RE: Legalizing Drugs.

RE: Legalizing Drugs. (Full Version)

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

Message

kidwithknife -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (3/28/2009 9:18:47 AM)
Legalise weed, MDMA, LSD and sulphate. Decriminalise possession of heroin and crack cocaine. Allow medical professionals to prescribe them.

FullCircle -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (3/28/2009 9:25:01 AM)
MDMA is sooo long winded maaan can't we just call it E for short? I mean it sounds like a business degree or something how unwordly. Management Degree In Management Administration.[8\|]

kidwithknife -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (3/28/2009 9:51:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle MDMA is sooo long winded maaan can't we just call it E for short? I mean it sounds like a business degree or something how unwordly. Management Degree In Management Administration.[8\|] I try to avoid using slang in drugs discussion ever since an American friend took "dope" to mean heroin. [;)]

FullCircle -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (3/28/2009 9:59:34 AM)
Yeah I had the same problem at school when was asked if I had any salmon, who on earth is that rich to have salmon in their packed lunch? People should allow for the ignorant types like me when engaging in slang activities.

kidwithknife -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (3/28/2009 10:23:11 AM)
As a kid, after hearing the Shamen's "Ebenezer Goode" for the first time I spent days trying to figure out what "Vera Duckworth" was cockney rhyming slang for...

vincent63 -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (3/28/2009 10:28:48 AM)
are you referring to "x" when you say "e"

FullCircle -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (3/28/2009 10:36:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kidwithknife As a kid, after hearing the Shamen's "Ebenezer Goode" for the first time I spent days trying to figure out what "Vera Duckworth" was cockney rhyming slang for... Yeah I remember that song too. "Ebenezer is the geezer" I think this song led to that whole salmon discussion I had and the person asking me probably had only slightly more of an idea what he was asking for than I did. You can't have salmon without acquiring some Vera’s first apparently. Sorted.[8\|]

FullCircle -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (3/28/2009 10:41:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincent63 are you referring to "x" when you say "e" Only among those that can't spell or spell Quick with the letter K such as KwikFit, perhaps.[8\|]

UncleNasty -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (3/28/2009 10:53:29 AM)
A fellow named Peter McWilliams wrote a book that, among other things, shone some interesting light on the idea of legalizing drugs. Well researched and written, and available for free on his website, which can be found doing a simple google search under either his name, or the books title: "Ain't Nobodies Business If You Do." Uncle Nasty

MarcEsadrian -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (3/28/2009 11:18:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife Yeah, I know, "the slippery slope" argument. Did that happen with alcohol though? One could certainly say it has. Despite all our regulations, I don't think too many people are willing to argue the tremendous level of damage and mortaility rates the industry of alcohol consumption is responsible for on a yearly basis, not to mention the emergency and rehabilitative health costs. Nearly a century later we are now flirting with the idea of legalizing the use of other substances, often under the guise of "medical use". From the medical perspective, many of the arguments are fair, but I think we need to be tremendously cautious about liberal policy on powerful drugs where they relate to recreation. It all feels to me like a Tolkien's Ring; once it's on, it's going to be very difficult to take off or control. At least, not without great struggle and cost. In truth, I really don't think it's the drugs that are the problem, but the elements in our society, in our culture, that create abusive demand for them. That's really what we need to look at, but few in power want to peel that layer of skin back and consider what's underneath. Ideally, it would be wonderful if destructive escapism wasn't so seductive to us, but with the state of things in our "liberated" world, I fear I understand why.

heartcream -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (3/28/2009 11:55:58 AM)
There are so many people on prescription drugs that also do not address the root problem. This ol world these days is a tough place to get through the day in. Marijuanna, alcohol, prescription drugs serve relatively the same purpose. Dealing with the Source is going to be the solution not some police action to decide what is okay to regulate and use and what is not. People empowered from within are free to choose what works for them or not. Some folks that dont use anything are sometimes addicted to their poinst of view and dont feel any better off to me in terms of being sociopaths, reclusive, addictive and all the rest of it.

