it?

freedom?

ADDICTION KILLS FREEDOM THAN THE MOST ORWELLIAN POLICE STATE YOU COULD POSSIBLY IMAGINE

to make something like heroin is illegal is to INCREASE your freedom

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

[ Parent ]

2 points. (2.33 / 3) (#150)
by bighappyface on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 11:44:19 AM EST

1. Addiction is no problem with constant supply and NMDA antagonists to slow tolerance buildup.

2. Ever seen someone on heroin? I thought not. I rephrase... seen someone on heroin and KNEW it. There's probably coworkers of yours on heroin. I've gone to work on heroin before and done my job fine, no one knew the fucking difference. Glassy eyed and drooling my ass. There are varying levels of heroin consumption.

[ Parent ]

ever been to vancouver between gastown+chinatown? (1.14 / 7) (#157)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:11:33 PM EST

ever been to the loisaida in the late 1980s/ early 1990s? (loisaida=lower east side of manhattan)

and what, exactly, dear proponent of perfectly harmless heroin, are those people?

they are victims of a drug policy that doesn't give them NMDA antagonists? (snicker)

because as well all know, all potential and current heroin addicts are biochemistry majors and have excellent cognition and medical intent

and even given sound medical advise and support, they would of course all follow strict pharmacological guidelines

of course! ;-P

and if they were just fucking taking heroin with neurobiological abandon, tempting withdrawal and its effects, overdosing (so hard as THAT is for users outside of a medical facility who are addicted, right? even with some imaginary strict quality control in a heroin friendly government, right?), if you were to calmly advise them on a better course of action in their heroin use to better tweak their experience, you wouldn't be surprised if they say "it's my body! don't try to control what i do with it you orwellian police thug!"

so, would you mind telling me, oh dear drug salesman, what is the fucking point of medicating people who don't need medication?

we ARE talking about recreatinoal use here, right? are we in a medical setting with our subject matter right now?

what is this nirvana of the pharmacologically addled populace that you imagine?

what is this world where we all pop pills to be "free" all about in your mind?

silly me, i thought freedom was freedom from bars, oppression, fundamentalism... and pills

ADDICTIVE pills

i'm kind of wacky that way, you know, thinking that freedom has something to do with having a clear sound mind whose biochemistry isn't being wacked so hard in one direction i need a constant supply of the drug to keep myself safe form withdrawal and a fucking antagonist to mitigate it's other ugly effects

ahhh, i see the nirvana you see now... glorious drug freedom: paying for a constant dose of morphine i can't ever interrupt and needing to take an antagonist to boot

silly me, i thought that normal healthy sane individuals would be more free without this

i'm such weirdo

you should go get a job with the cigarette makers, you got the sales pitch for the addictive drug as harmless cheerful sunshine shpiel down prat

ah yes, the freedom that is nicotine... packs and packs every week

the glorious freedom, i see it now

stupid asshole


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

[ Parent ]

They are people who fall victim to a lifestyle... (3.00 / 4) (#246)
by bighappyface on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 02:01:30 AM EST

A lifestyle, not a drug.

A lifestyle forced upon them by ignorant, closed-minded assholes like you.

You're the one with "blood on your hands" as you are so wont to spout off about.

[ Parent ]

i function better than normal on opioids (none / 0) (#217)
by Linux or FreeBSD on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 04:25:02 PM EST

also i believe i was born with a huge tolerance to them.

[ Parent ]
There's a difference between taking small amounts (none / 0) (#329)
by SoupIsGoodFood on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 09:30:29 AM EST

to bring you up to normal if you naturally have a deficiency of a drug, and between taking enough to go over the level of balance and get high.

[ Parent ]
whats that you say (none / 0) (#332)
by Linux or FreeBSD on Fri Nov 18, 2005 at 12:32:13 AM EST

i most certainly have a natural deficiency of oxycodone. my brain seems to be missing about 80mg of it per day. perhaps you could replace it for me?

lol i wish :( oxy sources are all fucking scams. lots of good benzo sources though fuck yesssss

[ Parent ]
hi-rez article (none / 1) (#235)
by Linux or FreeBSD on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 07:24:57 PM EST

These results show minimal impairment of cognitive and psychomotor function after single oral doses of morphine and with possible improvement in one test. lol

[ Parent ]
If it were legal... (none / 0) (#301)
by procrasti on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 06:26:19 PM EST

...they wouldn't be spending time and money in pursuit of their fix. That's what you do on the black market.

Instead, you'd go pick up a few grams at the store at night, shoot up when you woke up, and go to work.

Do you have trouble reading?

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

tsk tsk, that's not Orwellian (3.00 / 3) (#99)
by Phil Urich on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 01:44:39 AM EST

Ever read Brave New World?

Interestingly, Aldous Huxley was actually quite pro-drug (see: The Doors of Perception).

Furthermore, I do disagree with your assertion that "otherwise coherent artists and lawyers and doctors and musicians and directors would stop pursuing their interests and instead slave all of their time and money on the pursuit of a fix". Honestly, it's not exactly hard to get one's hands on drugs as it is right now, trust me on that one. Hell, I know a girl that's gotten over addiction to a half-dozen drugs already in her lifetime and she is yet to even turn 17 . . . okay, so people are less likely to, yada yada. But whatever. If they wanted drugs, they could have them . . . if they don't have them 'cause they're too scared to get them ("teh cops are everywhere!") then chances are good that they waste their time away with other pursuits of the legal but equally unproductive and hedonistic kind.

Ah, whatever, I'm making a minimum of two different points here and I'm not doing a good job at either, which is the point at which I start to quesiton, why am I even debating? Answer: no good reason. Solution: shutting up now.

[ Parent ]
why is it so hard for you to grasp (1.14 / 7) (#113)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 04:15:20 AM EST

what addiction does to people and how easy addiction is to come by with something like heroin?

why do you dismiss it out of hand? why do you dismiss pharmacological reality?

lsd, salvia, mescaline, psilocybin, etc: wonderful drugs, AS THEY AREN'T ADDICTIVE

is that your hero huxley's drugs of choice?

ADDICTIVENESS

THE ISSUE AT HAND

WHY DO YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKERS DISMISS THIS CONCEPT???

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

[ Parent ]

ahem (2.66 / 3) (#118)
by Phil Urich on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 05:43:34 AM EST

This debate has been reshaped as it has proceeded.  No wonder we're arguing, the topic itself has changed while the lines remain drawn!  I've seen this happen all-too-much in debates.  The person you originally replied to was talking about more than just heroin; you replied exclusively to the mention of herion.   So then the debate starts getting skewed that way, and when I try to mention other things that are ALSO considered illegal and thus are treated, after all, under existing laws as being equal to heroin, that makes me a "STUPID MOTHERFUCKER".  

Alright, addictiveness, let's tackle that one.  I'll return to my other example before, then, which if you remember was the one that wasn't my "hero huxley". Well, that friend of mine?  She was severely underage when she started definitely abusing substances.  The fact that they were illegal didn't help; it meant, moreso, that the usage was hidden, covert.  If it was more open things would have played out differently.  Nonetheless, she's made it through a veritable feast of drugs in her lifetime, and sure, it hasn't been "good" for her in an overall sense, but you know what?  When she has reasons in her life to do other things, then she does.  She was doing cocaine for awhile, then literally one day went "wait, this is expensive and pointless" and just stopped.  Admittedly, cocaine isn't very physically addictive, there are better examples (and okay, since you keep harping upon heroin, no, she hasn't done that, but jib will do as a replacement in this debate I think).

....

Okay, whatever, I could work that case study slowly towards conclusions, but I'll just jump to them since I doubt many people are bothering to read this all anyways.

The original parent of this thread said "Without prohibition, the black market would collapse."  You object "otherwise coherent artists and lawyers and doctors and musicians and directors would stop pursuing their interests and instead slave all of their time and money on the pursuit of a fix".

Firstly, I don't think that this would envelope their life 24/7!  It's a pretty poor drug that needs that much time and effort to get any sort of consistent high from, really, and I can't even think of any off the top of my head.  Christ, so many artists and lawyers and doctors and musicians and directors and etc throughout history, and today, have been addicted to serious substances but still led, or lead, brilliant lives!  Yeah, it makes it harder, but it's not the apocalypse (and hell, depending on the nature of the accomplishment and the nature of the drug of choice, it's not always as straightforwardly bad as one might initially suppose).

And hell, your objections look like you've either only skim-read the comments you're replying to, or are deliberately ignoring points.   Like, right before your initial "if it was 100% legal tomorrow, so many people would do it" rebuttal, well, Hung Fu noted that "heroin was widely available as a cough mixture for years and the world didn't descend into chaos".  Honestly, it's not like you don't have a good point buried in there.  Whether it's true in the end or not, it's just not very convincing of an arguement when you COMPLETELY IGNORE MAJOR DETAILS OF THE OPPOSING SIDE.  Ahem.

I could go on, and on and on and on, but I suspect, considering the way in which you're arguing, that you're more looking for a post to stand upon and shout polemics from than with actual debate.

Oh, but one last parting shot.  You say "and please, you fucking morons, do NOT bring up nicotine", but I say, I'm already a "fucking moron", what more do I have to lose?  So howabout that nicotine?  Well, back to my non-huxley example.  She's managed to kick a half-dozen habits, but you know which one she hasn't?  Yup, smoking.  Hmm, that's interesting.  It would seem that drugs considered too dangerously addictive to be legal (yeah, they have side effects too, but "ADDICTIVENESS" is "THE ISSUE AT HAND", right?) are less addictive than drugs that are non-addictive enough to be considered a personal choice.  So, yaknow, put that in your pipe and smoke it, whether that be a jib pipe or plain-old legal tobacco.

[ Parent ]

the lessons of history (1.25 / 4) (#128)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 08:59:55 AM EST

prohibition in the usa in the 1920s teach us that outlawing a drug will create profit for illegal enterprises and spread crime

the opium wars in the 1830s teach us that uncontrolled access to a highly addictive + inebriating drug can cripple a society, so much so that it was purposely used as a tool of war to do so

the point is, that for most every single drug, the lessons of prohibition holds: lsd (high inebriation, no addiction), weed, nicotine (high addiction, no inebriation), alcohol: these should be legal

but for hard drugs: highly addictive + highly inebriating, the lessons of the opium wars teach us that the lessons of prohibiton are out balanced

in other words, every single negative societal effect you can illustrate or even imagine by making heroin illegal: low quality, high price, crime-driving behavior, etc... is SMALLER IN NEGATIVE EFFECT IN SOCIETY than making something like heroin, cocaine, or meth legal

HIGH ADDICTION

+

HIGH INEBRIATION

COUNTERACTS THE LESSONS OF PROHIBITION

be intellectually honest PLEASE and be fucking HONEST about what these fucking hard drugs do to people PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!


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

[ Parent ]

Why alcohol? (none / 0) (#247)
by curien on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 02:20:11 AM EST

"Because it's already legal" isn't a good reason. We're talking "what if"s here.

The Prohibition movement used many of the same arguments against alcohol that you use against heroin etc.

Also, do you draw a distinction between physical addiction and psychological? As I understand it (and I'm no expert!), cocaine is not very physically addictive, so I'm curious what your stance on it is.

--
We are not the same. I'm an American, and you're a sick asshole.
[ Parent ]

His stance... (none / 1) (#249)
by bighappyface on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 03:10:25 AM EST

...is pure irrationality and excitability.

