getting higher?

[bigbadmax]

do you believe that illicit drugs should be legalised?

I personaly dont take em,have done!

If drugs were legalised maybe taxes could be applied and drive out organised crime...possibly?

[tenni]

hmm Max "drugs" is a very broad word. I can not decide what to vote for in your survey.

I'd be in favour with legalizing "weed", "pot", marijuana for recreational purposes. It has its drawbacks though. We have medical marijuana but that can get a few road blocks to get.

I'm not sure if I would want the state controlling the sales of pot or not. I'd be in favour of the state taxing pot just as they heavily tax tobacco and alcohol (Here at least they are). Let it be controlled like cigarettes. Here cigarettes may not be visible and you must be over 16..I'd make that 19 (adult) for dope just like alcohol.(gotta use a different synonym :)

Chemicals should remain illegal. Blow? as in cocaine? no it should stay illegal as heroine etc.

[darkeyes]

Yes Max I do.... I have written on it several times b4 in forums.. at one fell swoop it would save lives by improving the quality and purity of the shit that organised crime barons shove down peoples throats, up their noses and into their veins, release enforcement agencies from a thankless and unwinnable task, interestingly create employment at home and abroad, and (horror of horrors America) gather some much need tax to the exchequer to help pay for the destruction caused by decades of illegal narcotic use.. it would at a stroke remove from organised crime a vast amount of income as well as much of the power it exerts over millions of people around the world... no doubt they will find something else to try and fuck us with but it will provide us wiith much needed breathing space to organise properly and to e able to take them on in our terms not theirs...

It is not a solution I like.. but unless we can magic away all narcotic production then it is a fight that we cannot win... it is a fight which will continue to drag on for decades and costing millions upon millions of lives and ruining the lives of millions more... it is not a panacea.. huge problems will remain... organised crime will find something else in time.. but we will have a once in a lifetime opportunity of getting the upper hand against a monstrous monstrous evil..

[Long Duck Dong]

simple answer, no..... people do not want my second hand cigarette smoke and I sure has hell do not want their second hand drug smoke.....

as a ex drug smoker, I could preach like ex cig smokers about drug use, but I am not gonna.... I have had my own bad experiences with drug usage and seen many other issues, just like alcohol usage.....

over the years I have seen many issues in the workplace cos of drug usage and stoned people that have placed life and limb in danger... again, the same as alcohol usage......

I have also seen more studies and reports about the pros and cons of drug usage and the benefits as a medical therapy and as a medical therapy, marijuana can work for SOME people.... such as chronic pain / terminal illness / other disorders....... but I only have to look around the people that are regular drug uses and the changes in them that I have watched over the years and the issues its caused... and I am talking about marijuana.....

if people want to argue that it causes no harm and that using marijuna doesn't screw people up, fine..... people that use drugs, often can not see the issues in themselves that others can.... something I learnt the hard way....

all it comes down to for me, is if others want to use drugs, fine, don't let it become a issue that I end up dealing with cos of your actions

[DuckiesDarling]

I voted for medical use but really.. .it's already legal for MEDICAL use. I have had to deal with someone in my family who has let illegal drugs totally control him from the age of 12. In and out of jail, parents have lost most things of value, had to file bankruptcy, have lost a bank account they had for over 30 years and it makes no difference to my brother. He was "high" so it was excusable.


What makes it worse is that we have a lot of law enforcement in our family and my parents, actually my mother's, refusal to press charges kept my brother on drugs and in trouble.

[bigbadmax]

MEDICAL its not legal in this country, unless you count prescribed drugs and then anything thats prescribed is legal. I could prescribe ANYTHING when at sea with the Royal Navy, however on land I had limitations due to legal framework etc.

If one legalises calss A or schedule 1 drugs, then surely purity of product would save on health fees alone etc in dealing with fixing colapsed veins etc.

Money raised on taxes would then be able to be pumped back into health services etc.

If people want to do something they will......I drink alcohol and coffee both poison/ drugs but its my choice.

I dont smoke but feel that EVERYONE has the right to do what they want, as long as a "safe" environment is provided for them and it does not impinge on the safety of others....if you dont like the smoke then dont go there...simple as.

[DuckiesDarling]

But Medical Marijuana is legal here, Max. It's prescribed for people with glaucoma and agoraphobia for the most part. There are also methodone clinics for drug addicts who are trying to get clean but can't quite do it without some helpful downsizing.

But it doesn't matter what is legal or illegal, as you said, people will do it anyway. And people will always be bitching about the people who do it, whether it's legal or illegal.

[Long Duck Dong]

MEDICAL its not legal in this country, unless you count prescribed drugs and then anything thats prescribed is legal. I could prescribe ANYTHING when at sea with the Royal Navy, however on land I had limitations due to legal framework etc.

If one legalises calss A or schedule 1 drugs, then surely purity of product would save on health fees alone etc in dealing with fixing colapsed veins etc.

Money raised on taxes would then be able to be pumped back into health services etc.

If people want to do something they will......I drink alcohol and coffee both poison/ drugs but its my choice.

I dont smoke but feel that EVERYONE has the right to do what they want, as long as a "safe" environment is provided for them and it does not impinge on the safety of others....if you dont like the smoke then dont go there...simple as.

couple of points, the collapsed veins are cos of the constant shoving needles into them on a daily / near daily basis...... its something that can happen in hospitals......

as for money raised in taxes for the health system, thats the same statements they made in NZ when they started on the tax crusade on tobacco.... the money raised from the taxes ( 1.3 billion a year ) as opposed to the 700 mill a year set aside for the health system and the constant push to cut costs in hospitals ( elective surgeries are the first thing they hit ) make a mockery of the governments stance.....

at the start of the year, cigs went up another 15% in taxes... but there are no plans to channel that into the health system ( taxpayer funded ) that is in dire need of a massive cash injection to clear the growing lists of operations that need to be done, and open the way for the operations that got dropped, to be done.....

using the argument that 500 smokers die every year in NZ and it costs 50k to treat each smoker ( the doctors argue that the cost is much lower ) there is a 1.05 bill dollar difference between the cost to the tax payer and what the smokers pay in taxes..... so the smokers are in credit by over a billion dollars every year.....

as for the safe place to smoke..... you can smoke and drink in your own home, but your body doesn't clear out the substances in your body immediately, hence why you get people that are still legally drunk 24 hours after their last drink.... thats 24 hours that they are not clear headed and may be out on the road driving their car.... that places you and me and many others at risk.......

people will use the argument that why should they suffer for your choice to drink and smoke..... and the return argument is * my life, my body, my choice * ( strange how that is constantly used to justify peoples actions ).... and I am ok with that.... but I, like many others, do not want to have to deal with the consequences of anybody elses choices to use drugs and alcohol.... and thats coming from a person that used drugs and alcohol and it cost 7 lives in a car accident........

hence why I have the stance if people want to get stoned in their own homes, fine, I am not having to breath it in and I am cool with that.... but until a person is clear headed, please do not drive or operate machinery etc, when it can endanger human lives..... its not fair on other people

[bigbadmax]

LDD i am fully aware of the reasons for collapsed veins, howver i should have been more to the point.......if you cut the crap with floor cleaner or rat poison etc then the veins will clog up etc.