Thunderbird56 -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (3/28/2009 1:15:19 PM)
Who owns your body? Do you own it? Or does the government own it? Ok, maybe if you are a slave you voluntarily ceded ownership to a Master ... but the question, the argument, the point isn't about what drugs are "good or bad" or "how good or bad" ... it's about freedom! Period. Either we are a "free people" or we are not. If we are free then what we; say, think, wear, read, watch, eat, drink, smoke or put in our bodies is nobody's business but yours! Understand, just because you are (should) be free to make those choices, that doesn't mean those choices are free from consequence or responsibility. Some day you may have to pay for or accept the results of those choices. Don't expect or demand that I pay that bill for you. If you choose to live in the gutter, I "owe" you nothing beyond the courtesy of stepping over you instead of on you. What, if anything, I choose to do to help you is my freedom, but I owe you nothing. I would have thought that the people on this site, especially this site, would have understood the concepts of freedom and personal choice and responsibility much clearer. If you are still on the fence or undecided, google: Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. These are former drug warriors that have seen, lived and fought first hand the drug war and have done a complete "180" on the issue. I know who owns my body ... I do!

FullCircle -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (3/28/2009 1:28:02 PM)
In the word of God "I'm all for you owning your body and deciding how it is used as long as it doesn't start affecting meee boyo!" That means look at drug related crime and then come up with the next big idea. Although your argument would then become "Well if we legalise it people will have better access to it." A reminder that people with drug problems don't commit crime because they don't have access, they commit crime because they don't have money for the access. Would the prices go down with the stigma of selling it being so high anyway? I suppose it's a what if debate. Yes we could legalise it but I bet it would not be as straightforward as people think. Some have a good relationship with drugs others delude themselves that they have a good relationship. I guess we'll never know who has a good relationship with drugs until they lose their jobs and say "Well that's it no more drugs for me I just can't afford it."

rulemylife -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (3/28/2009 1:28:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife Yeah, I know, "the slippery slope" argument. Did that happen with alcohol though? One could certainly say it has. Despite all our regulations, I don't think too many people are willing to argue the tremendous level of damage and mortaility rates the industry of alcohol consumption is responsible for on a yearly basis, not to mention the emergency and rehabilitative health costs. Nearly a century later we are now flirting with the idea of legalizing the use of other substances, often under the guise of "medical use". From the medical perspective, many of the arguments are fair, but I think we need to be tremendously cautious about liberal policy on powerful drugs where they relate to recreation. It all feels to me like a Tolkien's Ring; once it's on, it's going to be very difficult to take off or control. At least, not without great struggle and cost. In truth, I really don't think it's the drugs that are the problem, but the elements in our society, in our culture, that create abusive demand for them. That's really what we need to look at, but few in power want to peel that layer of skin back and consider what's underneath. Ideally, it would be wonderful if destructive escapism wasn't so seductive to us, but with the state of things in our "liberated" world, I fear I understand why. But the question was did the usage change pre and post Prohibition. And if the answer is no then we are fighting a losing battle and need to find different solutions.

rulemylife -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (3/28/2009 1:34:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thunderbird56 Who owns your body? Do you own it? Or does the government own it? Ok, maybe if you are a slave you voluntarily ceded ownership to a Master ... but the question, the argument, the point isn't about what drugs are "good or bad" or "how good or bad" ... it's about freedom! Period. Either we are a "free people" or we are not. If we are free then what we; say, think, wear, read, watch, eat, drink, smoke or put in our bodies is nobody's business but yours! Understand, just because you are (should) be free to make those choices, that doesn't mean those choices are free from consequence or responsibility. Some day you may have to pay for or accept the results of those choices. Don't expect or demand that I pay that bill for you. If you choose to live in the gutter, I "owe" you nothing beyond the courtesy of stepping over you instead of on you. What, if anything, I choose to do to help you is my freedom, but I owe you nothing. I would have thought that the people on this site, especially this site, would have understood the concepts of freedom and personal choice and responsibility much clearer. If you are still on the fence or undecided, google: Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. These are former drug warriors that have seen, lived and fought first hand the drug war and have done a complete "180" on the issue. I know who owns my body ... I do! I'm assuming this wasn't directed at me since I agree with most of what you said. But I really wish people would learn how to use the reply/quote features.