[ Parent ]
addictiveness rating of various drugs (3.00 / 5) (#269)
by zenofchai on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 05:07:46 PM EST

http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/addiction/addiction_journal1.shtml


To rank today's commonly used drugs by their addictiveness, we asked experts to consider two questions: How easy is it to get hooked on these substances and how hard is it to stop using them? Although a person's vulnerability to drug also depends on individual traits -- physiology, psychology, and social and economic pressures -- these rankings reflect only the addictive potential inherent in the drug. The numbers below are relative rankings, based on the experts' scores for each substance:

Nicotine               
100
Ice, Glass (Methamphetamine smoked)     
99
Crack                     
98
Crystal Meth (Methamphetamine injected)     
93
Valium (Diazepam)             
85
Quaalude (Methaqualone)             
83
Seconal (Secobarbital)             
82
Alcohol                     
81
Heroin                     
80
Crank (Amphetamine taken nasally)     
78
Cocaine                     
72
Caffeine                 
68
PCP (Phencyclidine)             
57
Marijuana                 
21
Ecstasy (MDMA)                 
20
Psilocybin Mushrooms             
18
LSD                     
18
Mescaline                 
18

[Research by John Hastings]

[From: In Health, Nov/Dec 1990; eye-balling by Harel Barzilai;
relative rankings are definite, numbers given are (+/-)1%]

Whee.
--
The K5 Interactive Political Compass SVG Graph
[ Parent ]

Then again... (none / 0) (#255)
by Russell Dovey on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 09:50:57 AM EST

...think of the IP horrors you'd get from the large drug corporations if recreational drug use became legal. Who would be the first one to patent the most popular variety of marijuana?

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

patents (none / 0) (#293)
by lazybones on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 03:59:03 PM EST

I can see it now... "Pfizer Patents Maui Wowie" in the Wall Street Journal! lol

[ Parent ]
Drugs are bad and also illegal (except in Denver) (1.83 / 6) (#45)
by AlwaysAnonyminated on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 11:03:24 AM EST

[n/t]
---------------------------------------------
Posted from my Droid 2.
DUUUUUUUUUUUUUDE (2.36 / 11) (#49)
by The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 01:00:00 PM EST

DID YOU EVER LOOK AT YOUR HANDS?

I MEAN REALLY LOOK AT THEM.


___
I'm a pompous windbag, I take myself far too seriously, and I single-handedly messed up K5 by causing the fiction section to be created. --localroger

If this was directed at me, I'm very confused. ¥ (none / 0) (#82)
by mtrisk on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 11:56:51 PM EST



______
"If you don't like our country, why don't you get out?"
"What, and become a victim of your foreign policy?"
[ Parent ]
There Are Two Forms Of Cannabis Psychosis (2.90 / 21) (#58)
by harrystottle on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 05:08:06 PM EST

The first is a treatable clinical condition which affects about 3% of the young (largely) male users of the drug who tend to overindulge in their teenage years. Those most at risk are those who have a genetic predisposition to psychosis, particularly if they have inherited two copies of a specific genetic variation. Fortunately, in most cases, if they stop consuming, the symptoms clear up without further treatment.

The second form causes far more long term damage. It is an untreatable social condition which affects about 25% of those who have never consumed Cannabis. It is a deeply rooted sub-clinical phobia usually triggered by a religiously inspired fear of the liberating effects - in other people - of intoxication. This is often combined with a monomaniacal desire to control the behaviour of other people. The net result is a dangerous form of anti-social behaviour which has produced a form of low level warfare within society between those who wish to consume Cannabis and other recreational drugs and those whose mission in life is to stop them. This warfare - commonly referred to as "The War On Drugs" has been going on since the 1920s.

Conveniently, the discussion about recent evidence for the first form of the psychosis illustrates the second.

**********************

Thats the intro to the K5 story I'm working on. Should be ready in the next year or two.

Meanwhile if anyone's interested, you can read my chapter on the same



Mostly harmless
St John's Wart (none / 0) (#334)
by ldillon on Fri Nov 18, 2005 at 11:33:42 AM EST

harrystottle, have you heard of any clinical information about using St John's Wart to counter act "Cannabis Psychosis?" It work for me. Though, I must admit that there is something perverse about taking drugs to enable one's drug use.

[ Parent ]
There's a whole science to it. (none / 0) (#348)
by Have A Nice Day on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 12:16:59 PM EST

Apparently one should take 5-HTP (also available at health food/supplement type places) before ecstasy as it can protect serotonin type structure stuff.... erm that's where my knowledge trails off but apparently it protects your brain from E.

I think St Johns has some interesting liver interactions with other drugs though, so I wouldn't advocate it as for everyone.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
It's a balance (3.00 / 9) (#62)
by virtualjay222 on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 07:59:30 PM EST

Most of the comments I have seem posted so far are ideologically driven (for both sides). As far as I can tell, here are the pros to both arguments:

Legalization: Eliminates the black market for the drug. I'm pretty familiar with The 1914 Harrison Act required physicians to write perscriptions for patients and greatly increased the amount of paperwork required for physicians. Almost immediately, a black market for morphine came about. You can find a similar example in prohibition, but I'll leave that to someone else to explain.

Prohibition: Drugs can ruin lives. This is true, especially the harder drugs (as cts so loudly informs us...). To use the morphine as an example again, roughly 1% of the US population was addicted to morphine around the turn of the century (primarily white, middle class housewives). This is no longer the case, given the legal restrictions imposed by the Harrison Act.

There are merits to both sides. The question then becomes whether the govt. is responsible for making sure what is best for all of us, and whether those resources could be better spent in other tasks.

Off topic, it is interesting to see how the US govt. decided to draw the line at alcohol after the failure of prohibition. I don't have the data to say whether marijuana is "worse" than alcohol, but the research used for the "gateway drug" claim is flawed (if you ask hardcore drug users what they started on, it's not surprising that it is the most available drug - marijuana...).

Morphine addicts aren't usually harmed (3.00 / 6) (#64)
by harrystottle on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 08:29:58 PM EST

providing they can afford their supply and it is clinical quality. There are heroin addicts today holding down successful careers on Wall Street. Harm is only caused by the drug if you overdose on it, or it contains poison. Much more harm is caused by prohibition. As to gateway drugs, go research. You'll find that the number one gateway drug for all hard drug users is Tobacco, followed by alcohol and then cannabis. The significance of cannabis in this context is that it is usually the first illegal drug that people take and once they've stepped over the line, the next steps are much less frightening.

Mostly harmless
[ Parent ]
I'm Sorry if I Wasn't Clear (none / 1) (#68)
by virtualjay222 on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 09:25:10 PM EST

Most of the people who were studied in the "gateway drug" research were polydrug abusers. As a result, marijuana could be associated with almost any drug. My point was that the number of marijuana uses who do not go to hard drugs is much smaller than the percentage who do.

I cannot attest to the harmfulness of morphine on the population. However, the working definition of addiction that I am familiar with is: "the repeated use of a substance in spite of negative consequences"

Also, I disagree with your definition of harm. Let me explain by way of example. Cocaine and amphetamines produces a reward effect by enhancing dopamine (DA) transmission (specifically in the nucleus accumbens and globus pallidus). They do so by blocking DA reuptake and, in the case of amphetamines, facilitating DA release. In response to the higher levels of DA, the number of DA receptors on the dentritic spines decrease. As a result, when the user returns to normal they are "down," and experience a depression in mood and reward effect. Personally, I believe this qualifies as harmful, even if it does not physically injure the person.

[ Parent ]
NMDA antagonists... (3.00 / 2) (#72)
by bighappyface on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 10:06:11 PM EST

...prevent the upregulation of DA receptors and tolerance to stimulants (as well as opiates to an extent). As well as the cardiotoxicity of cocaine.

But those aren't over the counter either.

[ Parent ]

Seriously... (3.00 / 3) (#73)
by bighappyface on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 10:07:29 PM EST

...if these were legalized, don't you think the big pharm industry would FIND ways to make completely safe cocktails to minimize almost every negative aspect of hard drugs?

Try looking at a medical journal and seeing how many ways there are to minimize harm and damage from drugs, that street users don't have access to.

[ Parent ]

lols (none / 0) (#206)
by Linux or FreeBSD on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 04:07:18 PM EST

you can easily order naltrexone, various ssris (including citalopram), and a fuckload of antipsychotics from overseas.

[ Parent ]
and probably also (none / 0) (#220)
by Linux or FreeBSD on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 04:36:28 PM EST

propranolol.

[ Parent ]
funny, because 3 days of (none / 0) (#278)
by jungleboogie on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 01:42:54 AM EST

haloperidol causes the same brain "changes" that MDMA is dramatized of causing

[ Parent ]
haldol is fucking evil (none / 0) (#294)
by Linux or FreeBSD on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 04:23:13 PM EST

don't ever try to use it to abort a trip

[ Parent ]
Tourettes (3.00 / 2) (#345)
by orgazmus on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 06:11:30 AM EST

Try getting diagnosed with tourettes at the age of 9, and then getting a big box of haldol diguised as "medicine" Yeah, the tics stopped all right. Along with everything else that makes it possible to tell me and a robot apart. Needless to say, my mother dsid the right thing a flushed the shit down the toilet. After 6 months with kineologic thereapy, the tics was gone for good. And you know what? IT WASNT EVEN FUCKING TOURETTES! FUCK! ;)

[ Parent ]
Yeah... (none / 0) (#223)
by bighappyface on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 05:09:56 PM EST

...but there are other aspects to consider other than having narcan and beta-blockers (dunno why you included an antidepressant?)...

[ Parent ]
mdma (none / 0) (#225)
by Linux or FreeBSD on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 05:15:40 PM EST

:o

[ Parent ]
Didn't think of that.. (none / 1) (#236)
by bighappyface on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 08:00:25 PM EST

...I'm on an SSRI daily, so I can't do MDMA, unless I quit my SSRI (and suffer the HORRENDOUS WITHDRAWALS from quitting my doctor approved, non-schedulded antidepressant, which the pharm industry euphemistically calls 'discontinuation symptoms').

[ Parent ]
wat (none / 0) (#205)
by Linux or FreeBSD on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 04:04:28 PM EST

otc?

[ Parent ]
NMDAs & Dopamine (none / 0) (#267)
by Sgt York on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 04:31:48 PM EST

NMDA antagonism can alter the expression of dopamine receptors?

Where did you find this tidbit? Seems like a finding like that would make quite a splash, and not just in the addiction and neuro fields....did I miss something?

I mean, I know that NMDAs modulate dopaminergic neuron excitation, but that's a far cry from alteration of DR expression. If you have a paper or a lab to link, please do.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

They don't prevent it just by taking the NMDA (none / 0) (#271)
by bighappyface on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 07:44:18 PM EST

antagonist, you have to take it everytime you take the stimulant.

[ Parent ]
Um (none / 0) (#273)
by Sgt York on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 09:42:40 PM EST

I'm talking mechanism, like from a molecular standpoint. I really don't care about the drug aspect that much, it's just that I've never heard of that kind of interaction before. We're talking about a neuronal ligand gated ion channel with transcriptional effects. Moreover, a channel that interacts with the regulated receptor at a signaling level. Very cool, very novel.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

Well, for one... (none / 0) (#280)
by bighappyface on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 02:25:17 AM EST

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7938110&query_hl=3

Wasn't the one I was looking for.

Does the same thing for opiates (heroin/morphine/etc) as well...

[ Parent ]

Shit... (none / 0) (#281)
by bighappyface on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 02:58:23 AM EST

...that's the wrong one...

[ Parent ]
Ah (none / 0) (#283)
by Sgt York on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 03:07:37 AM EST

Based on the abstract, they didn't show alteration of regulation of any receptors, they just showed modulation; which is a totally different thing. Unfortunately, my access to that journal only goes back ten years, so 1994 is just beyond what I can get.

Based on the cited group's earlier research, it seems they are saying that meth treatment will cause a drop in DA reuptake sites, and that antagonizing NMDA will prevent this inhibition. All this really means is that meth works via both NMDA and DA.