IF YOU DONT LIKE SMOKE THEN DONT GO THERE........if there are seperate areas for smokers and no smokers ie. designated public houses etc then non smokers would have to go to theses areas KNOWINGLY aware of the smoking policy...its is an infringement on civil liberties to castigate a whole group on the idea of... I dont like it so tough.

[Long Duck Dong]

a study recently in NZ, found that second hand smoke drift was higher than acceptable levels in areas with smokers / non smokers sections..... lol... I could have told them that for free..... lol.....

I understand what you are saying and I agree with the idea in principal.... but I remember when they opened a smokers restaurant up north, years ago and the first thing the non smokers did, was go there than bitch about the smoking... and yeah the place ended up shut down.......same thing with cigar shops / smoking clubs, they were banned cos of the effects on non smokers that bitched about the smoke when they went to them......

thats going to be the major flaw with legalizing marijuana, you would have to create very strict guidelines and no matter how much you try to please anybody, somebody is going to bitch about it and make a issue out of their infringements of rights and how they should be able to go into a place full of smoke and not have to breath it in....... honestly, I would tell them to wear scuba gear if they want to be that bloody stupid, but in the day and age of PC, the laws will pander to the whingers.......

as for the law on infringement, that has become a debating point in NZ as to the rights of the individual to smoke tobacco and how much their rights can be restricted under the guise of the * public interest *
one mayor did try to say that he was going to ban all smoking and tobacco related products in his town, something that failed faster than his re election campaign...
turns out there is some obscure law in NZ that stops ANY council making any law that would do something like that..... and it is similar to the overturning of the council law that banned gang patches in the inner city, apparently thats a invasion of the rights of expression or something......

we did have synthetic drugs called kronic available in NZ for a short time recently.... restricted to 18 years and over.... within a month of it being legally on the market, reports flooded in of school kids stoned out of their minds in school.....so it was banned by the government in a move that was called wrong, draconian and without proof that there was a issue to justify the immediate banning of the product......

guess that finding transquilizer meds in the product is fine in some peoples eyes, school kids stoned out of their heads is fine and selling a product on the market that has not been tested for user safety, was fine, in some peoples eyes.... and the fact that a few people ended up in hospital, well I quess thats just a non issue as well........

if anybody can prove to me that there will be minimal risks to people and that we will be better off with illegal drugs being legalised, then I will change my stance, until that point I will point to things like kronic, the drug epidemic in NZ, and the issues with legal drugs like alcohol and cigarettes.......

and for anybody that wants to post links and studies... I am talking from experience as a ex druggie and alcoholis that was involved in illegal activities in my younger days, my knowledge and experiences are based around personal experiences..... so I have seen a side of life that can not be fixed by legalising drugs.....

[Darkside2009]

do you believe that illicit drugs should be legalised?

I personaly dont take em,have done!

If drugs were legalised maybe taxes could be applied and drive out organised crime...possibly?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a word, no. It hasn't worked for tobacco or alcohol, why do you imagine it would work for other drugs?

As an ex-sailor, you must be aware of the lucrative trade in contraband tobacco between Spain, Gibraltar and North Africa.

Where the Government move in to tax something, there will always be those willing to evade that tax and buy at a cheaper price. Spirits are freely available in the States and in my country, yet people still make 'Moonshine' and poteen.

Illegal shebeens continue in my country despite pubs being available to drink in, legally. I have seen reports claiming links with Alzheimer's Disease and virulent forms of lung cancer to the long-term use of cannabis.

We debated smoking not so long ago in these forums, it was seen that despite King James detesting tobacco, he was quickly persuaded that it was a new source of tax revenue, with relevant monopolies being awarded.

Where there is profit to be made, the Government will try to get its snout in the trough, just like the criminals. Smuggling is not a new phenomena in the UK, there is always someone willing to undercut the price.

[bigbadmax]

Many thanks LDD.

the only problem is the idea that "non" people always appear to win the fight...its a matter of choice, but if someone's choice is different to theirs, then they change the rules to suit them...bit like bankers...but thats a different subject all together.

As I say I dont smoke but get annoyed about how smokers are thrid class citizens...when its their choice... i dont force people to drink alcohol nor smoke nor inject drugs...but if you run it underground then far more problems appear.

Legalisation would have to be severely controlled and all aspects and consequences also looked at....we cant even drink in the streets (cans or bottles or even take out pints from pubs) when there is a fair,parade or other public event...will it soon take to outlawing smoking?

[void()]

Agoraphobia (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/agoraphobia) is an interesting ailment. What exactly is the treatment benefit of Mary Jane?

I might want to get re-diagnosed. Truth be told, if I can avoid going out I do. And I stay in because people cause anxiety. Go into a department / grocery store I start getting really bad after just a few minutes. "Here man, have a bowl. By the way we're going shopping."

Sorry, I just don't quite see that. Pot can also heighten paranoia. So you smoke a bowl to mellow out, but get all paranoid and take a downer to knock that. Sure.

[bigbadmax]

Jesus void....what you on? stronger than my meds obviously.

:offtopic: or what?

[drugstore cowboy]

I think that drugs should be legalized or at least decriminalized.

I live in a state where we have medicinal marijuana and while my partner and I do not have med cards we know a lot of people who do, and if you want a med card you can easily get one, or you can have a friend who has a med card buy marijuana or hash for you.

It's not like this in all 50 states and in most states marijuana is still illegal and not decriminalized for medical use.

[roy m cox]

well i think that any one that thinks marijuana illegal ,
i dare you to be on chemo for just 3 days then we'll see what you all say

i have been on chemo for about 5 months and i can tell you all that it's not fun you try to eat and barf up all your food ,, i have tried marijuana just a few time and my skin and joints felt much much better than when i am on the chemo drugs the old sane don't knock it till you try it applies hear , all i ever hear is the bad stuff about marijuana when they don't know that theirs 2 types of marijuana and the one it a stimulant that every one gets wasted on, the other is a damn to mad to tell all go hear and learn the truth the you all will know http://phoenixtears.ca/

[darkeyes]

Two things Duckie.. dont have the time to say more, but as many people die or are physically debilitated because of the substances with which illegal narcotics are cut as from the affects of the drug itself.. I hinted at it earlier and Max has mentioned rat poison..

