"iraq-ijuana"

it occurred to me that both the drug war and Operation Iraqi Freedom use similar PR strategies -- exaggerate the dangers/risks of the enemy in order to generate support/justification with the general public. While neither drugs nor saddam could honestly be desribed as "harmless", government response has been way out of proportion in both cases.

I'll assume as fact for this post that the dangers of drugs are exaggerated (but happy to provide details if requested). Its early days for saddam still, but the fact that they have found NOTHING does not bode well, and you've got to assume the army has devoted significant resources to looking for the stuff.

Iraqis like the hashy :D they don't drink booze ( a muslim thang ) :) I was wondering the same thing. I saw alot of "CNN" :rolleyes: reports about Iraqi opinions, and it seems that there was "alot" of hash-smoking hooka's....me wonders if Iraq will become a Holland-type of "drug-scene" :P

I dont think the danger of drugs is exaggerated at all.(xept marijuana)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by "The Avatar Man"@20 April 2003 - 05:34
I dont think the danger of drugs is exaggerated at all.(xept marijuana)

---

Just so I know where you're coming from, what are do you mean by "drugs", which ones?

ok, prohibition was a bad idea right? a total failure by all accounts?

does it take a genius to see the parallels to the war on drugs?

all i know is that growing up and goin to high school (grad in '97) it was far easier to score any type of dope i wanted than to buy beer.

they should just sell whatever u want in government controlled stores. make fat coin on taxes, ensure quality of merchandise, put a ton of criminals out of business, and make shit more difficult for kids to buy.

as for iraq, well thats a real threat. although, like the war on drugs, it might help some republicans to get re-elected.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sAdam@20 April 2003 - 08:23
as for iraq, well thats a real threat.

---

Iraq is a threat like getting killed in a car crash is a threat. Its not like say, SARS is a threat. Now there's something shrub should be declaring war on.

they've been there a month, and still no WMD. even if they do eventually find *some*, they'd probably find more at some montana survivalist camp. They should be focussing on the next McVeigh, domestic terrorism is probably far more likely to strike than OBL. Or what about the threat of young males going postal and blowing away a dozen people with a semi-auto? THAT's a threat.

anyway, for war on drugs, the law makes the criminals not the drug. The law makes people kill and OD and have a criminal record, not the drugs. almost all the negative effects of doing drugs are the product of the laws, not the drugs.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by myfiles3000@20 April 2003 - 10:05
...Its not like say, SARS is a threat. Now there's something shrub should be declaring war on...

---

I wonder how that would go...

:ninja:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MagicNakor+20 April 2003 - 10:52--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MagicNakor @ 20 April 2003 - 10:52)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--myfiles3000@20 April 2003 - 10:05
...Its not like say, SARS is a threat. Now there&#39;s something shrub should be declaring war on...

---

I wonder how that would go... [/b][/quote]
weapons research, the USAs forte. but it would mean sending some of the DOD&#39;s money to the CDC

Isn&#39;t it rather hard to bomb SARS, though? ;)

Unless it happens to be like that kid&#39;s show I saw once, with talking blood cells and the like.

:ninja:

There is an interesting parallel here. For those that don&#39;t know, over 85% of the world&#39;s herion comes from the middle east. Iraq is a huge producer as you can probably imagine. However, in this crazy world, you can put a spin on anything. Remember, its only NEWS, if it sells newspapers. :huh: :huh:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by myfiles3000+20 April 2003 - 10:05--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (myfiles3000 @ 20 April 2003 - 10:05)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--sAdam@20 April 2003 - 08:23
as for iraq, well thats a real threat.

---

The law makes people kill and OD and have a criminal record, not the drugs. almost all the negative effects of doing drugs are the product of the laws, not the drugs.[/b][/quote]
That is just crazy talk&#33;

How do laws make people overdose?

I have stated before that marijuana and alcohol are equivalent drugs. The legality of one and the illegality of the other is more historical than anything.

Lets talk about cocaine and heroin.

As a junior in highschool I stole some of my parents whiskey, just to try it. A friend and I drank it and we were feeling silly and drunk. This guy noticed our behavior and ran across the street, offering us free cocaine. I declined, but my friend accepted. His life then became a search for more coke. Selling all his stuff, stealing from his mother, beating up his sister, dropping out of school. This all happened in a 3 week time span. This scenario is repeated all around the country daily. He still has not turned his life around many years later.

Highly addictive drugs take the autonomy away from the users, life is lived dose to dose. This addictive effect varies person to person, so not all will be helplessly consumed.