Still, I'd really like to know where you heard that about NMDA affecting DA receptor expression. Can you recall the name of the guy doing the research, the institution, affiliation? Any tidbit would be useful.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

Nah, just some thread... (none / 0) (#289)
by bighappyface on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 02:15:20 PM EST

...about a dude taking 30mg DXM with his amphetamine base (UK) everytime, and noticing less tolerance. And some other people backing it up.

I think one dude posted a journal article, but I don't remember.

LOL

[ Parent ]

Well... (none / 0) (#282)
by bighappyface on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 03:00:36 AM EST

This and others

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15987631&query_hl=7

Show it prevents neurotoxicity.

I have heard many users say it reduces and prevents tolerance buildup to speed, but those aren't scientific, so... I dunno, I can't find any journal articles about it.

There are TONS of reports about it and opiate tolerance though.

[ Parent ]

OK where? (none / 0) (#284)
by Sgt York on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 03:21:21 AM EST

The articles you cited are for speed (meth); it talks about neuroprotection, but not receptor regulation. These are seperate processes, and the findings here aren't the super-cool stuff I was looking for; this is dogma.

NMDA is an excitatory receptor, and is hit regularly. Meth is also excitatory. If you block NMDA, it makes sense that the effects of meth would be decreased, because you took away an endogenous excitatory impulse. This all just demonstrates that NMDA plays a role in the effects of meth.

But this would cut the buzz from the meth; NMDA antagonists would essentialy fight the speed.

The opiate stuff isn't all that new; NMDARs have the opposite effect of opiate receptors; they are excitatory. So, it stands to reason that NMDA antagonists would boost the efficacy of opiates. That was the logic behind the original studies, IIRC.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

To Clear This Up (none / 0) (#288)
by virtualjay222 on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 01:21:53 PM EST

NMDA receptor antagonists greatly decrease Ca+2 influx. Ca+2 is required for LTP, which upregulates postsynaptic DA receptors. To say it another way, NMDA antagonists do not affect DA receptors, but they do prevent other transmitters from affecting them too. (Interestingly, there is some interest in what seems to be a pairing of DA receptors and NMDA channels based on some electron micrographs. I haven't been keeping up on the papers, but there might be more going on here than we thought.)

What does this have to do with addiction? Experiments in rats have shown that LTP in the VTA (ventraltegmental area) is required for sensitization to occur. Also, LTP occurs in the nucleus accumbins (a DA "reward" system), where external stimuli become paired to the drug state.



[ Parent ]
Amphetamines (none / 0) (#75)
by cdguru on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 10:18:42 PM EST

Long term, you need more to get the same effect. Continued, high-dosage use of amphetamines has effect on the skin - several people have related to me stories of either their or their friends skin lesions.

It also leads to paranoia and other things besides just depression.

[ Parent ]

they're just trying to get the bugs out (none / 1) (#204)
by Linux or FreeBSD on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 04:00:46 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Exactly... (2.83 / 6) (#71)
by bighappyface on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 10:04:12 PM EST

Heroin ODs are caused because Dealer A cuts it to 10% heroin, and Dealer B needs to drum up business and leaves it at 30-35% heroin (if not higher).

Bam, 3x the dosage, your ass is spinning and passing out in puke with numb arms and no muscle control for days (not to mention brain damage from lack of oxygen). That's best case. Worst case = ER or dead. But as we all know, call 911 for an OD, the cops are there in 60 sec. flat, while ambulances take 8-10 min. to arrive (no joke, try ODing yourself if you don't believe me).

Assuming your dealer isn't a jackass and cuts it with something that gives you an infection/makes you sick.

Course, we wouldn't need 911 if Narcan (antidote to heroin OD) were over the counter, but we CAN'T HAVE THAT! Then junkies would think it was SAFE to shoot heroin. We can't reduce the problems associated with heroin use or people might think it's *gasp*... SAFE!

[ Parent ]

Exactly... (2.50 / 2) (#98)
by bighappyface on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 01:04:38 AM EST

...let's wait and see if circletimes can screw this line of debate up with his sideways, ass-backwards logic.

[ Parent ]
i can speed down the highway at 100 mph (1.00 / 12) (#129)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 09:09:31 AM EST

does that bother you i am taking that risk with other people's lives?

do i speed in a vaccuum that effects no one else?

i can take heroin recreationally, no problem, never going to crash, the cold hard medical pharmacological clinical realities of addiciton and withdrawal: i am utterly immune

just like i am immune to the laws of statistic and phsyics when i speed down the highway

hey, i've been speeding for months

i'm never oging to crash, and i can never hurt anyone else

WAKE UP YOU PROPAGANDIZED FOOL

BE INTELLECTUALLY HONEST

we're talking about COLD HARD MEDICAL FACTS OF THE PHARMACOLOGY OF MORPHINE

jesus fucking CHRIST it's like talking to a creationist or a racist, these fucking free all drugs proponents, they are so blindly propagandized!

ADDICTION YOU FUCKING BLIND MOTHERFUCKER

ADDICTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

do you FUCKING understand the FUCKING concept you FUCKING PROPAGANDIZED FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!

i was a fucking aids educator on the lower east side of manhattan in the early 1990s

i've seen the lives ruined by heroin, WITH MY OWN FUCKING EYES

it's fucking DEATH

HEROIN IS FUCKING SUICICDE IN SLOW MOTION

and fo rme to sit here and listen to fucking propagandized FUCKS liek you spread your fucking venom of the utter squeeky clean harmlessness of these drugs

IVE SEEN THIS DRUG KILL PEOPLE YOU FCUCKING ASSHOLE

MAN I WISH I COULD FUCKING STICK MY FUCKING BOOT DOWN YOUR THROAT

YOU

KILL

PEOPLE

WIHT

YOUR

LIES

YOU

FUCKING

TOOL

like a fucking creaitonist or a fucking racist these fucking "heroin is harmless a ssunshine" assholes!

ADDICITON YOU MOTHERFUCKER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!

YOU LYING DEMAGOGUE

A
D
D
I
C
T
I
O
N

do you KNOW what the FUCKING word means!!!!!!!

STOP FUCKING LYING

YOUR WORDS KILL PEOPLE YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lsd is not addictive: make it legal

weed is not addictive: make it legal

nicotine is not inbriating: make it legal

HEROIN IS HIGHLY ADDICTIVE AND HIGHLY INEBRIATING

IT SHOULD STAY ILLEGAL IF YOU HAVE THE SLIGHTEST ABILITY TO EMPATHASIZE WITH A HUMAN BEING OR THE LSIGHTEST INTELLECTUAL WEIGHT TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IT DOES TO PEOPLE

YOU

KILL

PEOPLE

WITH

YOUR

SMUG

LIES

ABOUT

A

HIGHLY

ADDICTIVE

DRUG

man i wish i could fucking lay my fucking boot on your fucking face

YOUR WORDS KILL PEOPLE

HEROIN DESTROYS LIVES

I'VE FUCKING SEEN IT

IVE SEEN IT YOU LYING SMUG FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WAKE UP YOU BRAINWAHSED MORON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

[ Parent ]

Nurse! (2.25 / 4) (#139)
by harrystottle on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 10:35:06 AM EST

I think its time for his happy pill...

Mostly harmless
[ Parent ]
funny (1.50 / 6) (#148)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 11:41:35 AM EST

you're a sleazy demagogue

there is blood on your hands

the propaganda and lies you spread about heroin is as poison to anyone who hears you

you're fucking scum of the earth

you rank right there with creationists and racists in my book: deny the fucking obvious

i've seen what heroin does to people with my own eyes, and i have to sit here and listen to scum like you describe it as if it were as harmless sunshine

man i wish i could fucking knock your fucking face in


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

[ Parent ]

Please stop using this analogy! (none / 1) (#141)
by sirmeili on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 10:58:29 AM EST

As I have already posted earlier in the thread, your "speeding causes more deaths" analogy is flawed.

When you have a new analogy that perhaps makes sense (and no, I'm still not on board with your addictive/inebriation theory either. It just isn't logical to me) then please post it and leave this one where it belongs, buried.

Now, about the rest of your post:

  • I am intelegent, and therefore I can calmly discuss a subject with out having to use vulgar language (which apparently you can't). If you are trying to convince people of your POV then using such tactics will ultimately work against you.
  • I know people who have had lives ruined by alcohol, smoking, weed, etc. This also is not a logical argument. Especially since the final product would be "safer" (don't read as "safe" since like I stated before I am intellegent and therefore realize that most drugs are not safe).
  • I honestly refuse to believe that horoine use is a death sentence. Merely because life in itself is a death sentence. Besides that, I'm sure not every single person who has done the drug is dead because of it. (oh yeah, and in some cases Alcoholism is a death sentence, but yet you want that drug legal)

I completely understand your POV since you apparently have been greatly affected by the loss of someone due to Heroine. What you must understand is this: You have no right what to tell me to do to my own body. Will perhaps I cause a drain on society? Yes I am sure I will if I followed that path, but so are many other things. What you seem to not see is perhaps that most of us are smart and know that is it not a good idea to do drugs, and those that to choose that path are individuals with the right to do what they want to themselves.

Go ahead and spew how families will be ripped apart and I will tell you that this has been going on with alcohol for a long time. Choose. Either it's a persons choice to do what they want with thier body or it's not.

Please everyone. Let me include this side not about myself:

I don't use drugs. I am finally free of my 10+ year Nicotine addiction for 15 months. I don't drink alcohol. I don't take drugs of any kind for the most part. I belive that even medicinal use of drugs is being abused in our country. I only take what is prescribed by the doctor and I've only been to the doctor twice in the past 10 years or so (and even less for my live before, ecluding the shots given at an early age). Some will say I've been graced with a great immune system, and I'll say that's because I don't run for drugs everytime I get a headache.

My personal POV, as flawed as it may be ;)
Sir Meili

[ Parent ]

how is my analogy flawed? (none / 1) (#145)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 11:32:42 AM EST

here is my analogy, please dismantle it if you can:
  1. people putting other people in danger by believing they are above the laws of {physics/pharmacology}
  2. people who engage in dangerous behavior for a long time, and who blithely say they are in complete control, when they are willfully or blindly denying the increased risk they are putting themselves and others in
  3. people whom society has every right to punish for putting innocents at risk
it's the same thing: simple human hubris failing to acknowledge simple human weakness that all of us suffer from: impaired reaction times at high speeds, impaired willpower under the influence of a highly addictive/ inebriating drug

go ahead, dismantle my analogy, i think it is perfectly sound


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

[ Parent ]

ok......here we go, (3.00 / 2) (#154)
by sirmeili on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 11:56:30 AM EST

First, you obviously didn't read my first reply to you some threads back. There is no proof that driving fast increases your chances of getting into an accident:

http://www.abd.org.uk/speed_truth.htm

Now, if you want to say that is due to training, then I will say this. If a person can be trained (taught) to drive at fast speeds safely (which they apparently can according to the stats), then people can be trained (taught) the side effects of "hard core" drugs, and be allowed to make educated decisions based on that education.

Now Since I have taken care of that, let me say this:

You seem to be preaching like this is gospel. You continuously refuse to acknowledge that these same circumstances of drug abuse will only occur with "hard core" drugs. Do some reasearch. Go ahead, look. Alcohol causes many of these affects that you are trying to accredit to "hard core" drugs. Do you wish to disagree? Do people not get "inebrated" (notice the correct use of this word) then go and get in their cars because they think they are perfectly able to drive? This surely is the same effect that you are referring to. Oh, but you say it's illegal to drive drunk? Ok, what of the people who die every year due to alcohol overdose (alcohol poisoning). The figure is small, but the possibility is still there.

I understand the dangers of drugs. How? Not personal experience. I was educated and allowed to make a decision (even with peer pressure) because my teachers, parents, etc. taught me. Education is key.