The second is that in theory the NHS in this country is financed out of the National insurance stamp paid by employees and employers.. this funds not only national health care but pensions social security etc and each year for decades has had an iuncreasingly large shortfall and has to be topped up out of other forms of tax gathering..such as tobacco and alcohol taxes, VAT and income tax.. primarily this shortfall has been due to pension and social security and unemployment benefits of one form or another spiraling but also because of the vast increase in expenditure on the NHS of the Labour years.. what goes on in NZ is for NZ and its people.. but what goes on elsewhere is another matter altogether.. partly for that reason government is thinking of integrating national insurance with income tax... there are arguments for and against this but for now I wont elaborate..

[Long Duck Dong]

gee fran, I never knew that..... :tong:

pure cocaine is extreme toxic so it has to be diluted or it will kill you anyway.... it can be absorbed thru the skin in its pure state.... so yeah its cut and diluted right down, but its the low level pissant dealers that double and triple cut it to increase their profit margin that often add the other junk to it....

making hard drugs like that legal, is not going to improve anything, instead, you are going to have idiots with half a nose cos cocaine eats away at the nasal cavity and it is not uncommon for coke snorters to end up needing surgery on their noses cos the dammed things cave in.....

as for heroin and opium derivatives, they are medically legal in some countries, its in the meds that are used in some prescriptions, but just look at the issues it causes with drug addicts and overdoses, and people want to make it legal ????

warfarin is a legal blood thinner in NZ, so is rat poison... cos they are the same thing........

drugs are like alcohol, in moderation, they can be ok.... in the hands of some people, they are not.....legalising drugs is not going to prove things, its going to make them WORSE.....
its a bit like in NZ, with the teen drinking epidemic, the labour government reduced the legal age of drinking from 20 to 18....did it fix the teen drinking issues..??? nope, but it made it legal for many of them now.....

lil hint, fran, I have walked the dark side so my understanding of the world of drugs and drug abuse is extensive.... and the effects of it on my friends and loved ones.......

there are professional benefit bludgers in NZ that have made it their career to leach off the system cos they can get a benefit for being a drug addict.... and with limited resources to help them, the taxpayer is basically supporting their drug addiction......

as I have said in the thread.... show me ANY decent reason for legalizing drugs ( outside of medical marijuana ) for general public usage and I will reconsider my stance on drugs.. until then, I will continue to think that anybody that wants to legalise hard drugs, is a fucking idiot that has never truly walked the dark side of life...... and any person that supports legalising marijuana usage for the general public, needs to prove to me why its in the best interests of the general public to have to put up with dope smokers .....

I have friends that use marijuana... they use it in private homes, not in public, they are professional people / career people and in occupations where they are not really placing the public at risk, and some of them are casual drinkers...... and yes, they support legalising marijuana....3 of them are ex friends now, cos there was a protest arranged to advocate for the legalising of marijuana.... those 3 friends sat in a public area and sparked up along with a number of other users..... yet they are the first ones to get on my case about me smoking tobacco and how it can affect others........

btw, the people maimed and disabled and killed by badly cut drugs, are killed cos they stuck the shit in their bodies.... if they were not drug users, they would not be at risk now would they ?????

[darkeyes]

I dont disagree with much of what u say Duckie.. not even that it is those who do drugs that do it to themselves.. but not without help I think.. and aid and pressure, through seduction of one kind or other.. just as during the years of prohibition in the states they did with alcohol..

Narcotics supplied under properly regulated conditions have to be better than any old shit supplied by ruthless and unscrupulous people who are simply in it for the misery it caused the power it giives them and the wealth it creates.. God knows I wish it was not necessary but I feel the time has passed and the war against drugs is itsellf creating misery acrss the globe and criminalising the user rather than those who create the damand and supply the drugs..we are losing the battle..

I have and do still smoke a little marijuana very occasionally.. I am not and never shall be an habitual user but it is for relaxation for good or ill...but Kate is a heroin addict and she has been through the mill.. I know the things she had to do to get her fix.. and the stresses on her life and the company that lured her into addiction and how she was almost destroyed by shit.. the "life" she led and what had to be done to wean her off it... she supports legalisation too..she is even more firmly convinced than I that criminality does not work because she has been through it..... many, not all, recovering addicts feel the same.. she has walked on the dark side of life. .

..and only last night I visited a very old friend in hospital, a once beautiful human being now wrecked by addiction, who was found lying in a gutter suffering from the effects of exposure, alcohol, drugs, hunger and poverty which only served to reinforce my belief that we need to change our attitude to narcotics.... so I know something about the dark side too.. and have other friends and at least one relation who are addicts.. some are recovering addicts but most remain users.. this city was once called the drug capital of the world and it is difficult to make your way around its great appalling housing schemes and poorer areas without it jumping out at you and slapping you in the face.....not dor nothing did Irving Welsh write "Trainspotting"... this is a beautiful city and I love it dearly, yet it has at times the ugliest of faces...so I see and have seen, and will see again the misery that narcotics cause.. pushers at school gates, ice cream vans in winter in the worst of snow and cold not for the selling of ice cream and lollies.. dealing in clubs and pubs..on street corners, in doorways.. men, women and adolescents and even younger spaced out lying in parks.. not all is alcohol related... much is both..and as with my friend, gutters,..we are losing this war and society will not use its wit and imagination to find another way.. I hesitate to say a better way, but one where the quality of the product is not such that what a narcotic is spliced with is the primary cause of an addicts demise... and where organised crime does not hold the reigns of power and gain the wealth their evil creates through so much human misery and destruction, but where world wide, production of raw materials, and production and supply of the finished article is properly regulated. It is not a panacea.. I would rather it was other.. but we live with the world we have created and it will take a great deal to improve things.. we will not do so by continuing this insane ban of illegal narcotics and tying up so much of our economic and manpower resources in fighting a war we cannot win..

Rat poison by the way is also put into ciggies.. as are many chemicals which aren't good for us.. but they are controlled and regulated as they should be to minimise (sic) the health risks at least in the west.. not so in the developing world where manufacturers are far less regulated and do much as they please to hook people on their products.. pro addiction agents.. so I know even with legalisation all in the garden is not rosy.. but compared to what we have now if done properly we can clear out some of the shite and weeds, the rubble and the vermin which currently clutters it up.. and by vermin I do not refer to the use just in case anyone misunderstands..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/13/legalise-drugs-john-gray

http://www.npr.org/2011/11/04/142010906/a-case-for-legalizing-drugs-crossing-the-border

http://www.economist.com/node/709603

On the net and elsewhere we can find arguments for and against legalisation.. and there are good arguments against it..once I used many myself but have become convinced that the argument for legalisation has become overwhelming.. increasing numbers of law enforcement officers at a senior level are also.. I am open to persuasion that I am wrong because feeling as I do and having seen the misery of illegal narcotics it wracks me with great anguish.. but whether I am right or wrong isnt important.. what is important is that society begins a proper debate and is not frightened by it. Legalising narcotics may not be the answer.. but continuing with the status quo is certainly no option..