Compare drinkers to smokers. A casual drinker can go the entire week without thinking of alcohol. He uses it as an outlet when relaxing. How about the smoker, watch him get edgy when he can&#39;t sneak out at work for a quick break. Ever see people standing outside shaking in the snow smoking. Do they enjoy it? No, they must do it so they can satisfy the craving and then return to thinking anbout their jobs.

Imagine this is cocaine. Even more addictive AND mind altering. You can&#39;t safely return to work after a quick line.

As honestly as I would love to see all drugs legalized, this was where I had to draw the line. Imagine millions of Americans who would never have touched the stuff because of its illegality, now free to sample it&#39;s wares and be seduced by its siren song.

Heroin is even worse. The common expression is that there is no such thing as an "ex" heroin addict.

Again, you may have tried the stuff and you are not addicted. But let us use cigarettes as a yardstick. Look how many people smoke and compare this to the number of smokers who want to quit.

If I told you smokers that for 10 dollars I could erase all memory of ever having smoked, I promise you I would be a billionaire.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by myfiles3000+20 April 2003 - 06:56--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (myfiles3000 @ 20 April 2003 - 06:56)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--"The Avatar Man"@20 April 2003 - 05:34
I dont think the danger of drugs is exaggerated at all.(xept marijuana)

---

Just so I know where you&#39;re coming from, what are do you mean by "drugs", which ones? [/b][/quote]
crack,cocaine,heroin,lsd,pcp and others are all killers and extremely dangerous

Quote:

---

Originally posted by "The Avatar Man"@20 April 2003 - 17:49
crack,cocaine,heroin,lsd,pcp and others are all killers and extremely dangerous

---

Only dangerous in the hands of inexperienced users. I&#39;m not trying to say that drugs are for everyone. However I feel that responsible adults can use drugs, in moderation, safely. Humans have been using drugs since the first age of civilization. Passing a law against it makes it illegal. This doesn&#39;t change the desire of humans to be human.

you saying that because you are responsible you wont get addicted on your first hit of crack?
I think certain drugs like marijuana are not as addictive nor do they alter behaviour as strongly as crack or heroin.I agree with your point in reference to these
but an addiction to crack,heroin,pcp can not becontrolled no matter how responsible you are

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes@20 April 2003 - 23:15
I have stated before that marijuana and alcohol are equivalent drugs.

Lets talk about cocaine and heroin.

As a junior in highschool I stole some of my parents whiskey, just to try it. A friend and I drank it and we were feeling silly and drunk. This guy noticed our behavior and ran across the street, offering us free cocaine. I declined, but my friend accepted. His life then became a search for more coke. Selling all his stuff, stealing from his mother, beating up his sister, dropping out of school. This all happened in a 3 week time span. This scenario is repeated all around the country daily. He still has not turned his life around many years later.

Highly addictive drugs take the autonomy away from the users, life is lived dose to dose. This addictive effect varies person to person, so not all will be helplessly consumed.

Compare drinkers to smokers. A casual drinker can go the entire week without thinking of alcohol. He uses it as an outlet when relaxing. How about the smoker, watch him get edgy when he can&#39;t sneak out at work for a quick break. Ever see people standing outside shaking in the snow smoking. Do they enjoy it? No, they must do it so they can satisfy the craving and then return to thinking anbout their jobs.

Imagine this is cocaine. Even more addictive AND mind altering. You can&#39;t safely return to work after a quick line.

As honestly as I would love to see all drugs legalized, this was where I had to draw the line. Imagine millions of Americans who would never have touched the stuff because of its illegality, now free to sample it&#39;s wares and be seduced by its siren song.

Heroin is even worse. The common expression is that there is no such thing as an "ex" heroin addict.

Again, you may have tried the stuff and you are not addicted. But let us use cigarettes as a yardstick. Look how many people smoke and compare this to the number of smokers who want to quit.

If I told you smokers that for 10 dollars I could erase all memory of ever having smoked, I promise you I would be a billionaire.

---

alcohol and pot are not equivalents. Look at the research literature. The effects of alcohol, immediate, short term and long-term are worse. Period.

I&#39;m sorry to hear about you&#39;re friend. But its anecdotal evidence, and not of much use. I don&#39;t deny there are addicts in the world, there most certainly are....however, going from clean cut kid to raving coke head in 3 weeks sounds either exaggerated, or the results of a *significant* predisposition to addictive behaviour. Again, its anecdotal, we don&#39;t know cause and effect. He probably has a drinking problem, most coke heads do. It begs the question: if there were no coke in the world, would your friend by leading a &#39;normal healthy" lifestyle? No offense, but I doubt it.

