RE: Drug Legalization

RE: Drug Legalization (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

thompsonx -> RE: Drug Legalization (7/7/2007 8:44:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx As for crack ....please explain why anyone would use it if cocaine were legal. Because cocaine has more intense effects when smoked. Users were free-basing long before anybody ever called the prepared nuggets 'crack.' Rich: Crack and free base are not the same thing. Crack is to free base as raw sewage is to pure water. There is a reason for the bumper sticker that says "crack kills" Crack is an impure and highly adulterated form of cocaine. thompson quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Legalization will solve the impurites and adulteration issues. Some will continue to choose to smoke their coke. Personally, I've heard the leaves brew into a mighty invigorating tea. To each their own. I've been reading this thread and clearly some of the opinions presented here regarding legalization of drugs come from people who have no firsthand experience with what exactly these drugs do to people compared to alchocol and tobacco. When I was a teenager and was into the whole "Rave" thing, I experimented with a lot of drugs. Marijuana was the only thing I did on a consistant basis. Everything else I tried on a "one time" basis, because I simply curious. This includes crack and freebased cocaine. A "Curiousiy kills the cat" kind of thing now that I reflect back on my life and the experiences. The experiences are essentially the same. Both produce the same effects. Crack is just a hell of a lot more powerful. Both still create "the itch", the craving and desire for more and more and more. The itch from freebase coccaine is just easier to resist. Regardless, because of this, both crack and freebased serve no other purpose than to get people addicted and keep them coming back for more. You can have one drink of alchocol and very easily walk away from it the rest of your life. You freebase coccaine or smoke crack one time and thats all it takes for that "itch" to start. Both experiences were incredibly hard to walk away from and never do again in accordance with my "one time and never again" contigency I had created for myself. The idea that legalizing coccaine will solve the crack problem is just unrealistic. Crack started because people freebasing coccaine wanted a better and more convient product. People will just take the more easily available coccaine and use it to create crack. Why? Because the difference between crack and free base coccaine is the adulterization. You light up, hit the pipe, and the product goes coursing threw your bloodstream straight to your brain. The concentration of crack means that you get a much higher and potent dose straight into your blood stream, which makes a better high. Both highs only last about ten to fifteen minutes and then wear off, being replaced with the "cracked out" fealing and "the itch". Because of time constraints, you cant ever get as good or as pure of a high with freebase coccaine that you can with crack because it takes a hell of a lot longer to get the substance into your body. Because of this, crack wont just disapear because people can legally freebase coccaine. Regardless, legalizing it and allowing corporations is a form of corruption that makes tobbaco companies look like the Red Cross. Both crack and freebase coccaine exist to be get people fucked up, get them addicted, and get them coming back for more. People can drink alchocol without becoming instantly addicted and habitual about it. They can drink it in moderation without any real loss of coherence. Tobacco has just as powerful of addiction as crack and free base coccaine, but it doesnt affect your coherence and it certainly doesnt put people out on the street. Crack and free base coccaine are all this rolled into one. A company legaling selling it is ethically repulsive far beyond that of tobbaco companies. I advocate sending drug offenders and users to clinics as opposed to jail and strengthing the social contigencies regarding the harmful effects of their use like we have done with cigarettes. I advocate us taking less focus off fighting the drugs and more focus on getting people off them. The reason why I dont do any of these drugs anymore has nothing to do with who sells them. It has to do with firsthand experiences with what they do and the consequences of the behaviors...something that does not get enough publicity. Knowledge that I acquired threw hard knocks because wasnt provided by social contigencies. One night in a neighborhood destroyed by crack, one look at the teeth of a meth user, one day in the apartment of heroine addicts, and watching the mental reprucissions of exstacy on myself and my friends is what has created my strong hatred for drugs and reinforced my contigencies against using them. We dont need commercials with catchy slogans or scientifc lectures on the effects of narcotics. We need images and pictures of the things I've listed above plastered everywhere. Finnaly, given my personal first hand experiences with how these drugs actually work and what they have done to many people I have known, the idea of allowing companies to sell for an actual profit is repugnant and is only creating a new form of corruption. Marijuana? Sure. But anything outside of that, its just a bad idea in my opinion. MadRabbit: This is pretty much what "Refer Madness"had to say..."one puff and you are hooked for life" Even in high school you would get an F both for your chemistry and your spelling. TYFSASAKM thompson

