As far as the "war on drugs" goes

Search

"The Real Original Rx. Borat"
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,882
Tokens
Think about this. I live in Massachussets and all I keep heaing about is the purity and price of heroin in the local papers. Purity is way up, price is way down. The only explenation for this with all the security measures other than South American drug lords shifting focus is the following.
There are only so many good jobs out there. If someone or even a whole generation is on drugs then they can blame that for not finding meaningful work. If no one was on drugs and all these addicts finished college and were trying to find work what would happen? They wouldn't be able to and the unemployment rate would further increase. I think it is a way for the government to raise billions of dollars while at the same time. They are allowing this to happen because untold millions "have no one to blame but themselves" There would be chaos if everyone tried to compete for the scarce jobs that exist.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
735
Tokens
Alex, you make a damn good point.
applaudit.gif
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
"its survival of the fittest and the 'less' fit will eventually OD."

B: In fact, if we were to end Prohibition, the number of fatal overdoses would plummet.

Nearly all overdoses, fatal or not, occur because the user does not have accurate information about what they are ingesting and/or the purity level.

Even with the insanity of Prohibition, deaths caused by currently illicit drugs are a fraction of those deaths caused by the legal drugs alcohol, tobacco and pharmacueticals.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
735
Tokens
barman,

My uncle OD'd on hydromorphone. He knew what he was taking. The problem was he built a tolerance for the drug and had to consume more just to combat withdrawal. Towards the end he said he didn't even enjoy it anymore. He could have been lying I don't know. He looked terrible. I won't go into my aunt's problems. Luckily, she sobered up before it was too late. Her kids are already going down the same path.

Again, I realize you want drugs to be legal but can you at least admit that there's a lot of people that can't handle the pressure of taking drugs?

I also believe that any smoke can increase your chances of cancer (marijuana or tobacco). My grandfather smoked until he died which was approximately 61 years. Even after his quadruple bypass he smoked much to the chagrin of his doctors. I figure he was the exception not the rule.
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
UMB: My uncle OD'd on hydromorphone. He knew what he was taking.

B: I'm sorry for your loss. Note that I stated 'most' overdoses are due to the user not having accurate information about what they are ingesting.

UMB: The problem was he built a tolerance for the drug and had to consume more just to combat withdrawal.

B: That's not uncommon.

U: Towards the end he said he didn't even enjoy it anymore. He could have been lying I don't know. He looked terrible.

B: I bet he wasn't lying. My own experience using destructive drugs (alcohol and cocaine....clean from both since 1993 and 1995 respectively) and my experiences working with recovering drug abusers has taught me that the 'enjoyment' part of use quickly dissipates. It happens quickest with opiate users like your uncle.

U: Again, I realize you want drugs to be legal but can you at least admit that there's a lot of people that can't handle the pressure of taking drugs?

B: I can absolutely admit that. Most information we have provides good evidence that between 8-12% of people who use drugs for 'recreational' purposes develop problems that can alter their use to AB-use. It's urgent that we create and promote programs and services which are accessible to these people if they want it.

How we deal with alcohol abusers is a reasonable example.

We acknowledge that a percentage of alchol users will have problems.

We promote and encourage programs and services which help alcohol abusers amend their behavior and choices.

What we do NOT do, since it would be more destructive, is arrest and cage every person who is caught in possession of alcohol.