Sir Meili

[ Parent ]

oh... my... god... (1.00 / 4) (#167)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:44:33 PM EST

i stopped reading here:

"There is no proof that driving fast increases your chances of getting into an accident"

how do you expect me to respond to that?

how would you expect me to respond to "the sky isn't really blue"?

(smacks forehead)

it's like arguing with a fucking paper plate, i swear

"There is no proof that driving fast increases your chances of getting into an accident"

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

thanks for the comic relief fucktard ;-P


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

[ Parent ]

Shaddup and go take your meds. (nt) (none / 0) (#239)
by The Amazing Idiot on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 08:39:34 PM EST



[ Parent ]
How do explain the german autobahn? nt (none / 1) (#298)
by procrasti on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 05:36:02 PM EST



-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]
From what I understand... (none / 1) (#238)
by The Amazing Idiot on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 08:38:46 PM EST

---Ok, what of the people who die every year due to alcohol overdose (alcohol poisoning). The figure is small, but the possibility is still there.

Alcohol poisioning isnt all the deaths. Many more are of failure to aspirate (choking on vomit in sleep). From what I understand, these arent considered "alcohol poisioning related".

Its still self-only form of death, but its still stats that arent well represented.


[ Parent ]

I've woken up. (none / 0) (#200)
by bighappyface on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 03:23:01 PM EST

That post made me see the errors of my ways. Thank you cts.

[ Parent ]
great. (none / 0) (#67)
by /dev/trash on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 09:09:07 PM EST

high Dems in 2006

---
Updated 02/20/2004
New Site
I just don't know (1.20 / 5) (#70)
by weedaddict on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 09:56:15 PM EST

how to express myself...

Reality has a certain cynical bias - Cattle Rustler
you sure? (none / 0) (#83)
by keefer55 on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 11:57:05 PM EST

"the passage of the initiative marks Denver as the first area in the nation to legalize private use of marijuana, for recreational as well as medical use."
I lived in Alaska in the '70's, and pot was legal then.I remember a police blotter in the paper reporting the theft of 2 plants from a residence-the police treated it like any other crime report.
  I personally smoked a joint on main st. Juneau (the state capitol).

Well, it wasn't criminalized until 1990 (none / 0) (#102)
by mtrisk on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 01:51:44 AM EST

But from what I found, possession was still subject to fines of $100, possibly more. In practice, though, perhaps it wasn't really enforced. I don't doubt that you would've been able to light up in that era.

______
"If you don't like our country, why don't you get out?"
"What, and become a victim of your foreign policy?"
[ Parent ]
Canada (none / 0) (#292)
by lazybones on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 03:52:06 PM EST

A couple of summers ago there was a constitutional challenge to marijuana laws. The argument was that if medicinal use is allowed, why must I break the law by growing or buying from a street dealer? For a couple of months the cops basically were not allowed to arrest for amounts under half an ounce as it was not clear whether the charges would hold up. On Canada Day I took it upon myself to smoke a J sitting on the steps of the Supreme Court!

[ Parent ]
I bet Alaska has fallen into disrepair! (none / 1) (#308)
by localman on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 09:40:48 PM EST

I think it's funny how there's still all this argument about legalization when there are plenty of places that have legalized marijuana (mostly outside the US, but congrats to Alaska) and they're doing just fine. End of discussion. Prohibitionists, get your heads out of your rears. It's not a big deal. Vice laws are the problem. It's been shown time and again. Cheers.

[ Parent ]
Good for them, I guess (none / 1) (#100)
by nogoodusernamesleft on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 01:47:38 AM EST

Me, I can't even stand second-hand pot smoke, it fucks me up tremendously. Turns me into a clicky robot. But I'm not about to stomp on everyone's good time just because I have a strange allergy. Except for one thing. If someone's sitting at the next table drinking a beer, I'm not going to get drunk (which I appreciate, since I'm a teetotaller). If someone's sitting at the next table smoking pot, I'm going to get fucked up and unhappy and sick. Could we maybe just legalize, like, pot brownies, and not let people smoke it all over the place? Please?

I imagine... (3.00 / 2) (#123)
by supersocialist on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 06:57:21 AM EST

...smoking laws would go unaffected, so if you can't smoke tobacco inside, you couldn't smoke weed either. I'd hope to see the relegalization of smoking sections, as well, as long as we're dreaming.

[ Parent ]
Relativity (3.00 / 3) (#112)
by Thought Assassin on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 04:10:53 AM EST

Can someone explain the idea of wanting to ban some substances but not others? i.e. wanting to reclassify marijuana as being OK like alcohol rather than bad like MDMA. I can't fathom why the government or anyone else has a right or an interest in what we do to our bodies for recreation (so long as it doesn't harm others, obviously), so the idea that one drug could be more bannable than another is a little foreign to me.

Kill yourself? Sure, but not on my dime (3.00 / 4) (#224)
by xC0000005 on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 05:14:59 PM EST

I agree with your opinion mostly, but think that people who use sustances/actions/agents to get high should have to sign a waiver first agreeing to accept no medical care/social services at any point in their life from complications/side effects. Smoke meth? Live with rotten teeth. Can't work because you are high? Starve. Got drunk and walked through a plate glass window? Get a huge box of bandaids and go to it. Hell, want to ride your cycle without a helmet? Sign your donor card with no option for the family to override, and go to it, I know a guy who needs a liver. I'll give you some popsicle sticks to splint your leg with in case you have an accident.

Voice of the Hive - Beekeeping and Bees for those who don't
[ Parent ]
exactly (none / 1) (#230)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 06:31:52 PM EST

hard drug use is just suicide in slow motion


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

[ Parent ]
life is just suicide in slow motion [nt] (3.00 / 4) (#307)
by localman on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 09:37:45 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Yeah, yeah, yeah. (3.00 / 2) (#237)
by Thought Assassin on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 08:23:06 PM EST

Well of course; you should have to disclose things to your health insurer, and your premiums will go through the roof. Public health only makes things slightly messier for once - here in McOz at least, we already pay whopping excises on alcohol and tobacco (still cheaper than if they were illegal) ostensibly for this reason, and smokers' illnesses are often deprioritized by the public health system.

But I hardly think the prohibitors would be in favour of making anyone else pay for the medical repercussions should the prohibition be lifted, so this doesn't answer my question.

[ Parent ]

Can you hippies.... (2.00 / 2) (#119)
by swayze on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 05:44:53 AM EST

... get behind the push to legalize cocaine, in the interest of advancing knowledge in soothing nasal mists? Thanks in advance.

You were clear enough. You're just wrong (2.92 / 13) (#121)
by harrystottle on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 06:38:06 AM EST

"My point was that the number of marijuana uses who do not go to hard drugs is much smaller than the percentage who do."

Charitably, I'm going to assume that this was a typing error. It is, of course, plain wrong. On this issue and all the other myths, it is well worth reading Robert Melamede's recent paper from the "Harm Reduction Journal" which includes:

Holland, having the most liberalized drug laws, does not have more cannabis users (over age twelve) than do more repressive countries, and the per capita number of heroin users is also lower http:// www.drugpolicy.org/global/drugpolicyby/westerneurop/ thenetherlan/. The Dutch Ministry of Justice estimates that 0.16% of cannabis users are heroin users. This figure does not support cannabis being a gateway drug. Data from the 2000 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration) also shows that the vast majority of people who try cannabis do not go on to use hard drugs.

"I cannot attest to the harmfulness of morphine on the population. However, the working definition of addiction that I am familiar with is: "the repeated use of a substance in spite of negative consequences"

The point is that, under the conditions I've previously stated, there are no scientifically demonstrated negative consequences. Many people find this difficult to believe because we've all suffered a lifetime of ignorant propaganda. But go ask any doctor. The drug (morphine or heroin) itself is well tolerated and does not cause any permanent damage to the system. We cannot, for example, say the same thing about cocaine which has been shown to have similar brain cell destroying effects as alcohol abuse. The only studies which suggest clinical harm caused by heroin are studies of those forced to consume the illegal supplies (which renders them meaningless). You will find hundreds of references to "harm caused by heroin" but when you dig into them you will find no evidence that the harm is caused directly by use of the drug, but rather by the complications which arise from prohibition. Conversely:

addicts, with access to clean needles and uncontaminated sources of the heroin, are able to lead normal lives with their families, hold down regular jobs and live without the physical complications generally associated with the drug. It is a cruel paradox that heroin in these countries is a far safer drug than either alcohol or cigarettes. Heroin is certainly much safer medically than other “hard drugs” like cocaine and methamphetamine, because these, like cigarettes, are not medically safe at any level of use.

Addiction itself is not harmful. Many people are caffeine addicts, for example, but it is a non issue in most cases because the addiction doesn't lead to clinical damage. We wouldn't be at all concerned, for example, by nicotine addiction, were it not for the hundreds of thousands of deaths which tobacoo causes each year through the lethal effects it has on the heart and lungs.

"Also, I disagree with your definition of harm. Let me explain by way of example. [snip] In response to the higher levels of DA, the number of DA receptors on the dentritic spines decrease. As a result, when the user returns to normal they are "down," and experience a depression in mood and reward effect. Personally, I believe this qualifies as harmful, even if it does not physically injure the person."

Actually cocaine damage is probably more serious than that - on a par with brain damage caused by alcohol abuse.(1)

However, your subjective definition of harm is just that: subjective. The only harm measurement that really matters is the effect on life expectancy. It is not for you or me to decide what makes someone elses life worth living. If the occasional highs outweigh the inevitable lows, then there is no obvious reason why the behaviour cannot be incorporated into a long term lifestyle. The really damaging drugs cause a significant reduction in life expectancy, usually by attacking major organs of the body. Tobacco, for example, costs its users, on average, about 13-14 years(2). (although it is worth reading what the "pro-smoking" activists have to say about such studies(4).)

Moderate Alcohol users, on the other hand, GAIN life years. A couple of glasses of red wine a day adds 4 -7 years to the lives of such users (3), when compared to abstainers. It is much more difficult to determine the effect on Life Expectancy of Alcohol Abuse because a) there is no agreement on what constitutes abuse (or "moderate" come to that) and b) the reduction in LE is masked, in part, by the aforementioned increased LE for "moderate" users. But the best guess is that serious long term abuse costs about 5-6 years (5) - mainly for males (women are much less likely to abuse long term).

Nobody has yet done the statistical research on cannabis and it is deeply complicated by the widespread practice of mixing it with tobacco, but there are already a number of tantalising signs that cannabis use is a significant life extender (See Melamede's paper above).My best guess at the moment is that if we could isolate cannabis influences from all the others we will find that moderate use (say, a joint a day or its equivalent in food) adds between 3 and 10 years to a users life.

Finally, self harm is never a legitimate basis for prohibition. Only 3rd party harm provides a valid excuse for social intervention. Thus if it can be shown (and it is much more seriously disputed than politicians and media would have you believe) that secondary tobacco smoking causes non consenting victims to suffer, that would justify rules which prohibit smoking in their presence. It certainly has been shown that alcohol causes a great deal of 3rd party harm (mainly through violence and traffic accidents) and this justifies either strict control of drunks or substantial insurance premiums attached to the price of alcohol in order to pay for their damage.