uwinceismile -> RE: Drug Legalization (7/7/2007 8:55:20 PM)
lighthearted: Is it possible that the problems these two individuals caused was because they were assholes and not because of the drugs they used? thompson id say that was more then a lil uncalled for..im sorry :) it was a lot uncalled for,,mr. thompson, i took the liberty of perusing your profile . please explain to me why a man of obvious intelligence, would call a woman he doesnt know family members assholes? surely you can make your point here , and have done so well i think, with out stooping so low as a personal attack on people who arent even here? perhaps a genuine apology?

Sinergy -> RE: Drug Legalization (7/7/2007 9:00:25 PM)
Not surprised, really. The person is one of those people afflicted by the "Im an expert on X, which automatically qualifies me as an expert on everything." On a related note, I was a participant in a study on alcohol and driving. I got to get liquored up and drive a simulator. After about 9 shots of whiskey, all I wanted to do was mow down pedestrians as fast as the simulator would go. They paid for my taxi ride home. Sinergy

uwinceismile -> RE: Drug Legalization (7/7/2007 9:03:28 PM)
I read recently that something like 70% of the people in the slammer are there on drug related charges. Think of the savings to the tax payers if we needed 70% less jail space, 70% fewer prison guards,70% fewer judges and prosecutors. Think of how safe the streets might be if the cops had 70% more time to devote to real crime instead of busting some one doing dope. i have no issue with people who are in jail due to smoking reefer being released in all honesty.... but drug related charges,,,i seriously doubt that 70% of folks in lock up are there for getting high.... im sure that many were high when they robbed , killed , raped ect,,, and i certainly wouldnt want them released ..period! so ur 70% figure is more then a lil misleading my friend :)

Sinergy -> RE: Drug Legalization (7/7/2007 9:05:31 PM)
It was specifically targetted to study teen alcohol use. It was actually an interesting gig when I was 19, I got my parents to sign the waiver allowing me to be involved. Wont say it was the best $120 I ever made, but probably is up in the top 20. Sinergy