In time we may mature sufficiently as a species not to need addictive substances.. but until we do, keeping narcotics illegal in law is a very questionable and dangerous strategy which will do nothing to help us as a species gain that maturity....

[DuckiesDarling]

Sorry Fran, but coming from a family of law enforcement officers who were powerless to do anything regarding my brother because he was never stupid enough to have the drugs on him around them, I don't agree. They would have loved to have helped him, but instead they had to let him get away with pawning everything of value including my father's truck because my parents refused to press charges. He started out with marijuana after my sister's death at the age of 12 and got progressively worse up to crack and then meth. He knows what drugs can do he just doesn't give a fuck. He doesn't care that he bankrupted my parents. Yet he still calls and asks for money, and more fool they, they give it to him. The only time my father ever called the police on him was when he stole his pistol and pawned it. My dad's 9mm is still in police custody because my brother ran away to another county. And even though he managed to write a forged check for a tiller for $1875.00 and there is a warrant out for him for that as well as a warrant for the gun charge and being a felon with a gun... my parents play stupid when the cops come looking for him. I have called the police, I have given them his cell phone number, I have given the girlfriend's information, the girlfriend's mother's number where he is staying. Still he has not been arrested. He had the nerve to send tools to my parent's house that he ordered, the same kind of power tool set he pawned. Dad thought he bought it for him for Christimas.... oh no it went to wrong address, can you meet me and bring it? What did he get my parents for Christmas? Not one fucking thing. Most drug addicts are just like that, they don't want help, they don't want it legal, they just want to be high and they don't give a damn what they do to get that high or whose ass the crack was smuggled across the border in. Some are lucky, some like Kate manage to get away from it, but it's still a struggle. I bet if you ask her, she will tell you that she has to wake up every day and make the decision to stay clean another day. How much harder will it be when she is walking down the road and they are smoking legal crack pipes?

[Long Duck Dong]

I will be honest, fran, I can not see any way in hell that legalising narcotics is going to fix the issues that society faces.......

sure amsterdam have legal marijuana pretty much in hand for the most part..... with legal / licensed cafes... and generally mature users..... so arguments that legalizing marijuana can work in a lot of areas, is something that I will agree with as I can see a working model in practice.... however, amsterdam is a very liberal and open minded place as well....

in countries that are busy sticking the boot into smokers almost as fast as the politicians are upping their own pay packets, the odds of seeing marijuana legalized, are slim, even for medical reasons......

generally in NZ they took a harder line against tobacco growers than they do against marijuana growers until recently when a act was passed that allowed the government to seize houses and other assets under the proceeds of crimes act.... so in a sense the government has done the * hardline * approach by taking the easiest option and hiding behind the legal system......

a few months ago, when a disabled gentleman was charged with growing marijuana for supply, and possession... and lost his house... we are not talking about a multi million dollar growing outfit... but a small scale operation that was lucky if it made the guy 10k a year.... but it cost him a 300k house....that, I do have issues with....

one of my police friends have told me that its not really the marijuana that the cops are after, its the people that are growing it... the gangs with their criminal enterprises and the people that are running multi million dollar illegal empires......

while multi million dollar empires sounds good, legalise it and the bottom will fall out of the drug market.... unless the government goes in for the high end profit as they did with the prostitution legalising.... one of the first things they did was add extra costs to the prostitutes and * force * them to work for legal businesses, which had the effect of increasing the tax gains for the government......

but the trouble comes into the issue with the options of using marijuana, as the effects on the human body are longer lasting than tobacco.. and the fact that its a mind altering substance.... so how do you make it ok and legal for people to use a mind altering substance ? and how do you make sure that people that use marijuana, are not doing it in a manner that is not adversely affecting other people ?

the NZ government is working hard to limit the affects of second hand smoke on the general public..... so if you legalise marijuana, you would have to have even tighter restrictions.... and people that ignore the laws anyway.....

with the UK binge drinking issues, there is clear evidence of a legal substance being abused massively...... yet there are calls to legalise a addictive, mind altering substance for cultures that already have a high disregard for the law and the general public....

narcotics are like alcohol.... the responsible ones should not be punished for the actions of the people that abuse them and can not handle them.... but as long as there are the on going issues with alcohol abuse, the last thing we need to do, is compound the issue by making drugs legal......

look at the issues smoking has caused for people..... do you honestly think that legalising drugs is going to make people happier and better off ? or are you just trying to clear your own conscience cos you are acting in a illegal manner ????

Ad-campaign-to-target-drug-affected-drivers (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6243268/Ad-campaign-to-target-drug-affected-drivers)

[lizard-lix]

Historically, prohibition doesn't work. That is a simple fact.

Almost half of the people in US prisons are there for non-violent drug crimes (possession and small sales).

We also have the highest incarceration rate of any 1st world country.

When a working person goes to jail for minor drug use, they cease being a wage earner and tax payer and become a ward of the state at about $100,000 a year per person.

Seems dumb as hell to me.. Legalize it, tax it (that is an estimated $6 BILLION US/year economic shift for marijuana alone, based on legal monies saved and taxes paid and wages earned), and treat those who abuse it (out of the taxes).

I'm just pragmatic..

And.. I have never seen anyone smoking pot get into a fistfight, but head downtown on any Sat and watch all the drunks beating the hell out of each other...

Seems like a simple decision to me...

[darkeyes]

There is no fix Duckie, short of making extinct all chemicals and plants which cause addiction.. many are far too useful in other areas for us to do that so we live with narcotics.. we know how to create them and use them.. how to develop them.. we can ban them but they are still there.. we cant unlearn how to produce them or use them..I havent said there is fix.. what there is, is an alternative which may help make things less bad... and which is less bad? Narcotics supplied produced and distrubuted illegaly by organised crime and the awful cost that it entails and the huge profits which accrue to a few and misery to so many.. or have them supplied, produced and distributed, invariably far less lethal than their illegal counterparts on license by registered sellers? Thats the question we have to ask.. which will create least misery and which gives us the greatest opportunity of moving forward?

In the end it comes down to this.. should the US have persevered with prohibition? Narcotics are a far greater menace than alcohol but the comparison is plain for all to see... it is a dichotomy we shouldnt be faced with but are.. it is one we cannot run away from or ignore, yet all too many do both, but find what is the best and least destructive way forward for our societies..

[DuckiesDarling]

There is no fix Duckie, short of making extinct all chemicals and plants which cause addiction.. many are far too useful in other areas for us to do that so we live with narcotics.. we know how to create them and use them.. how to develop them.. we can ban them but they are still there.. we cant unlearn how to produce them or use them..I havent said there is fix.. what there is, is an alternative which may help make things less bad... and which is less bad? Narcotics supplied produced and distrubuted illegaly by organised crime and the awful cost that it entails and the huge profits which accrue to a few and misery to so many.. or have them supplied, produced and distributed, invariably far less lethal than their illegal counterparts on license by registered sellers? Thats the question we have to ask.. which will create least misery and which gives us the greatest opportunity of moving forward?