Refs:

1. http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/cocaine/cocaine_media11.shtml

2. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00047690.htm

3. http://www.erieshore.ca/healthbenefits.htm

4. http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/life.htm

5. http://www.medizin.fu-berlin.de/statistik/Gender&Alcohol/download/chapter8-V .pdf



Mostly harmless
Oops. This was supposed to be a reply (none / 0) (#122)
by harrystottle on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 06:45:30 AM EST

to virtualjay's comment below "I'm sorry if I wasn't clear"

Apologies



Mostly harmless
[ Parent ]
addiction + inebriation (1.00 / 3) (#127)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 08:52:45 AM EST

something that puts you a glassy eyed drooling state for a few hours, and you are compulsively drawn to recreate the sensation since the withdrawal effects are so painful, is a hell of a lot different than nicotine

the havoc this plays with your employability and your lucidity means you lose relationships and jobs

you become a ward of your family and friends, you cease to be able to take care of yourself

to say to me with straight face that the addictive + inebriating effects of heroin is anything like caffeine or nicotine is so patently ribaldly intellectually dishonest i don't even know where to begin

non addictive drugs are absolutely fine: lsd, weed, etc.

highly addictive drugs that don't inebriate are absolutely fine: caffeine, nicotine, etc.

but addictive AND inebriating drugs like heroin, meth, coke are absolutely NOT valid for legalization

if you have the SLIGHTEST understanding of the medical pharmacology of addiction and withdrawal, and you have the SLIGHTEST understanding of the clinical physiological effects of highly inebriating drugs, to say a drug that is highly addictive and highly inebriating is something that is perfectly ok for legality is INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY


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

[ Parent ]

I dunno (2.66 / 3) (#138)
by Harvey Anderson on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 10:30:43 AM EST

A few years ago I was doing coke perhaps once a month and did not feel compelled to rush right out and do more.

Everything in moderation.

[ Parent ]

I dunno (1.12 / 8) (#147)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 11:39:20 AM EST

A few years ago I was speeding at 120 mph perhaps once a month and did not get in one accident.

Everything in moderation.


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

[ Parent ]

Your analogy does not hold. (3.00 / 3) (#159)
by Harvey Anderson on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:22:06 PM EST

Driving recklessly puts others on the road in immediate danger of severe injury or death.

You're also stuck in New York Land.  Burning 120mph down the road at 2am through I-80 in PA has an extremely small chance of hurting anyone else besides yourself.

The point is that it is possible and common to do cocaine every X days and not become addicted to it.  It's just that simple.

[ Parent ]

when you speed, you can speed for months (1.00 / 5) (#166)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:40:56 PM EST

and never crash

when you take hard drugs (meth, coke, heroin) you can take it for months and never get addicted

what happens when you crash? well, you can kill yourself, or even an innocent bystander

what happens when you get addicted? well, you can lose your job, your loved one, your family, your friends, your home

you become a financial and emotional drain on everyone around you and you tax your society, because you cease to function

"yeah but i know this guy who snorted coke for 5 years..."

yea well i know this guy who goes 120 mph for 5 years

if you put other people at risk, WHICH IS WHAT YOU WITH HARD DRUGS, JUST LIKE SPEEDING, society has EVERY RIGHT TO PUNISH YOU

are you still going to sit there and tell me with a fucking straight face that hard drug sue (high addiction/ high inebriation) happens in a vaccuum?

lsd: highly inebriating, not addictive: LEGAL!

weed: not addictive: LEGAL!

nicotine: highly addictive, not inebriating: LEGAL!

HEROIN, COKE, METH: HIGHLY ADDICTIVE, HIGHLY INEBRIATING: ILLEGAL


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

[ Parent ]

Society has decided (3.00 / 3) (#181)
by Harvey Anderson on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 01:33:55 PM EST

that certain activities which have the potential to be harmful can still be legal in certain situations.

Alcohol, for instance, is used responsibly by the vast majority of those who indulge in it, and is legal though the costs to society and family are high if abused.

There are some substances which carry a very high risk of being addicted in just a few uses.  Coke I submit is not one of these; perhaps heroin is and crack, I do not know (though even in the case of crack most deaths were caused by its black market status rather than the drug being injested itself).  These drugs are the extreme cases and should remain illegal.

People know that if you drink heavily and frequently you will have a great chance of being addicted.  Yet society takes that risk.  Why, then, is it so hard to extend this reasoning to coke?  To do it with X frequency leads to addiction.  To do it with Y frequency will not addict the vast majority of the population.  Fill in for X and Y.

Your argument about speeding limits supports this in a way.  It's a scale of danger.  Certainly driving at 65mpg is dangerous.  Driving at 125mpg is 'more dangerous'.  Driving at 20mph is almost totally safe.  But we are not capping cars at 20mph because convenience of speed does outweigh danger to life to a point.

[ Parent ]

at least you agree with the concept (1.00 / 3) (#186)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 02:14:41 PM EST

it is one thing to argue about where the line exists

it is another thing, such as with some of the bozos around here (not you, thankfully), to argue about whether or not the line exists at all

it blows my mind the morons you will find in some of these comments who don't think the line exists


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

[ Parent ]

Looking at your comments here, in this story... (none / 1) (#198)
by bighappyface on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 03:19:00 PM EST

...you've lost it man.

Go see your psychiatrist for a few chill pills, you've obviously blown a gasket.

Then we'll get back to having reasonable debate. Debating with you is like trying to talk to a screaming, frothing, drunk man in real life.

[ Parent ]

There is obviously a line (none / 0) (#299)
by procrasti on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 05:58:40 PM EST

Only an idiot thinks these things are not dangerous and can be played with complete abondenment, that is not the arguement.

The arguement is that it is my body and my risk, to choose as I wish, not for you to choose.

Furthermore, taking drugs is very much NOT like speeding.  If you speed, you are likely to hurt others.  If you become addicted to drugs (and can get them for their REAL value -- not the cost supported by the WoD) you are only killing yourself.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

If the social effects (none / 0) (#336)
by omestes on Fri Nov 18, 2005 at 02:24:43 PM EST

of addiction spread beyond the individual taking them, then it is societies responsibility to step in and self regulate.

This is John Locke.  Your rights end where another begins.  

I recommend that you leave your fancy middle class life and spend some time in places where addiction has left ruin, places that have been devistated by street drugs.

And, to piss of the liberatarians and everyone else, sometimes people don't know whats good for them, and someone has to step in and bitch slap them.

[ Parent ]

Someone should bitch slap you (none / 0) (#339)
by procrasti on Sun Nov 20, 2005 at 05:15:04 PM EST

You're ruining the internet and bringing society down.  Obviously you can't regulate yourself and feel like posting anyway... The re-education van will be around to get you soon.

I'm a follower of John Stuart Mill, the best person to know what a person needs is themselves.  You're presumption to know what is better for a person means you are an enemy of liberty.

The problems you think are due to drugs are due to the response to drugs, aka, the war on drugs.  This causes far more harm.  I am addicted to Nicotene, and without it I lose all concentration for everything else... A clean constant supply of my drug of choice and I am not a problem to anyone.

I have seen the other side... and I still see more ruin caused by the law than the substance.

I don't advocate drug use and addiction, but the only way to remove the supply of drugs is to satisfy the demand.  Then we remove the illegal drug trade and can concentrate on providing care for the addicts that are left, and provide education to dissuade new users.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

at least one minor difference (none / 1) (#226)
by zenofchai on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 05:15:42 PM EST

"yeah but i know this guy who snorted coke for 5 years..."

and when he finally became addicted, he lost his job and his life savings, and spent a month in rehab before serving a month of jail time for stealing a TV to pay for his habit. it sucked big time.

yea well i know this guy who goes 120 mph for 5 years

and when he finally crashed, he took out a family of 6 in a mini-van.
--
The K5 Interactive Political Compass SVG Graph
[ Parent ]

single accidents are more common for speeders; (none / 0) (#258)
by tetsuwan on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 12:43:18 PM EST


Njal's Saga: Just like Romeo & Juliet without the romance
[ Parent ]

Yeah? (3.00 / 3) (#197)
by azurensis on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 03:10:44 PM EST

I've been driving 70mph for years and have yet to get into an accident.

Are you attempting to make some kind of analogy? If so, you're failing miserably.

Most people will never become addicted to any given drug. I'll be waiting for your ill-informed (read made up) assertion that pharmacology contradicts this fact...

Even if it were true, it's still the illegality of the drugs that causes most of the harm. Yes, even crack, heroin, and meth.

[ Parent ]

z (none / 1) (#260)
by GotoHospital on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 02:04:02 PM EST

People are different in their brain chemistries. Affects addiction. I know there are genetic differences for addiction to opiates or alcohol, so why not coke?
nested¢ evolution is still interesting. talk.origins faq.
[ Parent ]
Granted your short attention span... (2.50 / 6) (#144)
by harrystottle on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 11:29:58 AM EST

I know it was as far down as paragraph 6, but I did deal with your point. I used that reference because it is available online. Most of the serious studies of heroin use are not.

I recommend Shooting dope: career patterns of hard-core heroin users. Faupel CE

He studies the lives and career paths of a number of heroin addicts. It is not a happy tale and I don't want anyone to go away with the impression that I'm advocating heroin use. But it is clear that if the victim can afford their habit and has a reliable source of pure heroin, they can live (otherwise) perfectly normal lives. This is not news. It was common in the 19 century for "professionals" to have a cocaine habit or opium - usually without impact on their place in society.

The deaths and degradation which too often accompany addiction today are the direct result of prohibition. First the cost escalates to cover the additional risk to the dealers. Second, illegal dealers cut the heroin a) inconsistently and b) with potential poisons so that a buyer doesn't really know what they're injecting. Most overdoses arise from the inconsistency problem. They've been used to injecting a 10 or 20% mix and suddenly they are given a 50 or 100% supply which they inject at the same rate. Third, the criminalisation leads to loss of jobs and social status. Fourth the loss of jobs leads to inability to fund their habit, which leads inexorably to the traditional downward spiral of criminal activity and a lonely death in a gutter somewhere after injecting godnose what.

I challenge you to find any peer reviewed case studies showing long term damage to addicts who have a pure source, clean needles etc and no financial problem paying for their habit.



Mostly harmless
[ Parent ]
dear forked tongue (1.10 / 10) (#146)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 11:38:10 AM EST

how can you sit there and tell me with a straight face that a drug that is highly addictive and highly inebriating is perfectly harmless

do you understand what the word "addiction" is?

do you understand what the word "inebriation" is?

do you deny heroin is highly addictive and highly inebriating compared to other drugs

i swear, it's like arguing with a fucking creationist or a racist

you can sit there and say the most fucking obvious simple matter-of-fact unalterable thing: "the sky is blue" "the sun is hot" and they'll come back at you with mounds of words describing how these things are not so

what the FUCK is heroin if not highly addictive and inebriating?

do you fucking deny that fucking rock of fucking gibraltar sitting in front of your face asshole?


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

[ Parent ]

Calm down dear its only a newsgroup (2.62 / 8) (#155)
by harrystottle on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 11:59:19 AM EST

You seem to be under the impression that saying words like "addiction" and "inebriation" often enough constitutes a persuasive argument that they are, themselves, harmful. Addiction is only harmful if the behaviour it causes is itself harmful. This can be true, but it is not true automatically.

Inebriation is only harmful if a) the cause of inebriation actually causes persistent physiological or psychological damage or b) the subject is operating heavy machinery, weapons, driving under the influence etc.

Given that most of the species is addicted to something or other and about half the species regularly gets inebriated one way or the other, if the above weren't true, the species would probably have died out by now



Mostly harmless
[ Parent ]
i'm not going to calm down (1.12 / 8) (#164)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:34:57 PM EST

you don't understand addiction

you simply don't understand what it is really like

it beats willpower, it beats education

it enslaves your existence, nothing fights it except avoiding the fucking drug

read and learn asshole

you are being IRRESPONSIBLE

increased availablity of heroin (what legality would result in) results in increased addiction, regardless of education or economic means and support

simple, logical, cause and effect: legality->increased avaiablity->increase in addicts->increase in destroyed lives

so WHAT is the fucking point of making heroin legal?

fighting the negative effects of heroin illegality? poor quality resulting in deaths? increased criminal activity and funding? high prices?

ALL OF THOSE NEGATIVES ARE OUTWEIGHED BY THE LARGER NEGATIVES OF HEROIN LEGALITY

lsd: make it legal, weed: make it legal, HEROIN: STAY FUCKING ILLEGAL! FOR CLEAR LOGICAL REASONS

your words DO NOT COUNT because you DISCOUNT ADDICTION IN THE EQUATION!

do you fucking understand me now you fucking demagogue?