MadRabbit -> RE: Drug Legalization (7/7/2007 9:11:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Greetings MadRabbit, Did you miss the point that with decriminalizing drugs, you then use the money saved from incarceration and court costs, and put it in to well funded education and treatment programs? Having them illegal will never rid us of the people who want to do them. The first time and hooked thing is bullshit, there may be an itch but it is a psychological problem with that person, they could just as easily get addicted to gambling. Nope. Its not bullshit at all. I know plenty of people who have never had any addiction issues with regards to gambling and alchocol and started smoking crack and they just spiraled down. Did I say that someone who smokes crack will instantly get hooked on the first time? Nope. However, there is powerful things associated with it and I am speaking from personal experience as much as I hate it. You want more, you crave more, you need more. You gotta have more. And months later, after smoking it just one time, by random chance, I ended up in a situation where I was in the prescense of crack. Just seeing it brought back the same desire, that same itch to smoke it. And quite a few people have had this shared experience. quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf The crack versus freebase thing is bullshit. I would post the facts, but then that would be providing information towards a criminal enterprise, which these boards would not allow. Crack was created so that you could use alot less cocaine, with less purity, to get a short term potent effect. That same potent effect happens with freebase. Anything else is just the toxins in the crack depriving your brain of oxygen. Try talking to an organic chemist about it, and they will let you know the facts. And thats exactly what I said, more or less. I said you can smoke a hell of a lot less crack and get a much better high than you would threw smoking coccaine freebase. I also said they are essentially the same effect. And smoking crack was a hell of a lot better than any amount of freebase coccaine. quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf It is emotional and unimformed, or misinformed, thinking such as yours that will guarantee that there will always be a high percentage of drug users, full prisons with non-violent offenders and organized crime will continue to reap the rewards (along with the prison and anti-drug industries). Orion The reasons why my friends and I did drugs were the same reasons we smoked cigarettes and drank all the time. Lack of education and lack of social contigencies. We had the facts, the scientific studies, the stupid commericials, the lectures, but these were just bullshit to us. We had no real consequences associated with our behavior. As we had our experiences and the consequences of our behavior became real, we changed. The majority of the people I knew were doing drugs with me have since then stopped and loathe them. They've been to rehab, they've gotten their shit together, and they've picked up the peices. In my opinion and my life experiences, the drug problem has to do with a lack of education and poor social contigencies. The legalization of tobbacco has little bearing on whether people smoke or not. The hard work people have done educating people and creating contigencies that bring the consequences of their behavior to their attention. Yet amazingly, a lot of people still smoke and amazingly I cant think of a single person who wasnt into drugs who didnt smoke. I will agree the issue is better education, but making drugs easily available when the social contigencies and education are still so bad is only going to make the problem worse. The end result will be that drugs will be just as easy to get as cigarettes and people's addictions will only get worse. The notion that drugs are so easy to get is rather false. It actually takes a lot of work and isnt a guarenteed thing. Thats why people call it "scoring". And the many nights we couldnt find marijuana or coccaine, we just went and got what was readily available which was alchocol and got wasted off that. If they were easily available, then we simply wont have had to result to our second hand choices. People who preach about legalization drugs only bring the promise that education and social contigencies will be repaired. My opinion and viewpoint comes from how deterimental it will be to people who actually have drug problems if suddenly overnight they had an easily available source. Further more, by legalizing them, you are removing the main reinforcement that keeps people from actually doing drugs...prison and arent providing anything else. Prison has provided a huge incentive to many people I know to go sober. The people who went to prison and got out all had the same enlightening experience. They promised to "quit" and get their shit straight, but the ones who eventually back to drugs did so because of resumed exposure to their old bad enviroment and the fading of the consequence imposed by prison. The issue is the enviroments created by bad education and contigencies. Legalizing drugs WITHOUT fixing the enviroments is just going to make things a hell of a lot worse. More fuel to the fire with only the promise of throwing water on it...eventually. We have yet to create contigencies and education that keep the millions of people from smoking. What makes you think that will eventually be able to do it with drugs so that things actually get better and not worse because of the easily available supply? However, my opinion is one I am always willing to revise if people will provide arguments to it besides insulting my spellings.

uwinceismile -> RE: Drug Legalization (7/7/2007 9:11:49 PM)
i have a "side" question if u folks will allow? i see the word addict...and addiction being used here often.... what do you think makes an addict an addict? and why will easier access make him/her better ? thank u again