You&#39;r comparison of smokers and drinkers is false: you&#39;re comparing a non-addict to an addict. If you&#39;re going to use the example of a drinker, apply an alcoholic. And your assertion that coke is "even more addictive" than nicotine is simply not true. Nicotine is by far the most addictive of social drugs. Again, look at the literature. So using it as a yardstick is like basing a decision to buy a dog for your 5 year old on what you&#39;re average pitbull is like.

I&#39;m not necessarily saying legalize everything, and plunge ourselves into narco-chaos. My ultimate point is this: the war should be on addiction, not drugs. Truer words were perhaps never spoken.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jibbler+20 April 2003 - 23:53--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jibbler @ 20 April 2003 - 23:53)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--"The Avatar Man"@20 April 2003 - 17:49
crack,cocaine,heroin,lsd,pcp and others are all killers and extremely dangerous

---

Only dangerous in the hands of inexperienced users. I&#39;m not trying to say that drugs are for everyone. However I feel that responsible adults can use drugs, in moderation, safely. Humans have been using drugs since the first age of civilization. Passing a law against it makes it illegal. This doesn&#39;t change the desire of humans to be human.[/b][/quote]
How do you go from "inexperienced" directly to "experienced". Seems that everyone has to be a rookie at some point.

How do you define a responsible adult. Is there a test you take before you can buy the drug.

Addiction at first use is not a maturity thing, it is a membrance receptor thing.

I do not desire coke, largely because I have never used it. I have never used it because it is illegal.

You are correct that people need an outlet. The key is to have control of the outlet and not the reverse.

So how do you arbitrarily decide who drugs are for.

I think the biggest problem is that for those who can responsibly use addictive drugs, they fail to appreciate how holistically consuming these drugs are for others. The fallacy is that they think it is about having "willpower" and so they feel that responsible people should be able to control their urges.

It has been shown in animal experiments that once exposed to a drug an animal will starve itself to death as long as it keeps getting the drug.

Even our buddy Freud, who had 18 surgeries on his mouth due to his smoking, stated that death would be preferrable to quitting.

Do not think that your personal experience sets a precedent for the population as a whole.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by myfiles3000@20 April 2003 - 18:02

I&#39;m not necessarily saying legalize everything, and plunge ourselves into narco-chaos. My ultimate point is this: the war should be on addiction, not drugs. Truer words were perhaps never spoken.

---

You know...I&#39;ve gotta agree with him on this.
Some people are just addicts. I use to know a guy who was scared to buy illegal drugs, so he bought sore throat medicine and ingested it in large quantities.
His description of the high sounded somewhat like what I heard of PCP.
Diphenhydramine is over the counter. Its used as an antihistamine, but in the absence of histamine in your system, it acts the same as a barbituate.
Sniffing model glue, inhaling laughing gas, Freon, Robitussin, Co-tylonol, Alkaseltzer plus, All are drugs and all will get you high in a large enough dose.
And you can OD on any of them. Or in the case of laughing gas, die of asphyxiation.
Now...Something I find interesting is the freedom with which morphine was doled out to the troops in Iraq.
Morphine is addictive and taken regularly, becomes an halucinagen.
Sorry...Got off on a tangent.

The point is, there are people who are easily addicted for a variety of reasons. Making them afraid of street drugs just forces them to turn to some other drug that could potentially be more dangerous.
Remember what happened in...was it the Korean or Vietnam war...when our government made a big deal about the evils of smoking marajuana?
Does anyone remember what happened?
The propaganda campaign worked.
The men stopped smoking pot and turned to Heroin.

Gee...Big improvement.

Peace

Myfiles3000,

What is your point about pot and alcohol? I was just saying, to sort of give the reader some perspective, that the fact that one is illegal and the other legal is arbitrary. I wanted people to know that I am not some "Nervous Nelly" running aroung screetching the party line, "drugs are bad". I am educated in this subject and this is my insight. The absolute equality of pot and alcohol is a quibble, lets stay on topic.

My main concern is the addictive drugs. Whether you think nicotine is more addictive than cocaine is irrelvant to the big picture, a simple matter of quibbling details. We will both agree that both are highly addictive and that is the point.

The story I told was anecdotal, but a microcosm of what occurs everyday. This is not in dispute.

My comparison is dead on. Most people who consume alcohol ARE casual drinkers, most who smoke ARE addicted. That was the essensce of it.

So, when you take a highly addictive drug, you are more likely to become an addict. Drinking is done by almost everyone, but most confine it to certain occasions, rather than craving a daily alcohol break.

Alcoholics represent a small percentage of those that drink, cigarette addicts are the norm with the occassional smoker being the exception.