UncleNasty -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (3/28/2009 4:03:10 PM)
Well, there seems to be no constitutional basis or authority for drug or alcohol prohibitions. The first drug laws were towards the latter part of the 19th century, were specifically race based and were unconstitutional. Of course they have not been ruled such, but the Supreme Court isn't always right. Read the laws for yourself and weigh them against the US Constitution. Uncle Nasty

Vendaval -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (3/28/2009 4:19:28 PM)
Fast Reply - A point relevant to the discussion is that an increased concentration in potency increases the addictiveness of a substance. Beer or wine > distilled spirits Cocoa leave chewed > cocaine > crack

vincent63 -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (3/28/2009 4:20:51 PM)
youre right vendaval, but dont delivery system also affects addictiveness

kidwithknife -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (3/28/2009 4:22:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thunderbird56 Who owns your body? Do you own it? Or does the government own it? Ok, maybe if you are a slave you voluntarily ceded ownership to a Master ... but the question, the argument, the point isn't about what drugs are "good or bad" or "how good or bad" ... it's about freedom! Period. While I'm broadly sympathetic to that argument, drugs aren't produced out of thin air. And the conditions of that production are real and have an effect on people other then those who use them. Take cocaine. Doing cocaine is saying you don't mind if Latin American peasants live in fear and die in pain as long as you get to feel like a gameshow host at the weekend.

Vendaval -> RE: Legalizing Drugs. (3/28/2009 4:35:54 PM)
Cocaine and opiates are used to fund terrorist organizations, as is the case with Sendero Luminoso. The name translates as "Shining Path" and refers to the river of blood from their victims. "Sendero Luminoso" "Despite the long record of intimidation and harassment, not all of the Sendero’s relations with the peasantry have been hostile. Its occupation of the UHV represents its most successful venture, which it has guarded jealously from MRTA influence. The climate and soil of the region are ideally suited for coca production, and the Sendero has profited from payments from many of the 300,000 coca growers, whom they have protected from the government’s crop eradication efforts. The group has also exploited the trafficking end of the cocaine industry for funds by controlling airstrips and charging fees for safe passage. The remainder of the Sendero’s financing comes from robberies and a “war tax” on local businesses and individuals. These activities, combined with the support of radical middle class intellectuals, have afforded the group an advantageous autonomy from foreign sponsorship. Drug traffickers assist the Sendero in procurement of weapons and materiel for its “people’s war.” While it can be argued that the group engages in selective violence for political ends as opposed to military ends, its diverse assortment of political enemies has spawned an equally diverse array of targets. These range from government officials and foreign diplomats to business owners, and include other leftists whose social work they regard as a revisionist betrayal of their revolutionary ideals. The U.S. State Department estimates that since 1980, roughly 30,000 deaths can be attributed to the Sendero Luminoso. (break) In spite of these, recent actions attributed to the Sendero have hinted at the revival of the group’s operations. Stimulated by closer ties to a booming Peruvian coca industry as well as an expanding market for opium poppies, the group has stepped up recruiting in the UHV and other rural areas. Other analyses by Peruvian intelligence speculate that the Sendero was waiting for an opportunity to take advantage of political and economic instability in the wake of Fujimori’s resignation. In March of this year, Peruvian intelligence blamed the Sendero for a bombing attack near the American Embassy in Lima, which occurred three days before a scheduled visit by President George W. Bush." http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/sendero.cfm

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875