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

[ Parent ]

So, cts... (3.00 / 2) (#176)
by ghjm on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 01:09:54 PM EST

What would you do with alcohol, which is both addictive and inebriating?

[ Parent ]
by orders of magnitude less addicting (nt) (none / 1) (#185)
by circletimessquare on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 02:10:58 PM EST



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

[ Parent ]
Wrong (nt) (3.00 / 3) (#199)
by bighappyface on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 03:19:33 PM EST



[ Parent ]
some linkage (2.66 / 3) (#227)
by zenofchai on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 05:39:56 PM EST

Nicotine Addiction in Britain has an interesting table 4.3 "Ranking of nicotine in relation to other drugs in terms of addiction factors of concern" under several categories: Dependence among users, Difficulty achieving abstinence, Tolerance, Physical withdrawal severity, Societal impact, Deaths, Importance in user's daily life, Intoxication, Animal self-administration, Liking by non-drug abusers, and Prevalence.

Some gems:

Intoxication: alcohol>(cocaine=heroin)>caffeine>nicotine

Physical withdrawal severity: alcohol>heroin>nicotine>cocaine>caffeine

Etc.

Anyway, lots of decent links from Wikipedia's article on addiction as well, along with the difference between phsical dependency and addiction, etc. More directly, Wikipedia's article on drug addiction (or "substance dependence") is interesting.

I used to have a link for a very nice table which had numbers next to drug names with some kind of "addictiveness" value. Ah well. Experts Rate Problem Substances is a pretty close fit, although it has non-magnitudinal "Expert Ratings" instead of a study's numerical value: "Dr. Jack E. Henningfield of the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Dr. Neal L. Benowitz of the University of California at San Francisco ranked six substances based on five problem areas." The areas are: Withdrawal, Reinforcement, Tolerance, Dependence, and Intoxication.

And so, I exhort you: create your "x, y, z" graph based on these ratings. But if you don't, I suppose I'll have to do it. But I don't want to get into modeling 3 dimensions in SVG, it's just not suited for such information. Maybe a VRML snippet would do it.

CSV:
Drug,Withdrawal,Reinforcement,Tolerance,Dependence,Intoxication
Nicotine,3,4,3,1,5.5
Heroin,2,2,1.5,2,2
Cocaine,3.5,1,2.5,3,3
Alcohol,1,3,3.5,4,1
Caffeine,4.5,5.5,4,5,5.5
Marijuana,5.5,5.5,5.5,6,4

I recommend graphing reinforcement ("A measure of the substance's ability, in human and animal tests, to get users to take it again and again, and in preference to other substances.") against Intoxication. Just remember, 1 is "bad", 6 is "not as bad".
--
The K5 Interactive Political Compass SVG Graph
[ Parent ]

Sorry (3.00 / 2) (#263)
by Sgt York on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 03:38:22 PM EST

That table fails it. It is solely based on a reference to a law journal. A law journal. I was going to try to look up the reference, but the journal isn't listed in any of the databases at the medical library here. OTOH, other (medical) references cited in the article list nicotine as a low-risk addictive substance when compared to heroin and cocaine.

Alcohol is nowhere near as addictive as heroin or cocaine. Just look at the animal models: Animals will go to great lengths to get cocaine or heroin as a reward, but you have to seriously engineer the experimental setup to get the animals to self-administer alcohol at all (Nature Neuroscience 8: 1471 - 1480).

Alcohol is addictive and dangerous, yes, but nowhere near as addictive and dangerous as coke or heroin. Either one will seriously fuck up your life if you get addicted, but the likelihood of addiction is much, much lower with alcohol than with heroin and cocaine.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

Perhaps you misread (none / 1) (#313)
by zenofchai on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 10:43:54 PM EST

Or perhaps you missed:

Just remember, 1 is "bad", 6 is "not as bad".

Thus, the Doctors (Dr. Jack E. Henningfield of the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Dr. Neal L. Benowitz of the University of California at San Francisco) both rated both Heroin and Cocaine as being "worse" on the Reinforcement, Tolerance, and Dependence scales. Thus agreeing with what you typed as a vehement disagreement.

Dr. Jack E. Henningfield is is Adjunct Professor of Behavioral Biology, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. I don't know about you, but when a professor of behavioral biology at Johns Hopkins says something, I rate it higher than your average K5 user statement.

Dr. Neal L. Benowitz is Professor, Medicine, Psychiatry, and Biopharmaceutical Sciences, UCSF. One of his more interesting professional posts was as Director, Drug Detoxification Unit, San Francisco General Hospital, San Francisco, California.

And, again, your typety-typing about how heroin and cocaine are more addictive than alcohol -- yeah, that's what the table said, which you so eloquently debunked as "failing it". I didn't present it as offering any comparative numbers -- which I linked to in a different post, but as you provided no links, I'll omit this one -- and think it's actually a nice little table.

Okay. I give: my comment addictiveness rating of various drugs links to a much nicer table with comparative values.

However, alcohol scored an "81" and heroin scored an "80", whereas cocaine only scored a "72". Crack cocaine came in with a "98" though, so maybe the laws I decried as racist (seeing as crack and cocaine are both 'cocaine', yet crack, the 'black drug' of the two has an incredibly harsher sentencing history) has some actual basis after all.

Nicotine scored 100, LSD 18.

Anyway... this likely won't be read so I don't know why I bothered.
--
The K5 Interactive Political Compass SVG Graph
[ Parent ]

i read it (none / 1) (#314)
by Linux or FreeBSD on Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 01:36:41 AM EST

yuo win

[ Parent ]
Addiction is subjective. (3.00 / 2) (#264)
by neuroplasma on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 03:52:41 PM EST



--
"...you know how you pple are... very sneaky with untrusting slanty eyes" - LxXCaligulaXxl@aol.com
[ Parent ]
How do you get addicted (3.00 / 3) (#305)
by procrasti on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 07:26:39 PM EST

if you never take the drug?

Does making it legal somehow make it compulsory in your mind?  Cause I'm all for making all drugs legal, but I think making them mandatory would be going too far.

-------
if i ever see the nickname procrasti again on this site or anywhere in my life, i want it to be in an OBITUARY -- CTS
doing my best at licking arseholes - may 2015 -- mirko
-------
Winner of Kuro5hin: April 2015
[ Parent ]

You hit reply... (3.00 / 6) (#212)
by bighappyface on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 04:17:30 PM EST

As if you are replying to his comments.

But you might as well post your own thread, because you are not replying. Replying would imply that you were reading his posts and addressing the things he brought up.

You are not.

[ Parent ]

long term damage = not being able to stand still (none / 0) (#259)
by GotoHospital on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 02:03:52 PM EST

I had the fortune to meet with a heroin user recently. He couldn't stand still he was flopping his limbs around so much. Tell me that's not damage.
nested¢ evolution is still interesting. talk.origins faq.
[ Parent ]
Criminal Mindless (none / 0) (#211)
by virg on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 04:16:26 PM EST

> but addictive AND inebriating drugs like heroin, meth, coke are absolutely NOT valid for legalization

Thia argument indicates that you support criminalizing alcohol. Haven't we been down that road?

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 ]
Dude I am a drain on my family (3.00 / 4) (#242)
by Lemon Juice on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 12:06:40 AM EST

and I don't even do drugs. So you're lying, being a drain has to do with the person not the drugs.

[ Parent ]
Appearently... (none / 0) (#335)
by omestes on Fri Nov 18, 2005 at 02:12:13 PM EST

you've never been hardcore addicted to anything?

Your life becomes focused on that one thing, everything you do revolves around it, you stop caring for the basic human things, survival, familty, freinds, anything.  Everything becomes that which your addicted to.  

You literally lose yourself.  Your soul, your mind all becomes slaves, until the point in which you are no longer even human.

I'm sorry, the person can be a drain, but the drug is what makes them 100x worse.

Emphasising drug use as good is not a culturally responsible activity.  There is nothing good about ANY drug, be it a legal pharm, alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, or any illegal drug.  Addiction dehumanizes, no matter the physical effects.

[ Parent ]

Functionally problematic (none / 0) (#315)
by cgenman on Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 02:23:40 AM EST

something that puts you a glassy eyed drooling state for a few hours, and you are compulsively drawn to recreate the sensation since the withdrawal effects are so painful, is a hell of a lot different than nicotine

I'll take "TV for 200" Alex.

to say to me with straight face that the addictive + inebriating effects of heroin is anything like caffeine or nicotine is so patently ribaldly intellectually dishonest i don't even know where to begin

But there is the key, withdrawal.  If you have a clean available supply, you shouldn't have the terrible withdrawal symptoms.  Your body has normalized its chemistry, and to remain in that normal chemical state you need the drug... just like nicotine or caffeine.  But supply that, and you're fine.  England does a good job with their heroin support program in this respect.

non addictive drugs are absolutely fine: lsd, weed, etc.

I'd argue against legalizing LSD.  I've seen more people than I would like who got on LSD and didn't come down.  It should be mostly decriminalized, but it shouldn't be sold at 7-11 next to the nachos.

highly addictive drugs that don't inebriate are absolutely fine: caffeine, nicotine, etc.

Except that nicotine in its current form also kills.  Addiction is definitely a negative in any substance, though it generally shouldn't be enough by itself to warrant outlawing, especially depending on the withdrawal.  Caffeine withdrawal is pretty mild, so long as you don't share an office with the person.

if you have the SLIGHTEST understanding of the medical pharmacology of addiction and withdrawal, and you have the SLIGHTEST understanding of the clinical physiological effects of highly inebriating drugs, to say a drug that is highly addictive and highly inebriating is something that is perfectly ok for legality is INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Your point is valid, that in practical terms heroin dependencies can be crippling, even if in medical terms when properly administered in controlled dosages they do little long-term harm.  But claiming that the poster you disagree with hasn't the slightest grasp of what they're talking about is clearly just degrading the discussion.

- This Sig is a mnemonic device designed to allow you to recognize this author in the future. This is only a device.
[ Parent ]

A Point-by-point response (none / 0) (#161)
by virtualjay222 on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:26:58 PM EST

First, yes, that was a typo. I apologize for being unclear. Thank you for your "charity."

I am not familiar with any physiological detriment caused by repeated morphine use. However, I find it difficult to ignore the social effects centering your life around acquiring and taking the drug, as many addicts do. I also disagree with your distinction between heroin and cocaine. You say that cocaine is much worse. I would like to point out that cocaine is in the PDR, and has been used as an analgesic in ocular surgeries in the modern era, while heroin is not.

Caffeine is interesting in that it shows no reward effects at any dose, and can produce noticable anxiogenic effects at higher doses. It also has a much higher rate of tolerance than any of the hard drugs (only a day and a half or so).

The reason why I stated my working definition of addiction is because I wanted to stress that addicition is, by definition, harmful. "In spite of negative consequences" implies that there are negative things that the addict is experiencing that they choose to ignore. I do not necessarily mean physiological harm, but also social or psychological harm.

Yes, my definition of harm is subjective. Personally, I like to believe that there is more to life than living a long time.

Thank you for your response. My goal was to boil down the issues made in this forum to the two primary positions. Personally, I don't care which side wins out, but I find the debate fascinating when it's actually grounded in fact.

[ Parent ]
Heroin & Medicine (3.00 / 4) (#228)
by Norkakn on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 05:50:35 PM EST

Heroin not being in the PDR is political, not medical. In the UK it is sched 2. It is one of the cheapest pain killers and still used in many places.