Sure, people with problems use drugs as an escape. This will turn out poorly, regardless of the drug of choice. But what about the functional person who decides to take a line at a party and becomes addicted? With alcohol alone, he would have a hangover. With coke, he has a new best buddy.


The best way to fight the war on addiction is prevention. Truer words were never spoken.

Don&#39;t change your story. You said laws caused overdoses and that laws caused almost all of the adverse of the drugs. That is just crazy&#33; It is the addictive property of these drugs that cause the adverse effects.

Sorry to double post, but this point is important.

Consider all those people who started smoking and want to quit but can&#39;t. We all know lots of them. Imagine if they were doing cocaine instead of cigarettes.

You ask these people what advice they would give to kids growing up about smoking.

NEVER start they scream&#33; You need to shield people from the vice of addiction rather than try to save the occasional person from it, once it has set in.

A stitch in time.

u people piss me off.

the only people who spew the "evils of drugs" and "the getting addicted off one hit" propoganda are people that have no first hand experience.

do yourselves a favour, go buy a little coke, do a few lines, and if you do manage to get addicted from that, while then a laugh at your sorry ass.

until you&#39;ve tried it, dont fukin talk about it, because you just don&#39;t know.

oh yeah, quitting smoking is easy. its called will power. u can use this same "magic" force to keep from becoming a crack monkey.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sAdam@21 April 2003 - 12:01
u people piss me off.

the only people who spew the "evils of drugs" and "the getting addicted off one hit" propoganda are people that have no first hand experience.

do yourselves a favour, go buy a little coke, do a few lines, and if you do manage to get addicted from that, while then a laugh at your sorry ass.

until you&#39;ve tried it, dont fukin talk about it, because you just don&#39;t know.

oh yeah, quitting smoking is easy. its called will power.&nbsp; u can use this same "magic" force to keep from becoming a crack monkey.

---

It is better to be pissed off than pissed on. Although I can link you to a few web sites that would disagree with me. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes@21 April 2003 - 00:39
What is your point about pot and alcohol? I was just saying, to sort of give the reader some perspective, that the fact that one is illegal and the other legal is arbitrary.

My main concern is the addictive drugs. Whether you think nicotine is more addictive than cocaine is irrelvant to the big picture, a simple matter of quibbling details. We will both agree that both are highly addictive and that is the point.

The story I told was anecdotal, but a microcosm of what occurs everyday. This is not in dispute.My comparison is dead on. Most people who consume alcohol ARE casual drinkers, most who smoke ARE addicted. That was the essensce of it.

So, when you take a highly addictive drug, you are more likely to become an addict. Drinking is done by almost everyone, but most confine it to certain occasions, rather than craving a daily alcohol break.

Alcoholics represent a small percentage of those that drink, cigarette addicts are the norm with the occassional smoker being the exception.

Sure, people with problems use drugs as an escape. This will turn out poorly, regardless of the drug of choice. But what about the functional person who decides to take a line at a party and becomes addicted? With alcohol alone, he would have a hangover. With coke, he has a new best buddy.


The best way to fight the war on addiction is prevention. Truer words were never spoken.

Don&#39;t change your story. You said laws caused overdoses and that laws caused almost all of the adverse of the drugs. That is just crazy&#33; It is the addictive property of these drugs that cause the adverse effects.

---

The absolute equality of pot and alcohol is a quibble, lets stay on topic.
--Fine. We&#39;re agreed the law is arbritrary. but I think its important to note that the inherent qualities of alcohol are severe enough to put it into a different category than pot. In terms of recreational use, they have much more in common.

My main concern is the addictive drugs. Whether you think nicotine is more addictive than cocaine is irrelvant to the big picture, a simple matter of quibbling details. We will both agree that both are highly addictive and that is the point.
--your concern is addictive drugs. Which are these?

The story I told was anecdotal, but a microcosm of what occurs everyday. This is not in dispute.
--No its not. Yes it is.

My comparison is dead on. Most people who consume alcohol ARE casual drinkers, most who smoke ARE addicted. That was the essensce of it.So, when you take a highly addictive drug, you are more likely to become an addict. Drinking is done by almost everyone, but most confine it to certain occasions, rather than craving a daily alcohol break.
--point taken.

But what about the functional person who decides to take a line at a party and becomes addicted? With alcohol alone, he would have a hangover. With coke, he has a new best buddy.
--You obviously have a thing for coke, what can i say? sorry to quibble but its not as addictive as you make it out to be. Yeah, someone could get hooked on coke the first time at a party. Same could happen with booze or pot.