Additionally, we force responsibility (also noted in the other thread) by not allowing people to commit other crimes against persons or property and then to use their drunken state as a defense.
~~~~~~~~~
What I AM promoting is the message that Prohibition exacerbates these problems.

As a society we, via the current laws in place as passed by our elected representatives, we spend close to $100 billion per year on 'drug policy' related laws. Over 80% of that money is used to arrest, prosecute and cage drug users. Less than 20% is used to provide drug treatment and related programs which can help an AB-user modify their behavior and adopt a more functional lifestyle.

When we add the facts I mentioned in the other thread about how Prohibition empowers criminal drug dealers, gangs and cartels, it's clear that Prohibition is a disaster.

Remember, you need not endorse, condone or use currently illicit drugs to acknowledge the failure of Prohibition. In fact, you can if you wish promote total abstinence via whatever educational information you wish to use.

What you don't have to do is support a policy which cages otherwise law-abiding adults simply because they elect to use drugs other than government-approved tobacco and alcohol.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
735
Tokens
I got to thinking about it, and man is my family screwed up. One thing I can say is that we don't have even 1 alcoholic in the family. I guess it's a start.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,228
Tokens
Many of the deaths associated with intravenous drug use(injecting) are directly associated with the crap that the pure heroin gets cut with.
Flour, talcum powder and god knows what else.

The Dutch have a program where addicts get the proper stuff, instead of the street crap, and they have addicts with over 20 years of heroin use.(The longest surviving addicts in the world apparently.)
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,228
Tokens
Had a wee think about which side I would fall on if I had to choose and I tend towards the keep it illegal camp.

Reasons:
There are a huge number of deaths and related problems to those drugs that ARE legalised.
Specifically Alchohol and Smoking.

Legalised opium in China, was a disaster of history making proportions.
Around 3% of the population were hard drug users at the time of legalisation.(12 million people) and that's just a single potent drug.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/haywardlad/chinaopium.html

I think that too many people would be unable to cope, and wind up becoming addicted.

After legalisation, it was downhill all the way, until around 50% of the population were habitual users.(200 million...)

Then, in 1906, the incredible happened. After over a hundred years of steady demoralization, with half her population opium addicts, or worse still, making enormous profits out of the trade, China determined to give up opium. In all history, no nation has ever set itself such a gigantic task, with such a gigantic handicap.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/om/om15.htm

[This message was edited by eek on April 09, 2004 at 06:34 AM.]
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
First to EEK, I would kindly disagree and suggest that a significant difference between your cited example and today is just that...it's today, a century later. There's more than enough accurate information out there to help motivate people to either abstain or to be much more careful and selective in how they use drugs of any kind. Additionally, we have substansial resources and education available to help those who might get in trouble make the move back towards health.

Thus my strong promotion of ending criminal Prohibition and rechanneling those funds into even MORE accurate education information and distribution, combined with huge increases in help for anyone who wants it on demand.

A2345, can you comment on the changes in England during the past 18 months or so with regard to how the police are dealing with cannabis law enforcement?

Second, do you have any comment on the attempts to open cannabis cafes within England, most notably Colin Davies shops?
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
UMBags, I think a close perusal of most family trees turns up more than a few stories....Kind of humbling if you think about it. We should all write a book, with fake names of course...heh
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,228
Tokens
I don't mind dope cafes being opened, but its likely to be the thin edge of the wedge.

(In a referendum, I would vote no, but I can live with it if it happens.)

They will find it hard to operate at the start though, the polis will be all over them like a rash.
The owners will probaly be subject to some pretty close 'scrutiny' too.
Within a few days they'll get raided, all the stock will be confiscated as 'evidence' and then when no charges are brought x months later it will be returned, after the administrative 'holdups' and 'delays'.

They did the same thing with adult sex shops when they first appeared here years ago.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
844
Tokens
Quite a sensible and liberal approach being adopted in Britain, in my opinion. Still a bit far away from legalisation though but getting there...eventually. I believe the way forward is to adopt Amsterdam-style coffee shops, I have been there and I must say that the system works well; logic would dictate that if responsble reasonable adults want to engage in an unhealthy activity that does not harm anybody else (not much different to smoking or eating a fatty hamburger) they whould be more than welcome to and it is not up to the State to dictate otherwise. The only thing about Amsterdam that bothers is that it is notorious for harder drugs and pushy dealers on the street - I must have been offered cocaine, heroin, crack, ecstacy at least 100 times in the 4 days I was there.

-----------------------------------------------
BBC NEWS

Cannabis is to be reclassified as a less dangerous drug to free-up police resources to fight hard such as heroin and cocaine, Home Secretary David Blunkett has announced.
He unveiled the controversial measure in the House of Commons just hours after the government's former "drugs czar" Keith Hellawell said he had quit his role as a government adviser in protest.

It came shortly after Tony Blair defended the move during prime minister's question time.

Mr Blunkett also announced that the controversial cannabis experiment, currently under way in London's Brixton, would be extended across London.

The decision to reclassify cannabis was in response to a report by MPs arguing that drugs policy should focus on tackling the problems caused by heroin addicts.

'Drugs are dangerous'

The change will put cannabis on a par with anti-depressants and steroids. Possession of small amounts would no longer be considered an arrestable offence.

Mr Blunkett countered suggestions that he was going "soft on drugs" by saying police would retain the power to arrest marijuana users in certain "aggravated" cases, such as when the drug is smoked near children.



We will not legalise or decriminalise any drugs, nor do we envisage a time when this will be appropriate

David Blunkett
He raised the maximum sentence for dealers of class B and C drugs from five years to 14 years

An education campaign will be launched, targeted at young people and emphasising that "all drugs are harmful and class A drugs are killers".

"There will be an increasing focus on class A drugs," the home secretary said.

No legalisation

"The message is clear - drugs are dangerous. We will educate, persuade and where necessary, direct young people away from their use.

"We will not legalise or decriminalise any drugs, nor do we envisage a time when this will be appropriate."

Mr Blunkett placed heavy emphasis on the importance of drug treatment.

The committee recommended moving Ecstasy from class A to B, but Mr Blunkett rejected this, stressing: "It kills".

"I will seek to reclassify cannabis as a class C drug by July of next year."

'Muddled, dangerous policy'

"Cannabis possession remains a criminal offence. I am determined that the police are able to control the streets and uphold order," he said.

But shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin criticised the reclassification, warning that Mr Blunkett was handing control of cannabis to dealers.

The idea proposed by Mr Blunkett was a "muddled, dangerous policy" and would lead to an "open season for drug peddlers", he said.

Roger Howard, chief executive of DrugScope, welcomed the measure but warned that the arrest powers in "aggravated" cases might "sow confusion in people's minds".

Mr Blunkett said the Association of Chief Police Officers would shortly issue national guidance that in the vast majority of cases "officers will confiscate the drugs and use warnings".

Shooting galleries

He stressed: "Police time saved will be refocused on class A drugs."

The government signalled its intention to downgrade cannabis last October.

Since then, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, comprising medical experts, and the all-party select committee have both backed the idea.

On other drugs Mr Blunkett said he accepted that expansion of "managed" prescriptions for heroin users will be necessary.

But he was not persuaded by the argument for "shooting galleries" - places where people take hard drugs in a safe environment.

'Damage communities'

"We will clamp down on the dealers who prey on the young," he said.

Earlier, former "drugs czar" Keith Hellawell said he handed in his notice in protest at plans to move cannabis to a lower category.

He launched a stinging attack on the proposals, which he claims will damage communities and lead to more drug use.

But the Home Office insisted Mr Hellawell supported the move when it was first floated last year.

Mr Hellawell, meanwhile, says he had made his reservations known to Mr Blunkett at a meeting last autumn.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,214
Messages
13,565,510
Members
100,767
Latest member
mccollochsrv
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com