thompsonx -> RE: Drug Legalization (7/7/2007 9:14:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HaveRopeWillBind quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: HaveRopeWillBind Okay, so drugs are legalized and as you are getting on an airliner and you glance in the flight deck and see both pilot and copilot burning rocks. Do you stay on the plane or get off? If you get off then no matter what you may think you really are not for legalization. HaveRopeWillBind: It is illegal to pilot a commercial airliner impaired. It makes no difference what the source of the impairment is. If you are referring to "burning rocks" as doing crack cocaine then I would question your knowledge of what you are talking about. That is the equivalent to drinking raw sewage as opposed to pure water. No one who had access to pure and inexpensive cocaine would ever even think of doing crack. thompson Thompson, I chose crack for example because it happens to be a currently readily available illegal drug and because I have personal experience with a neighbor whose life was destroyed by using it. But don't think it would go away if drugs were legalized, more likely Phillip Morris or RJ Reynolds would be offering it in a nicely purified and cutely packaged form. That of course would not alter it's damaging effect. Now you are quite right that it is illegal for a pilot to be impaired. It's also illegal for the driver of a surface vehicle to be impaired, yet as with most laws, those who choose to use drugs feel the laws do not apply to themselves. People drive impaired every day. So what makes you think pilots would be any different if street drugs became legal? A thought on the concept of taxing these drugs. It's true that legalizing currently illegal drugs could in theory provide a new source of tax revenue. But there would be huge losses of productivity in industry which would cause loss of tax revenue. There would also be a lot more unemployment as employers fired those who consistently arrived at work under the influence. Those people would then not be paying income tax and would be using up public funds instead. In the long run legalization would likely amount to a loss of overall revenue. HaveRopeWillBind: I am going to make a generalization here...Crack is used primarily by poor people while those who can afford the more expensive cocaine will not use crack. I would be the first to agree that there is always the exception. The exception is not the point of this discussion. Crack by its very nature is an adulterated substance that is used primarily by those who cannot afford unadulterated cocaine. So the argument that if all drugs were legal that some corporation would package clean crack is not a valid premis...it is a lot like saying someone would package clean raw sewage and sell it in competition with pure water ...it is just a non sequeter. The same is true of methamphetamine...if all drugs were made legal there would be no market for methamphetimine. Why would someone use something that would hurt them as opposed to something that gave them the same "high" without the negative side effects. What any pilot does is not my business but rather the FAA. It makes no difference what the source of impairment is, if you are impaired you are not allowed to fly. You seem to have missed the often stated point of some of my post in this thread. I am not in favor of taxing drugs...I am a fiscal conservative and do not believe in just taxing something because it is there. The government has more than enough money. They just need to be more prudent in spending it. As I have stated before those who do drugs will not stop using drugs because there are laws against it. Likewise those who do not do drugs will not start because they are legal. So your argument about lost productivity is really non issues. The real savings to the taxpayers comes from the 70% of the prison population that is incarcerated because of drug related crimes. The 70% of judges and prosecutors who prosecute these cases. The 70% of prison guards who guard these people. The 70% of police officers who would be freed up to chase down real criminals. It is instructive to note that it is the unions for the above named entities who most strongly oppose legalizing drugs...kind of a job security thing. thompson

HaveRopeWillBind -> RE: Drug Legalization (7/7/2007 9:15:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Not surprised, really. The person is one of those people afflicted by the "Im an expert on X, which automatically qualifies me as an expert on everything." On a related note, I was a participant in a study on alcohol and driving. I got to get liquored up and drive a simulator. After about 9 shots of whiskey, all I wanted to do was mow down pedestrians as fast as the simulator would go. They paid for my taxi ride home. Sinergy Sounds like an early version of Grand Theft Auto.

MadRabbit -> RE: Drug Legalization (7/7/2007 9:15:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx MadRabbit: This is pretty much what "Refer Madness"had to say..."one puff and you are hooked for life" Even in high school you would get an F both for your chemistry and your spelling. TYFSASAKM thompson Your taking what I am saying and applying it to some silly absolute. I never said one hit and your hooked. If that was the case, I should be a raving crackhead. The point was that the addictiveness of the drug isnt completely psychological.

Sinergy -> RE: Drug Legalization (7/7/2007 9:31:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HaveRopeWillBind quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Not surprised, really. The person is one of those people afflicted by the "Im an expert on X, which automatically qualifies me as an expert on everything." On a related note, I was a participant in a study on alcohol and driving. I got to get liquored up and drive a simulator. After about 9 shots of whiskey, all I wanted to do was mow down pedestrians as fast as the simulator would go. They paid for my taxi ride home. Sinergy Sounds like an early version of Grand Theft Auto. Carmageddon, dude. You ever get paid to play? Sinergy