[ Parent ]
Negative consequences? (none / 1) (#180)
by smithmc on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 01:21:22 PM EST


The point is that, under the conditions I've previously stated, there are no scientifically demonstrated negative consequences. Many people find this difficult to believe because we've all suffered a lifetime of ignorant propaganda. But go ask any doctor. The drug (morphine or heroin) itself is well tolerated and does not cause any permanent damage to the system.

IMO, "negative consequences" are not limited to the merely physiological. For instance, not being able to get up and go to work in the morning (assuming you're able to hold down a job) is a "negative consequence". Having no money because you spend it all on drugs is a "negative consequence". Turning to crime to pay for your habit is a "negative consequence". For that matter, IMO, the loss of self-esteem that comes from not being able to control one's habits and desires is a "negative consequence". To put it simply - if you continue to take a drug despite the fact that it ruins your life, regardless of whether it physically harms you, you're an addict.

[ Parent ]

I don't think you read the qualifier... (none / 1) (#210)
by bighappyface on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 04:14:13 PM EST

'UNDER THE CONDITIONS WHICH I PREVIOUSLY STATED'

i.e. legalization

[ Parent ]

Not sure what you mean... (none / 1) (#229)
by smithmc on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 06:13:07 PM EST


I'm not sure what you mean. Even if pot or other drugs were legalized, they can still have negative consequences of a social, rather than physiological nature. (Pot less so than other drugs, but still.)

[ Parent ]
You slightly missed the point (none / 1) (#252)
by Have A Nice Day on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 07:23:23 AM EST

That many of these things are consequences of the illegal status of the drug.

No money because of drugs? Well they don't need to be expensive if they're not going through the black market.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
Legal drug addiction is harmful, too (none / 1) (#257)
by smithmc on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 11:45:39 AM EST


That many of these things are consequences of the illegal status of the drug.

I think the statistics on alcohol and tobacco addiction are sufficient to illustrate that addiction to legal drugs can be just as harmful and crippling as addiction to illegal drugs.

Don't get me wrong, folks - I'm all for legalization of pot, personally. The government shouldn't be telling us what to do with our bodies. But legalization is not some magic solution for addiction.

[ Parent ]

Of course, not in contention (none / 1) (#261)
by Have A Nice Day on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 02:48:38 PM EST

But some of the things you mentioned are direct consequences of illegality. Others are down to people. If someone's gonna smoke dope and not get out of bed in the morning, I rather think it's their fault.

Just like if someone drunk (or on LSD) is driving a car and kills someone, I think the penalty should be the same as any other manslaughter.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
You missed the point. (3.00 / 2) (#323)
by mindstrm on Sun Nov 13, 2005 at 09:55:48 AM EST

The point is that the large majority of harm from heroin addiction comes from the fact that it is illegal, not the fact that it is heroin.

1) You inject because it's cheaper that way. If you could get it more pure, and cheaper, you wouldn't need to slam it.

2) Having no money? Heroin is expensive because it is illegal, and highly addictive, so dealers can afford to charge a lot. Producing heroin commercially, it would be cheap.

3) Getting up and going to work is not a problem.. the main reason you see heroin addicts seemingly unable to lead a normal life is because their supply of the drug fluctuates, they don't eat well or take care of themselves, etc.   Given a constant, clean & regular supply of the stuff, some addicts maintain habits for years or decades while leading relatively normal lives, going to work every morning, etc.  It's not like you go on a wild bender every night.

4) Self Esteem--- couldn't agree more on this one.  

I don't think Heroin shoudl be legalized and taken by everyone.. but I do think that stopping the witch hunt surrounding it, and providing clean drugs, safe administration, and therefore an opportunity for councilling would go a LONG way towards reducing the harm it does to our society.  The reality is simply that the majority of ill consequences related to heroin addiction stem form the fact that it's highly illegal.

[ Parent ]

IV (none / 0) (#325)
by Linux or FreeBSD on Sun Nov 13, 2005 at 12:59:57 PM EST

i was under the impression that the faster you get it into your blood (and therefore brain), the better the rush.

[ Parent ]
Stopping the witch hunt! (none / 1) (#343)
by wnight on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 06:22:55 AM EST

That's the key. Take a calm look at the real effects of something and take a rational step towards making things better, instead of taking an emotional (scared) response and making things worse with clumsy prohibitions.

Drugs harm people, so drugs are bad, and druggies take drugs so they must be ...

If you thought 'bad', you're the problem. If you thought 'hurt', you've got the solution.

If the final goal is a non-drug user, maybe you'd have better luck putting a happy and healthy user of purified herion through a comfortable anti-addiction program, rather then putting a screaming street person going through the worst pain of their life through a detox system inspired by the prisons.

Thanks for helping spread sanity!

[ Parent ]

Clean needles are irrelevent (none / 0) (#219)
by pHatidic on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 04:33:43 PM EST

If heroin/morphine were legal then people would just go back to eating or smoking opium, so any arguments involving clean needles are superfluous.

[ Parent ]
I disagree (none / 0) (#240)
by thankyougustad on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 08:59:09 PM EST

addicts often comment on the rush they get exclusively from shooting heroin. They will not experience exactly the same effects as smoking opium. For one thing, heroin is purified morphine, so much more potent than raw opium.

No no thanks no
Je n'aime que le bourbon
no no thanks no
c'est une affaire de goût.

[ Parent ]
On Harm. (none / 0) (#322)
by mindstrm on Sun Nov 13, 2005 at 09:49:52 AM EST

I agree the propaganda is often wrong, however, it serves us no good as a society to have our population addicted to, say, heroin.

Even given totally clean and safe administration of the drug, we should have no desire to see our society dependant on it, even if the long-term health of our society is not all that bad.

[ Parent ]

Why not? (2.50 / 2) (#331)
by bighappyface on Thu Nov 17, 2005 at 01:38:28 AM EST

Everyone's addicted to SSRIs, ADD meds, and tranquilizers/sleep aids anyway.

[ Parent ]
Drugs are bad (none / 0) (#126)
by zorba77 on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 08:30:03 AM EST

m'kay?
Return the West Coast to the Tribes of sasquatch!
So, has anyone bred a dwarf plant? (3.00 / 4) (#163)
by Maurkov on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:28:26 PM EST

It needs to weigh less than 1 oz. when mature.  

Or would I still have to deal with criminals in order to obtain that which is legal to possess and use?  

This law helps how?

Simple answer (none / 0) (#330)
by BrynM on Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 04:48:11 AM EST

An answer from my youth: Prune for size. After your first couple of tries, you'll get to know the potential growth of the strain you're growing. Remember that there's a learning curve, so some folks get it on the first plant and some have to try for a couple of generations. While growing you'll be dealing with "wet weight", leaf weight and plant stem weight, so when dried your yield will be smaller than 1 ounce. Four ounces sounds like a great compromise for that. ;) Not that I ever grew, I just new some talented "botanists" in my early 20s.

[ Parent ]
Good Introduction to the issue, +1, but... (none / 1) (#182)
by ClaimJumper on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 01:54:12 PM EST

The time is NOT ripe for a "national discussion" on the issue of marijuana legalization.  At a national level, I can hardly think of any issue that people would do as well to leave alone for awhile.  We have an administration that would legalize plantation slavery before backing down off of their hard-line stance on marijuana.

While I do agree that individual states and municipalities can and must continue to re-evaluate their drug laws, and hopefully decriminalize marijuana as much as possible, on the national level there are simply more pressing things to discuss now.

As for "an open and frank discussion on the subject":  Not in this country.  We have such a high proportion of religiously insane people here to make such a thing impossible.  Any attempt to talk rationally on the matter, outside of relatively intellectual milieus like K5 and other independent and/or progressive media, will be met only with bleated choruses from the likes of D.A.R.E.,  Dr. Phil, "Dr." Laura Scheiss-inger, and all manner of petty authoritarians like clergy, school principals, and bunk-ass "counselors" on how evil all drugs are.  Sane people will get shouted down and marginalized.

Anyway, hurrah for Denver, it's a step in the right direction, however symbolic.


if only (none / 1) (#213)
by zenofchai on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 04:17:35 PM EST

We have such a high proportion of religiously insane people here to make such a thing impossible.

If only we had Biblical references to drugs or alcohol to go on as to answering "What Would Jesus Do".

Oh wait.

He turned water into wine. Obviously pro-alcohol.

He turned only a few fishes and loaves of bread into enough food to feed a huge crowd. Obviously pro-reefer.

Moses and the burning bush, Elijah, Isaiah, and much later John the Baptist's visions... obviously pro-LSD.

Let me re-iterate: the dude turned water into wine for Chrissa--- for his own sake. This is not a man who thinks that a little mind alteration is necessarily a bad thing.
--
The K5 Interactive Political Compass SVG Graph
[ Parent ]

he's not pro reefer... (3.00 / 3) (#234)
by jonnyq on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 07:20:16 PM EST

He turned only a few fishes and loaves of bread into enough food to feed a huge crowd. Obviously pro-reefer.

You got that backwards. Changing a huge supply of fishes and loaves of bread into only enough food to feed one is pro reefer.

[ Parent ]
Um, you decidely lost me on that one. ROR/NT/$/¢ (none / 0) (#244)
by The Muffin on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 01:12:47 AM EST



- This is the end.
[ Parent ]
As in (none / 1) (#262)
by Sgt York on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 03:09:29 PM EST

the guy smoking weed would eat all of it, leaving only scraps. "Enough to feed a crowd into enough to feed just one"

Kinda roundabout, but it works.

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

Economic and criminal downside to legalization. (2.25 / 4) (#202)
by claes on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 03:34:41 PM EST

There are a lot of heavily-armed young men with little regard for the law that make a good living selling illegal drugs in our fair city. I shudder to think of where they would turn for employment should their main source of income become suddenly, due to decriminilization, unprofitable.

-- claes (100% serious)

Maybe they'd start paying attention in school... (none / 1) (#208)
by bighappyface on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 04:10:40 PM EST

...especially when their friends stopped dropping out/bringing guns to school in order to make  hundreds to thousands a week selling dope (which is disheartening when you're being called a 'sucker' for hitting your books and working fast food/at the mall for pocket money during high school in an attempt to get somewhere).

[ Parent ]
Crack dealing is a minimum wage job (3.00 / 2) (#286)
by kero on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 12:15:04 PM EST

At least according to Freakanomics only the head of the gang makes the real money, the kids with the crack don't make all that much and get the added bonus of possibly being killed to boot.

[ Parent ]
Quite Right (3.00 / 4) (#209)
by SeeDubya on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 04:14:02 PM EST

We must keep drugs illegal to allow the crack dealers to retain their gainful employment. Otherwise the whole economy might collapse.

[ Parent ]
And the prison industry... (3.00 / 2) (#214)
by bighappyface on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 04:20:39 PM EST

...there's a lot of profit based on cheap labor (ignoring the sexual abuse perpetrated on non-violent, otherwise non-criminal, defenseless drug users who are housed with murderers, gang lords, rapists, and sexual predators). That might put a dent in the economy too.

Or at least change the distribution of wealth a bit by reducing the extreme stratification present in the U.S.

[ Parent ]

well (none / 0) (#215)
by Altus on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 04:21:35 PM EST


perhaps we could do this the AMERICAN way and just give them all fat subsidies.

at least the people who grow dope would be in high demand...  RJR and company would be hiring up anyone who had run a large scale grow op.

 

"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
[ Parent ]

Uhh, yeah (none / 0) (#277)
by jungleboogie on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 01:35:14 AM EST

I've never met anyone who deals in pot and stays "heavily-armed", or armed at all for that matter.

[ Parent ]
Does a..? (none / 0) (#312)
by The Amazing Idiot on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 09:33:44 PM EST

Liquor store only sell beer?

[ Parent ]
Ruin the profitability of it... (none / 1) (#319)
by skyknight on Sat Nov 12, 2005 at 11:56:18 PM EST

and people will stop chasing the dream of being the next big drug lord. They might do something useful with themselves instead.