In the end it comes down to this.. should the US have persevered with prohibition? Narcotics are a far greater menace than alcohol but the comparison is plain for all to see... it is a dichotomy we shouldnt be faced with but are.. it is one we cannot run away from or ignore, yet all too many do both, but find what is the best and least destructive way forward for our societies..

And yet even prescription drugs can be abused greatly, there was a documentary on Vanguard called "Oxycontin Express" it detailed how multitudes of pain management centers were opening in places like Broward County, Florida and people were driving from many states away to see a doctor who was paid to write prescriptions. The people then took them to a pharmacy that only accepted CASH for them and then back to their home states to both use and sell to make money to buy more drugs and continue the vicious cycle.

No, the US should not have continued Prohibition, it was probably the single greatest failure of an experiment to ever happen in a free world. But drugs like cocaine, methamphetines, heroin, crack are insidious, so much more so than alchohol. Drunk drivers kill a lot of people each year, but less known are the statistics for the amount of people who drive under the influence of drugs. Even medication that is for one person can be abused by another since it wasn't prescribed for them and the dosage can be fatal on some of them.

I hate illegal drugs with a passion, I have seen way too many people including my own family hurt by them. I have seen young people in vegetative states in nursing homes because they abused drugs. I have read news reports of people trying crack for the first time and having a heart attack.

There is no fix at all for any problem but your argument seems to be that if the drugs were made legal then they would be better quality. Quality doesn't matter the end result is the same: Your brain cells die.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ub_a2t0ZfTs

Just as apt in today's climate as it was when it first aired.

[void()]

Jesus void....what you on? stronger than my meds obviously.

:offtopic: or what?

Hydroxyzine PAM 25mg per dose as needed, every six hours. The doctor whom prescribed it granted me liberty with it. I would rather not take it at all. It is there as a stop gap though, safety net. If my emotions go too haywire it helps in providing a respite. I can then regain control. To me it is akin to smoking a bowl legally, mellowing out a bit.

The emotions kept in check are in no particular order: anger, depression, anxiety, foreboding, extreme joy, grief, sadness, sorrow. I also practice various other non medicating techniques, meditation, hot showers, learning means of relaxation, exercise, listening to music, being assertive without aggression or anger and so on.

Grew up in a abusive home environment. I choose not being a number. "You grew up in abuse, you'll be an abuser." Part of that is a deep seated internal voice which says there is no excuse for abuse. I apply that to myself and it carries over into my view of others. My wife says I'm crazy because I simply cannot deal with stupidity and abuse is stupidity. She may be right.

Apologies for the derail. I guess ultimately my view is pot should be legal, taxed. At the same time I advocate for its responsible use, not abuse of it.

[darkeyes]

There is no fix at all for any problem but your argument seems to be that if the drugs were made legal then they would be better quality. Quality doesn't matter the end result is the same: Your brain cells die.



It is not and u very well know it. I suggest you re read... and actually the end is not always the same.. better quality drugs are much less harmful than hurriedly or uncaringly cut and prepared drugs.. less damage is done and fewer lives lost and ruined... that is the point in addition to others you so conveniently ignore..

[DuckiesDarling]

It is not and u very well know it. I suggest you re read... and actually the end is not always the same.. better quality drugs are much less harmful than hurriedly or uncaringly cut and prepared drugs.. less damage is done and fewer lives lost and ruined... that is the point..

Fran, it doesn't matter whether the drugs are legal or illegal they will still harm the person ingesting, inhaling, injecting them. More needs to be done to get people from not starting drugs in the first place and helping those that want to get off them, get off and stay off. Legalising is not the answer, there is no reason whatsoever for heroin or crack or meth to be legal. Marijuana is a grey area for me as I do approve of the medical uses of it but hate the casual use by people who just want to get high. And yes your brain cells will die, Fran, no matter how well the coke is cut or how pure it is, it still affects your brain longterm. There will still be crime to pay for drugs whether they are legal or illegal, probably more so if they were legal because people would be able to buy them without getting busted by the police.

And yes, dear, you stated very clearly that the quality of drugs would be better if they were legal. My point is, I don't care about the quality of any drugs outside prescription drugs that fall under FDA guidelines. I hate ILLEGAL drugs. Nothing you can say will change my mind, I know too many people who do struggle each day to stay sober, to stay clean. I know the struggle they go through and I know they avoid temptation like the plague. How are they supposed to avoid it if everyone is doing it out in public? Walking down the street smoking a crack pipe is not the image of a person walking in America I want to see.

[darkeyes]

..an example of what I have been saying Darlin' darlin'.. Kate is a heroin addict.. but it was not the heroin or her addiction which turned her into a shell and mess of a human being for much late teens and the beginning of her 20s.. and there are other examples of narcotics produced manufactured and supplied by the criminal underworld much worse than heroin...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2001/jun/14/drugsandalcohol.socialsciences

[BiJoe696]

[QUOTE=Long Duck Dong;219394]gee fran, I never knew that..... :tong:

pure cocaine is extreme toxic so it has to be diluted or it will kill you anyway.... it can be absorbed thru the skin in its pure state.... so yeah its cut and diluted right down, but its the low level pissant dealers that double and triple cut it to increase their profit margin that often add the other junk to it....


Not a user nor have I looked to see if that statement is correct about "pure cocaine". But I have known those with access to it and they snorted it pure back in the early 80's. Also just got done reading Rolling Stones Kieth Richards book and he had and used massive amounts of pure stuff back in the 80's and still alive and writing about it.

:flag3: :stoned: :bipride: :yikes2: :confused: :rainbow: :2cents:

[lizard-lix]

Considering that pure cocaine in solution is used in surgery as anesthesia (I have witnessed this more than once when I did instrumentation as a medical researcher in a past career), it is quite safe to use.

It is used in surgeries where the patent has to be awake when they put in the breathing tube. It is squirted into the nose and snorted (just like in recreational use) to get it to run down the back of the throat.

The side benefit is that the patient is so stoned, they don't care what you push down their throat...

[bigbadmax]

ALL millitary peeps carry at least one morphine autoinjecter with them when in a warzone...i used to carry six at all times...three for me and three for patients use...was a fucker when they went off into my thigh....oops!

but i also caaried the antidote to morphine as well...damn!

[nudistharry]

My main problem with making drugs legal, especially pot, is driving. Blood alcohol tests show how drunk you are, thus determining if you are too drunk to drive, but there is no such test for pot. The current pot tests are for whether or not you have smoked recently, but give no indication on how recent you smoked or how "high" you are. I'm also not aware of any tests for any drug (other than alcohol) to determine your level of mental/physical impairment due to drugs to determine if you are too "high" drive a vehicle.