Sinergy -> RE: Drug Legalization (7/7/2007 9:32:46 PM)
On a related note, one of my computer gigs allowed me to download a virtual computer under Linux, install Windows XP, install Carmageddon, and mow down pedestrians at will. My favorite was taking them out by knocking trashcans into them. Sinergy

uwinceismile -> RE: Drug Legalization (7/7/2007 9:34:34 PM)
hey sinergy,,, too effing funny bro lolOn a related note, I was a participant in a study on alcohol and driving. I got to get liquored up and drive a simulator. After about 9 shots of whiskey, all I wanted to do was mow down pedestrians as fast as the simulator would go. They paid for my taxi ride home. Sinergy

uwinceismile -> RE: Drug Legalization (7/7/2007 9:37:31 PM)
btw, i clearly dont have the whole (cut and paste) thing down yet ;)

HaveRopeWillBind -> RE: Drug Legalization (7/7/2007 9:37:50 PM)
Thompson, In a sense the people making and distributing crack right now are an industry. Like any industry they make it only because there is a demand for the product, if not they would move to something else. If there were a demand for sewer-water someone would be providing it. If crack were to be legalized it would simply be made in a better form by bigger industries who would see a chance to make a profit due to a current demand. Of course there would be other choices as well, but don't be too trusting in big business to only produce "good" drugs. The tax paragraph wasn't really directed at you as much as all who have been following this thread. I did see that you are not for taxation of drugs, but then again we can be fairly certain that if they are legalized the government will levy heavy taxes on them just as for other recreational drugs already legal. If you believe there would be no loss of productivity you should take a look at industrial productivity figures for the Netherlands from before and after their legalization of recreational drugs. They did have a considerable drop over time. Of course productivity has a lot of factors but in that case the legalization of drugs there seems to have a clear cause and effect scenario. I would be certain that US productivity would have dropped considerably if we had legalized drugs in the 60's, but now we have sent so many jobs out of the country I'm not sure if it would affect the industrial figures as much. It would likely affect office productivity. After all it's hard to concentrate on the quarterly report when you are feeling mellow and have a bad case of the munchies. You may be right about police unions and courts not wanting to lose the drug business, but that's probably shortsighted on their parts. If they didn't have drug laws to enforce they could always stay busy enforcing traffic and immigration laws.

Sinergy -> RE: Drug Legalization (7/7/2007 9:38:49 PM)
The part that I started to really doubt my sanity was when I installed Linux, virtual computer, Windoze XP pro, virtual computer, Linux... Then did a performance analysis of the system in the parent operating system. I was under the impression that 20 gig of RAM would support it. Was I ever wrong. Sinergy

HaveRopeWillBind -> RE: Drug Legalization (7/7/2007 10:01:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy The part that I started to really doubt my sanity was when I installed Linux, virtual computer, Windoze XP pro, virtual computer, Linux... Then did a performance analysis of the system in the parent operating system. I was under the impression that 20 gig of RAM would support it. Was I ever wrong. Sinergy Sinergy, I know this is a bit off topic for the thread, but with Virtual OS's becoming more and more available and user friendly I think it won't be long before people start talking about having RAM on a terabyte level.

