"iraq-ijuana"

[hobbes]

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've tried it, dont fukin talk about it, because you just don'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.

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.

[myfiles3000]

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'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! 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'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'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! 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 'educated in this area', 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'm not saying that overdoses wouldn'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's all kinds of evidence to suggest this doesn'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'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'er do wells by creating the enormous profit margins only seen in illegal activities. Again, you'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 'adverse effects' 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?

[hobbes]

Ok, we will stop quibbling. I don'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.

[hobbes]

Please ignore the man behind the curtain.

[j2k4]

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!

I'm mulling a comprehensive response here; need, however, to parse some historical, ah......stuff.