[darkeyes]

My main problem with making drugs legal, especially pot, is driving. Blood alcohol tests show how drunk you are, thus determining if you are too drunk to drive, but there is no such test for pot. The current pot tests are for whether or not you have smoked recently, but give no indication on how recent you smoked or how "high" you are. I'm also not aware of any tests for any drug (other than alcohol) to determine your level of mental/physical impairment due to drugs to determine if you are too "high" drive a vehicle.

There are tests for illegal drugs? Red herring hun and not pertinent...

[drugstore cowboy]

pure cocaine is extreme toxic so it has to be diluted or it will kill you anyway.... it can be absorbed thru the skin in its pure state.... so yeah its cut and diluted right down, but its the low level pissant dealers that double and triple cut it to increase their profit margin that often add the other junk to it....

Yes most cocaine nowadays is stepped on or cut but it's not done because pure coke is somehow "toxic" since it's not.

Coke that is cut or stepped on is done so the person selling it can sell a less pure product and keep selling it.

My friends and I used pure med grade coke in the 70s. It was a powder and a friend of mine had access to it then, and we would use it on rare occasions. I do not use any drugs at all now.

I know people who when traveling in certain South American countries would use the coca leaves, pure cocaine powder, and some who even sampled base/bazuco.

A lot of people have used cocaine even pure cocaine and it didn't kill them and even if coke is pure it's not toxic.

[bigbadmax]

just an aside...you can fail a drugs test just by eating poppyseeds ie bagels etc for breakfast can seriously affect your employment history.

Ive only ever been tested once in ten years when I was in the Royal Navy...they got pissed off when I said yes to "have you taken or are on any drugs?"...to which I replied aspirin and brufen for pain and what really pissed em off was that I was on morphine derivitive painkillers as well ...so they would have had a positive from those! stoopid regulators(Naval Police) hehehehe

[Long Duck Dong]

Yes most cocaine nowadays is stepped on or cut but it's not done because pure coke is somehow "toxic" since it's not.

Coke that is cut or stepped on is done so the person selling it can sell a less pure product and keep selling it.

My friends and I used pure med grade coke in the 70s. It was a powder and a friend of mine had access to it then, and we would use it on rare occasions. I do not use any drugs at all now.

I know people who when traveling in certain South American countries would use the coca leaves, pure cocaine powder, and some who even sampled base/bazuco.

A lot of people have used cocaine even pure cocaine and it didn't kill them and even if coke is pure it's not toxic.

pure med grade cocaine... lol... thats like drag racing with standard gas in the car and claiming you are using nos......

pure high grade cocaine, matey... is toxic..... as lil as 3 mg can kill a person and a dosage of 20 mg is considered to be enuf to silence any person.... hence they cut the hell out of it or it would kill off most of the clients......

the standard of cocaine is much higher in purity than it was 40 years ago.... so your pure med grade cocaine in the 70s is like todays triple cut shit.......
so your info is about 40 years out of date......

it is possible to eat the leaves of the coca plant cos they give a very mild effect that is no where near snorting coke up the snout.... and nowhere near the level of pure high grade coke.....the same with base... its processed but not refined.......

[bigbadmax]

ANYTHING taken in excess of recommended doses is toxic...so LDD you counter is not valid.

The worst critics of a subject are the reformed critics.

[Long Duck Dong]

lol not valid?.... find me a recommended daily dosage of pure high grade cocaine then :tong: cos its recommended that people do not use the stuff at all in its purest form....

* pure * medical cocaine is actually 3/4s pure, so even the medical profession avoids the pure high grade stuff..... and the * pure * stuff that many people claim to have used over the years, is not pure high grade...... part of the reason is that pure high grade cocaine is very alkaline in nature, it dissolves human soft tissue.. thats if you survive using it lol

so yeah, I look forward to seeing your recommended dosage of cocaine ( medically certified of course )

[bigbadmax]

LDD you stagger me at times, Morphine etc IS NOT a daily dose UNLESS terminally ill or in severe pain

One of my friends is on Morphine patches, they hardly work for him and BURN the skin.

If people decide to MISUSE any substence it is THEIR CHOICE and therefore not medically supported.

The suggested dose for patients is 5-30mg qds orally (4x day) prn (as required)

Extendend release- range from 10 mg to 600 mg daily, given in equally divided doses every 8 to 12 hours or given as one dose every 24 hours

IM or subcutaneous: 2.5 to 20 mg every 3 to 4 hours as needed
IV: 4 to 15 mg every 3 to 4 hours as needed. Give very slowly over 4 to 5 minutes. Starting doses up to 15 mg every 4 hours have been used.

Chest pain: 2 to 4 mg repeat as necessary
Continuous IV: 0.8 to 10 mg/hour. Maintenance dose: 0.8 to 80 mg/hour. Rates up to 440 mg/hour have been used.

IV patient controlled analgesia or subcutaneous patient controlled analgesia: 1 to 2 mg injected 30 minutes after a standard IV dose of 5 to 20 mg. The lockout period is 6 to 15 minutes. The 4 hour limit is 30 mg.

Continuous subcutaneous: 1 mg/hour after a standard dose of 5 to 20 mg

Epidural: 5 mg one time. May give 1 to 2 mg more after one hour to a maximum of 10 mg.

Intrathecal: 0.2 to 1 mg one time

Intrathecal Continuous: 0.2 mg/24 hours. May be increased up to 20 mg/24 hours.

Intracerebroventricular: 0.25 mg via an Ommaya reservoir.
Rectal: 10 to 30 mg every 4 hours as needed.

source BNF (the british National formulary) the dosage bible for ALL UK DOCTORS

happy now?

[Long Duck Dong]

no I am not happy, cos I was talking about cocaine ... if I was talking about morphine I would have said morphine....

I know about morphine, I have been on it a number of times in my life ( medically administered for the most part ) but morphine is a legally prescribed narcotic ( for the most part ) and has more benefits to the user than other narcotics such as crack cocaine ( used it ) meth ( tried it ) PCP / angel dust ( used it and I still get hell about trying to eat a cop car while under the influence ) heroin ( used it ) rock amphetamine ( used it in the army on exercises for the combat edge it gave ) and the list goes on.....

I better clear something up, a lot of my drug usage was a learning curve, a curiosity and a belief that in order to talk about things, i needed to know more about them and the effects on me... I was addicted to marijuana for pain relief, so when I refer to my drug addiction, it was a addiction to that....

I do not regret my drug usage as it helped me understand a lot of things better and from other peoples points of view..... I do regret the way I treated people cos of my involvement with drugs and the pain and suffering I caused other people.... and that is part of the reason I am anti legalising most hard drugs.....

I am on the fence about marijuana and honestly, more pro than anti legalising marijuna....