thompsonx -> RE: Drug Legalization (7/7/2007 10:05:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HaveRopeWillBind Thompson, In a sense the people making and distributing crack right now are an industry. Like any industry they make it only because there is a demand for the product, if not they would move to something else. If there were a demand for sewer-water someone would be providing it. If crack were to be legalized it would simply be made in a better form by bigger industries who would see a chance to make a profit due to a current demand. Of course there would be other choices as well, but don't be too trusting in big business to only produce "good" drugs. I do not understand why I am having such a difficult time making myself understood on this matter. You are an airplane driver...you know that you can run a jet engine on diesel fuel but it has a lot of negative side effects but it is way cheaper than JP 5. You use it because you cannot afford JP 5. Now along comes a change in policy and you can buy JP 5 for the same price as diesel fuel you would of course use the JP 5 and never again use diesel fuel. No mater what label you put on number 2 diesel it will always conform to the formula for #2 diesel and will never be as good as JP 5. ( I chose JP 5 for this example because that was the highest grade of ATF that was available the last time I had anything to do with aircraft fuels...I am unaware what the current top level ATF is if it is not JP 5) My analogy is that if pure cocaine is the same price as crack no one will buy crack. If pure cocaine is the same price as methamphetamine no one will buy methamphetamine. The tax paragraph wasn't really directed at you as much as all who have been following this thread. I did see that you are not for taxation of drugs, but then again we can be fairly certain that if they are legalized the government will levy heavy taxes on them just as for other recreational drugs already legal. As previously mentioned ...coffee,tea and chocolate are recreational drugs and they are not taxed. My thoughts are that those who keep pimping the tax angle for legalizing drugs are just plane wrong....legalizing a substance just so the government can tax it is not a valid reason for doing so. If you believe there would be no loss of productivity you should take a look at industrial productivity figures for the Netherlands from before and after their legalization of recreational drugs. They did have a considerable drop over time. Of course productivity has a lot of factors but in that case the legalization of drugs there seems to have a clear cause and effect scenario. Until you can provide some facts to support your opinion it will remain opinion. I would be certain that US productivity would have dropped considerably if we had legalized drugs in the 60's, but now we have sent so many jobs out of the country I'm not sure if it would affect the industrial figures as much. It would likely affect office productivity. After all it's hard to concentrate on the quarterly report when you are feeling mellow and have a bad case of the munchies. This is just silly. Alcohol is a legal substance and you can be fired for showing up for work impaired. This is as I have said before a non issue. You may be right about police unions and courts not wanting to lose the drug business, but that's probably shortsighted on their parts. If they didn't have drug laws to enforce they could always stay busy enforcing traffic and immigration laws. What part of 70% did you not comprehend. That is a lot of empty jail cells. You do not lock up people for jay walking or failure to yield. Illegal immigrants you simply deport. You seem to keep arguing about non issues are you one of those people who is just never wrong? If that is the case then I will just shut up and you can babble on about what ever you wish to.

Casie -> RE: Drug Legalization (7/7/2007 10:27:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: uwinceismile is legalizing drugs a good idea to you? i tend to think its a bad idea. but my own history with drugs and alcohol bias me tremendously For the most part I'm all for legalizing drugs. It would eliminate a lot of violence if you could go to a local 7 11 and get your vise vs. going through illegal drug trade and the threat danger that it brings. It would save me and you tax dollars in two areas 1 putting non-violent drug users in prison. Whom we pay tax dollars to feed, cloth, and house. . 2 Save us billions of dollars spent on the "drug war" each year. No matter how much money time and forces we use to get rid of drugs people won't stop using them. As long as there is a demand there will be a supply. I believe if earlier legislators would have know how much devastation, death and hindrance making drugs illegal would bring to future generations they never would have done so in the first place. THis fact is it cost each and every one of us a large sum of money every year to make a futile effort to prevent it. Not to mention the benefit it could have to our economy and the massive relief of crime it would bring.

apettiger -> RE: Drug Legalization (7/7/2007 10:42:15 PM)
my great-great-great grandmother told me once that anything consenting, human adults agree to do with each other is perfectly fine, as long as everyone who will be affected is consenting, human and adult. i do not see how my smoking a joint, in my own home and only with those who are mature enough to agree to be there with me, is infringing on my neighbors quality of life. if marijuana were legal, the proceeds could be used to restrict the influx of the harder drugs such as herion and cocaine and to get the items needed to successfully clean up meth houses. i have never heard of a person getting into a wreck just because they were stoned on pot, usually there were either alcohol or other drugs involved. the people i know who smoke pot include a judge, a surgical nurse, 3 state police officers, a mayor and 2 lawyers. i smoke almost every day. i can carry on an intelligent conversation with anyone at any time. i am a full time student and major in criminal justice. i have a 3.8 G.P.A. decriminalization is the first step to legalization. by the time i get my degree, marijuana should be, federally, legal in the United States.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875