The best way to fight the war on addiction is prevention. Truer words were never spoken.
--please describe for the difference between how the war on drugs is currently being waged, and your war on addiction founded on "prevention"? How do you propose to prevent addiction any differently than is being done right now?

Don&#39;t change your story. You said laws caused overdoses and that laws caused almost all of the adverse of the drugs. That is just crazy&#33; It is the addictive property of these drugs that cause the adverse effects.

--not changing my story and this is not crazy talk. for someone who claims to be &#39;educated in this area&#39;, i expect more; referring exclusively to the inherent, pharmacological qualities of a drug is an incomplete story, its simplified and misleading. the "addictive quality of the drug" is one piece in the puzzle. You have to look at this in context, the social and legal context, to understand. this is just common sense.

Laws cause overdoses: Yes. I mean it.

Harm #1: I&#39;m not saying that overdoses wouldn&#39;t exist if all were legal, but statistically speaking, the incidence would drop off dramatically if laws were changed, and approximate the OD stats of booze. One of the big probs with illegal drugs is its a crap shoot every time you use -- could be cut to nothing, could be straight off a plane from afghanistan or peru. How is a user to know?

Harm #2: AIDS. hard drugs are illegal, so use is pushed underground, where dirty needles are the norm. Do you know whats happening in Vancouver, Canada? they have one of the fastest growing AIDS populations in the WORLD, and its all because of poor hygiene/sanitation -- a direct result of the laws. harm created has serious public health consequences, AIDS infection rates eventually spread to general population.

Harm #3: criminal records for simple possession particularly of pot. how many otherwise law-abiding, peaceful, productive members of society have been busted for no good reason other than for weed? Further, US prisons are filled with those busted for hard drugs, that is, non-violent crimes. Its also worth noting that blacks are way, way more likely to get busted for drug crimes, and there&#39;s all kinds of evidence to suggest this doesn&#39;t correspond to actual behaviour, but racist policing. Again, look it up.

Harm #4: opportunity cost. Do you know how much money is spent to fight the WoD? We&#39;re talking billions, and the net result has been that drugs are more plentiful, at a higher purity, and at a lower cost than ever before. what more evidence do you need that the current paradigm is not working? What alternative could actually do WORSE?

Harm #5: CREATION of crime. Yes, our laws create crime and attract ne&#39;er do wells by creating the enormous profit margins only seen in illegal activities. Again, you&#39;re focussing exclusively on the addictive qualities of the drugs, its not that simple, and the benefit/harm analysis has to take all factors into consideration. A lot of the &#39;adverse effects&#39; are ancillary, and have to do with links to criminality, not the drugs themselves.

Put it this way: do you think we should reinstate prohibition of alcohol? Why or why not?

Ok, we will stop quibbling. I don&#39;t know what your sources are, but my sources say that cocaine is addictive. I just selected it for forum consumption, as it is well known. I am writing to be easily understood by a wide audience and not trying to submit a journal article.


They say that there is no such thing as an ex-heroin addict, so change cocaine to heroin. Heroin is just as available as coffee in your breakroom. Come on, just try it.




You will get no argument from me about the war on drugs. It is a failure and to some degree I think this is intentional. If we really wanted it stopped it could be done. I just feel that someone is getting serious kickbacks. Occassional drug busts are made for theatrics. (I am just shooting from the hip here, just my wild guess).



The question then becomes, do you feel comfortable declaring all drugs legal?

Society has proven that it needs a drug, prohibition did more harm than good.

Mindsets are hard to change given the "drugs are bad propaganda" we have all grown up with. I must admit in my circle of friends, no one ever did anything more than pot. I ask a co-worker about this today and he said that all his friends do cocaine. All have good jobs and clearly separate work from drug use. I have to say I was stunned.

An educated person such as myself, being sold the party line. It is true that the DEA classifies cocaine as being "highly addictive", but what does that mean? In checking 3 independent sources, ranking the "addictiveness" of a drug, alcohol and cocaine were pretty much equal.

I guess it all goes back to nicotine as we discussed above. Most who smoke would like to quit, indicating addiction. Their lives revolve around the next smoke break. You delay the smoke break, their minds wander from their jobs and all focus is on when they can break away to relieve the craving.

My fear is that by legalizing all drugs, we would find a drug as addictive and intrusive in life as nicotine, but with psychogenic effects.

Please ignore the man behind the curtain.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes@25 April 2003 - 22:57
Please ignore the man behind the curtain.

---

I thought I was the man behind the curtain&#33; :angry:

I&#39;m mulling a comprehensive response here; need, however, to parse some historical, ah......stuff. :D