[bigbadmax]

dont split hairs LDD, your argument is clearly flawed...your ANTI stance is clouding your view.

Cocaine is NOT used in its original form to my knowledge as practices and advances in knowledge have negated its use in its original form...but then crack is not an original form either....NEVER pose a closed question as there will only ever be one answer.

My first job in the Navy was as PHARMACIST , I Can argue all day on a subject you have experience of but no evidentiary knowledge.

[wolfman6]

We know the history. Prohibition. Normal is that hateful word that we are forced to deal with, but it is completely normal for mammals to seek to alter their realities. We always have done it, we always will do it. My innate paranoia points to topics like this keeping us busy when there are momentous problems to be solved that are solvable. Legalization would mean increased tax, a standardization and quality control. For me, it is the same issue as abortion in that legal or not it will always take place and it will only take place safely for those with enough cash to assure it.

Legalize drugs. Especially marijuana. Surely if people can drink alcohol they can ingest weed.

[bigbadmax]

LDD just look at the stats on the survey.... 80% are in favour of legalisation in one form or another...enuff said.

[Long Duck Dong]

I am not splitting hairs, I was talking about cocaine, you used morphine to support your stance.......

cocaine is used in its purest form for transporting purposes, but thats understandable and common business sense.... lol ever researched how its made ???? :tong:

you may have been a pharmicist but dude, seriously, thats like being a female and talking with me about putting a condom on her cock..... and I mean no offence there.... as there is a difference between prescribing and using.... you have admitted that you do not use drugs.....

now before you think I am dismissing your input, I am not, cos as a pharmicist, your input has a added value as its experience from a angle that I do not have.....and I would rather listen to you than people that spammed wikipedia links and shit, cos personal experience and knowledge is something that can not be found on google.......

btw, I am assuming that in original form, you are refering to the pure high grade powder, not the leaves.....

my anti stance is not cos I want to stop people using drugs, cos if people want to sit at home and get so stoned that they spend the next year orbiting pluto, thats their choice, the same with people that * drink themselves sober * and in the same way that I am a tobacco smoker.....

what I am against, is the suffering, misery and abuse of drugs and alcohol and the effects of it on families and loved ones.....

I support the right of choice for people ( within reason ) but I fail to see how legalising narcotics ( outside of marijuana ) is benefical to anybody..... maybe you can get a crack addict or meth addict or heroin addict to share with us, how being addicted to drugs, improved their lives and how legalising the drugs would make things so much better for them, and save the tax payers a fortune......

I tend to agree with people, legalising marijuana can be a good move cos of the benefits to many people..... but its the idiots that are the issue.....

from the link I posted earlier in the thread

UNDER THE INFLUENCE

Results of a study of the blood of drivers who died in a crash show that 48 per cent had used alcohol and/or drugs.

31 per cent had used cannabis with or without alcohol or other drugs.

14 per cent had used drugs other than alcohol or cannabis.

18 per cent used alcohol with drugs.

90 per cent of frequent methamphetamine users, 62 per cent of frequent ecstasy users and 90 per cent of frequent injecting drug users have driven under the influence of a drug other than alcohol in the past six months.



they are the people I have the issue with, legalise narcotics and they place you and me at risk by their actions...... how is making their drug usage legal, benefiting society as a whole ????

[wolfman6]

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein, (attributed)
US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955)

We tried prohibition. I do not think drugs that destroy you should be legalized. I mean destroy you quickly. They ALL destroy you.

[bigbadmax]

LDD YOUR ignorance IS SHOWING AGAIN!

YOU ARE ASKING A fully TRAINED PHARMACOLOGIST and PHARMACIST whteher they are aware of the origins of cocaine....well lets see...its the local street corner...for gawds sake at least have a decent comment to make.

In reference to your points ref good coming for the community as a whole

Firstly when class b or schedule 2 drugs were openly available in the nederlands, their BIGGEST form of crime was gun smuggling as they were seen as a gun tollerent society.... NOT any Drug related crime except tourists get stoned and falling into the canals or drunk tourists...source, I served with the police in Amsterdam for a six month secondment.

In the UK they openly targeted and made aware they were targeting ALL Flights from Amsterdam....caught and the consequences were and are still severe.

Secondly, if you supply a "quality" product that has not been laced with unknown cutting agents then the clientelle will be healthier than those with substances obtained from unknown sources...this would lead to less infections (along with decent needle exchanges) and thus lower cost to treat addicts along with DECENT education and rehabillitation.

YOU TOTALLY MISSED THE POINT...IF YOU ASK A CLOSED QUESTION YOU WONT GET AN HONEST ANSWER...cocaine in its ORIGINAL FORM is not available on the NHS in this country easily available, if at all.Why ask the question if the answer is already known.

Quoting supposed surveys and statistics dont cut the ice either, a small survey that does not quote exact figures.....its like hair shampoo "86% of customers would agree" its not til you look at the sample size that you see only 73 people were asked...not entirely comparitive is it?

ALSO the product available is not intended for recreational usage....... If you put chip fat in a car it may run, but wont for long unless its been properly graded and used in accordance to the makers specificied usage. The goods may be there but it doesnt mean that they sre used correctly.

LDD you are currently 0 for 3 just face it your knowledge is Totally based on opinion not fact.

When you have some facts then maybe, maybe we can have a decent discussion not based on small surveys from small provinces.

bbm

[Long Duck Dong]

I was clarifying something you said as I was unsure in what form you were refering to the cocaine...... sorry for not reading your mind.....

I am pretty sure that you know a lot about aspects of drugs that I do not, something I believe I openly admitted to, when I said how as a pharmacist, I VALUE your input as its personal experience and NOT a area I have worked in.....

higher quality drugs are not safer than cut drugs, as BOTH are addictive substances, and cocaine is made using acids and petrol amongst other chemicals, and thats BEFORE it hits the streets..... saying that higher quality drugs are better than cut drugs, is like saying that top shelf spirits is better for a person than watered down generic spirits.......

you have more chance of screwing people over if you give them something that is too pure and concentrated for their bodies to handle.... but the idea that people want to support people using a addictive substance that can take over their lives, is bloody amusing..... cos when they are too drugged out of their trees to function fully, who is going to look after them...... ????? surely not the tax payer cos why should the taxpayer support and look after people that have become a burden on society...... oh wait... it is the taxpayer cos many drug addicts can not function in a employment role cos of their addiction......

its why people have rehab for addicts, so they can regain control over their lives again and learn to live and function again, and the failure rate is quite high....

you want to rubbish the findings of the transport authority ? fine, don't use the " 80% of people that support drug legalising " statement cos its not a properly conducted survey either......

btw, the NHS is in the UK, I am in NZ, hence I do not know ( or care ) about the nhs in your country

simply and bluntly, I am a ex drug addict that has worked on and been on the streets and involved in illegal activities, but I clearly know nothing cos a pharmicist prescribed drugs but never used them tells me that I am wrong...