It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
It's a Quote from the comic Doonesbury (none / 0) (#243)
by A synx on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 12:38:52 AM EST

I know I'm in trouble when I 'get' obscure references people make to the champion of obscure references people don't get: Doonsebury.

marijuana should remain illegal (none / 0) (#250)
by the77x42 on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 03:13:27 AM EST

it's WAAY cheaper this way.


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

this depends (none / 1) (#268)
by zenofchai on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 04:53:08 PM EST

on whether you count the potential expense of court, jail, and your criminal record.
--
The K5 Interactive Political Compass SVG Graph
[ Parent ]
Not really (3.00 / 4) (#276)
by jungleboogie on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 01:32:08 AM EST

First of all, technically, you can grow it, so you only spend money on soil and maybe light. If it was legal, you could do this without fear of losing tens of thousands of dollars in court, or your life in a police raid. Second, if it was legal and people randomly grew it, it's likely that they would simply give it away. Shit, it would grow on trees, or something like that.

[ Parent ]
let me follow this up (none / 0) (#290)
by the77x42 on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 02:52:03 PM EST

The amount of weed I would possess if I ever got caught (which is so remote, the chances of my insurance going up from a car accident are more likely), would only result in a <$100 fine.

Weed would not be cheap if it were legalized. Governments would control it like any other drug. It wouldn't be growing on trees and given away, as another commenter posted. The shit would be taxed to death and only available in certain stores.

A months supply of T3 is much more expensive than a half ounce of ganja.


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

[ Parent ]

oops (none / 0) (#291)
by the77x42 on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 02:55:34 PM EST

A months supply of T3 is much more expensive than a half ounce of ganja.

i'll retract this seeing as how i don't have proof, and i'm quite possibly wrong.


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

[ Parent ]

t3 as in t3 or tylenol #3? (none / 0) (#295)
by Linux or FreeBSD on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 04:26:31 PM EST

lol

[ Parent ]
Yeah but if it were legal... (none / 0) (#311)
by bighappyface on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 12:20:35 PM EST

...we could grow it ourselves instead of buying it.

[ Parent ]
re: hard to tax (none / 0) (#317)
by That Guy From That Show on Sat Nov 12, 2005 at 01:05:04 AM EST

...we could grow it ourselves instead of buying it.

That's why they fear legalizing it. (Well, besides the fact that it supercedes many medications)

Tobacco: It takes a special climate and a large growing area to supply a customer.

Alcohol: Can be made anywhere but quality & quantity takes a lot of time that can't compete with large manufacturers.

Marijuana: Can be grown anywhere in the USA, and as long as a good seed or clone stock is selected, the only restrictions are Air, Nutrients, Light, and Water.

Which of the above are easily taxable and beyond the reach of the average person?

[ Parent ]
Wanna bet? n/t (none / 0) (#340)
by der on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 05:08:45 AM EST



[ Parent ]
MOD PARENT UP (none / 0) (#303)
by Armada on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 06:52:32 PM EST

As dealers, we need to fight the decriminalization of marijuana lest the government have a legitimate excuse to tax our transactions. Not only that, but then marijuana would be corporatized and we would no longer be able to profit from selling just small amounts of it.

Whoever voted this story up needs to be banned, I DEMAND YOU TAKE THIS STORY OFF THE FRONT PAGE RIGHT NOW!!!!

[ Parent ]

The nice thing about marijuana. (1.50 / 4) (#270)
by Baldrson on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 06:36:04 PM EST

The nice thing about marijuana is it is one of those leftist causes that demonstrates to leftists that theocracy is a two way street -- it isn't always the case that only the leftists get to tell everyone else what is right and wrong and then force them to behave accordingly with the help of the federal government.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


What are you talking about? (none / 1) (#316)
by tthomas48 on Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 05:30:02 PM EST

Are you stoned? A theocracy is a two way street? Not normally. Normally the church and government tell you what to do and you do it. What does this have to do with leftists? Leftists in the U.S. are generally not accused of being overly moral and telling others what to do. Are you referring to another country here?

[ Parent ]
Re: What are you talking about? (none / 1) (#346)
by mindHog on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 05:48:59 PM EST

Leftists in the US most certainly are accused of telling others what to do (if not of being overly moral).  Examples include environmentalism, anti-corporatism, political correctness, gun control, and social programs (which are effectively telling people what to do with their money).

If you truly want government out of people's lives, you are probably not a modern leftist, but rather a classical (pre-20th century) liberal, or what is now called a libertarian.

[ Parent ]

That's ridiculous... (none / 0) (#347)
by tthomas48 on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 12:42:17 PM EST

Every political party is about telling people what to do. Liberitarians, by saying that they want government out of people's lives must constantly tell people that "no they can't pass that law" and "no they can't pass that law". All forms of politics are about telling others what to do.

Whether you're mandating that people can smoke pot, or mandating that people are responsible enough to make their own decision, you are still making legislation that tells people what to do.

[ Parent ]

You're on the same drugs as Rush Limbaugh... (none / 1) (#318)
by catmatic on Sat Nov 12, 2005 at 01:37:17 AM EST

...aren't you?

[ Parent ]
i'm on the same drugs as rush limbaugh (none / 0) (#324)
by Linux or FreeBSD on Sun Nov 13, 2005 at 12:57:20 PM EST

and i don't think like tha

[ Parent ]
telling people what to do... (none / 0) (#321)
by skmch on Sun Nov 13, 2005 at 12:38:11 AM EST

And the leftists aren't telling everyone else what is right and wrong and asking for force from the federal govt with marijuana legistlation either. They just want the right wingers to stop doing exactly that.


[ Parent ]
Bah (none / 0) (#274)
by mrcsparker on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 11:48:37 PM EST

Texas has pretty good weed laws also. Too bad I no longer can smoke on account that it makes me paranoid as hell. During college I had no trouble smoking. Anyone else?

THC & paranoia (none / 0) (#333)
by ldillon on Fri Nov 18, 2005 at 11:23:40 AM EST

Try St. John's Wart. You have to take it for two weeks to a month so it can build up in your system before it will have an effect. It's cheap and you can find it in any health food store and many supermarkets. It may make you more sensitive to bright lights. But this isn't much of a problem as many stoners wear sunglasses all the time anyway.

[ Parent ]
Denver city not the first, State of Alaska is (3.00 / 3) (#275)
by jungleboogie on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 01:27:42 AM EST

Alaska rocks! It was declared legal in Alaska, up to 4 ounces. This was due to the strong privacy provisions in the Alaskan constitution. People challenged the court to say, basically, if it's for personal use, how can it be illegal since the police have basically no legal right in Alaska to search you? So, "personal use" was defined as up to 4 ounces. I can just imagine the conversation that happened in the legislature. "So, is one ounce OK?" "Well, I was thinking four ounces myself."

In any event, the legalization was put up for a vote in 1990 and was shot down by a very small majority (and a significant anti-drug lobbying effort.) The Marijuana Policy Project, the only pro-pot lobby in DC, fought the 1990 change. In 2004/2005 they went into court and basically said that the way that the pot law was changed was itself unconstitutional, due to the privacy provision. A judge agreed with them in 2005 and said that if the people want to change the privacy provision, they have to do it through an amendment of the Alaskan constitution.

The net change is that pot is once again legal in the state of Alaska. The State Attorney General's Office vowed to fight the change and legislate against pot. The Marijuana Policy Project used their funds to initiate a strong lobbying effort which kept them from doing anything, so much so that the State AG isn't even putting marijuana criminalization on the agenda for next term. In all honesty, alcoholism is such a serious problem in Alaska that changes like this net a highly positive effect. It's a much better substance for people to (ab)use than alcohol.

Lord no (none / 0) (#309)
by redeye on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 07:24:59 AM EST

Is the legalization of marijuana at the federal level now within our reach?

I hope not, I really do.

The world suffers enough at the hands of America without ya'll running around in the depths of paranoia.

Well, even more paranoid that you already are...

Harrison Act (none / 1) (#310)
by cazbot on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 10:01:29 AM EST

"Prohibition: Drugs can ruin lives. This is true, especially the harder drugs (as cts so loudly informs us...). To use the morphine as an example again, roughly 1% of the US population was addicted to morphine around the turn of the century (primarily white, middle class housewives). This is no longer the case, given the legal restrictions imposed by the Harrison Act" Oh ya, that Harrison Act worked wonderfully didn't it? No more morphine addicts, just heroin, opium, and oxycontin addicts. Kepp up the good work Harrison Act! You are a moron to cast the reduction of morphine addicts as a "pro" for prohibition. All the Harrison Act achieved was the creation of a market for heroin. Prohibtion is not the ultimate form of regulation, it is in fact, the ultimate abdication of regulation as it only serves to put markets into the hands of criminals who are beyond regulation.
Seriously, I'm just procrastinating.
Ask the doctor; get a perscription or a job (none / 0) (#350)
by areubenb on Wed Dec 07, 2005 at 06:26:30 PM EST

I'm sorry but some ignorant people piss me off. I can not take any criticism from anyone who does not take, try, or have any clue about this issue. You are taught that air pollution is bad for you so anyone that is against this type of law to be passed should have to walk or ride a bike everywhere. I am not trying to be a hippie I am trying to be real with anyone who disagrees. I can only say that many things change for the good when a person can keep on the honest side about a minor recreational habit. Secrets and paranoia are increased when a society takes a minor detail of your personal not criminal life and make you feel like less of a person; it is not me that thought that up it was you who put that idea in my head and don't forget the next time you drain the bottle becuase who blackouts me or you. Remember that most of the research and statistics are done here in the United States of America. Take the secret away and see the results. Now since it is an open issue we can try things but give it some time and thought about the fact of pedeling a bike everyday and you will feel my pain. My brain explodes with paranoia because of people like you not because of a drug. I'm happy in comfortable situations but in places where you make me feel like a criminal I cognitively feel like one. First there should be regulations but it should not be that hard to just enjoy a high once in a while. If a doctor says that you would benefit from the drug then do it but in our society how do you do that. Give me a break or a bike I guess but our future and society can not keep on doing this to each other. There are a lot of things to be happy about and too many to be unhappy about right now. Lighten up and save yourself the embaressment of ignorance before you forget we live in a free country. Now yes there are worse drugs out there but where did this feeling of already being a druggy come from. I don't mean to preach but you must not have a clue or someone lied to you about what was really wrong and blamed on a leaf. Smoke this and think twice when you hear of some one smoking cannibus sativa because you are a culure that decides its own fate so leave mine alone and I will be fine. Shit do this and I might quit but keep up the criticism and penalties and I have no choice but to take this side of the story because I am not going to ever deny some one there rights but try to confront them so that we become an honest culture. These kind of laws have taught me to lie and that creates more problems than the truth. Shit the honest truth is that we can tax it, regulate it, and make sure that no one gets hurt along the way if we are allowed to bring both sides together and you won't worry and I won't care. I feel ya so sit in my shoes and you might come to compromise an idea that will save both of us. Most of this is directed at a person that is in denial of being anal about life and people like myself.

whom came up with addicted- a dick did (none / 0) (#351)
by areubenb on Fri Dec 09, 2005 at 12:00:21 AM EST

laugh and try to be real

federal law? (none / 0) (#353)
by user 956 on Wed Dec 28, 2005 at 07:31:21 AM EST

On November 2, the residents of Denver, Colorado passed the Alcohol-Marijuana Equalization Initiative. With 100% of precincts reporting, the final tally for the vote was 56,001 YES votes to 48,632 NO votes, approximately 54% - 46%.

So where does federal law come into play? I know when they passed medical marijuana in Califoria, it was overruled due to federal stimulus already in place.
---

Top Chuck Norris Facts.

(lazy sunday)
Denver Legalizes the Reefer | 353 comments (350 topical, 3 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!