well in that case, I will just point to the UK fiqures of drug addiction and abuse etc and ask you to explain how making the substances that create that situation, legal, going to benefit those people and the rest of society..... as clearly my opinion that drugs are a addictive and destructive substance are not true at all and you should not be able to find in info about drug addictive, abuse and overdoses cos thats just MY opinion that it happens, its not fact

[drugstore cowboy]

pure med grade cocaine... lol... thats like drag racing with standard gas in the car and claiming you are using nos......

pure high grade cocaine, matey... is toxic..... as lil as 3 mg can kill a person and a dosage of 20 mg is considered to be enuf to silence any person.... hence they cut the hell out of it or it would kill off most of the clients......

the standard of cocaine is much higher in purity than it was 40 years ago.... so your pure med grade cocaine in the 70s is like todays triple cut shit.......
so your info is about 40 years out of date......

it is possible to eat the leaves of the coca plant cos they give a very mild effect that is no where near snorting coke up the snout.... and nowhere near the level of pure high grade coke.....the same with base... its processed but not refined.......

Do you even read what you write? It doesn't make any sense at all.

Street cocaine is never pure, and it's never as pure or strong as med grade coke is.

Myself and others have used way more than 3mg or even 20mg of med grade coke and we're still alive.

[Long Duck Dong]

Do you even read what you write? It doesn't make any sense at all.

Street cocaine is never pure, and it's never as pure or strong as med grade coke is.

Myself and others have used way more than 3mg or even 20mg of med grade coke and we're still alive.

I CLEARLY stated a few times I was talking about pure HIGH grade cocaine, NOT med grade..... and how 40 years ago, cocaine was not as pure as it is today....

I NEVER said that street grade is pure, I said that it is often transported in a very pure form then cut....

never volunteer as a poster child for literacy, please....

[drugstore cowboy]

I CLEARLY stated a few times I was talking about pure HIGH grade cocaine, NOT med grade..... and how 40 years ago, cocaine was not as pure as it is today....

I NEVER said that street grade is pure, I said that it is often transported in a very pure form then cut....

never volunteer as a poster child for literacy, please....

Med grade cocaine is pure high grade cocaine.

Again, you're not making any sense at all and you don't read what you post before you post it.

[Long Duck Dong]

Med grade cocaine is pure high grade cocaine.

Again, you're not making any sense at all and you don't read what you post before you post it.

yeah and low octane gas is nos and beer is over 180 proof.....

seriously dude, do you know anything about pure high grade cocaine ????

[Pasadenacpl2]

I'm all in favor of legalizing pot. I am not in favor of other drugs, persay. But marijuana should not only be legal, but we should be making a killing as a nation off of it. I posted, in another forum, my plan for making it legal. A condensed version follows:

1. Decriminalize illicit drug use.
2. Release from prisons the hundreds of thousands we have locked up for it.
3. Allow farmers to grow it as a crop.
4. Take every farmer getting subsidies and allow them first crack at a license to grow. (you will not we just got rid of farm subsidies and got money out of the farmers..win/win).
5. You regulate it (this will require a whole new industry....that means jobs).
6. Sell it behind the counter just like cigarettes. (you can make it 21 to buy if you feel the need).
7. You make black market dealing a crime punishable by 20 years in prison. Period. First offense.
8. If you crossed our border to bring in weed from Mexico, you get a life sentence. Period. First offense.

These last two won't be necessary, really. Once the fed sells pot that is cheaper, safer, and easier to access the need for the black market will dwindle to nothing.

As for the logistics of it (LDD asked for how we can handle things like second hand smoke etc.), these are easily fixable through well crafted legislation. Logistics should never be used as an argument against doing the right thing.

To whoever said that there is no way to test: you would be very, very wrong. You apparently haven't been in a high school recently. We have officers perform sobriety tests all the time for kids high on pot, xanax, and meth. Each has it's own indicators, and each are pretty accurate. Hint: your eyes tell on you.

The above plan will have the following effects. It will:

1. Dramatically decrease our need for prisons. (saves money)
2. Will dramatically free up the courts (saves time and money)
3. Will create jobs.
4. Will create residual markets for the now-legal hemp industry.
5. Will improve the quality and safety of the product.
6. Will decrease the stress on our borders.
7. Will eliminate farm subsidies. (and might save a few farms to boot)
8. Will increase revenue to the fed.
9. Will unburdon police and other agencies.

and most importantly...

10. Will end a 450 billion per year unconstitutional boondoggle that drains our resources while not truly preventing any drug use at all.

Pasa

[todaystheday]

I was wondering if anyone uses drugs to enhance their sex life. I like to smoke weed or hash when i have sex and was wondering if anyone does the same. I have also used ecstasy when playing with my bum bum to unparalleled pleasure and results. I didn't want to start a new drug thread so i thought i might ask it here.

[Pasadenacpl2]

I almost always find that drug use is counterproductive to sex. Weed doesn't actually get you high, and actually acts as an inhibitor to proper blood flow.

Ecstacy is a tricky one. It can (depending on what it's cut with) have amazing results. The problem is one of imprinting. If I have sex with Dave, and it was while using X, then the likelihood of me imprinting that experience is pretty high. If dave and I ever have sex again and we don't use X it just won't be as good, and will most likely lead to a feeling of disappointment. This is ok if Dave was a one night stand. It really sucks if we're in a relationship.

Coke gives the curse. You get hard, and can fuck all night long, but chances of orgasm are almost none. Talk about frustrating.

Or....so I've heard.

Pasa

[BiDaveDtown]

I almost always find that drug use is counterproductive to sex. Weed doesn't actually get you high, and actually acts as an inhibitor to proper blood flow.

Ecstacy is a tricky one. It can (depending on what it's cut with) have amazing results. The problem is one of imprinting. If I have sex with Dave, and it was while using X, then the likelihood of me imprinting that experience is pretty high. If dave and I ever have sex again and we don't use X it just won't be as good, and will most likely lead to a feeling of disappointment. This is ok if Dave was a one night stand. It really sucks if we're in a relationship.

Coke gives the curse. You get hard, and can fuck all night long, but chances of orgasm are almost none. Talk about frustrating.

Or....so I've heard.

Pasa

That's what those drugs do to you, everyone's different.

I took Ecstasy in the 80s when it was legal here in TX and I did have sex on it with men and women who I was in a relationship with at the time. Yes sex was good on the ecstasy, but we also had sex completely sober later that was also very good and better than the sex we had while on MDMA.

What is ecstasy now cut with? I have never had any that was cut but the last time I used it, it was legal in Texas and this was decades ago.

Pot makes me hard but my ex BF and I would get stoned and suck each other's dicks.

If you've ever used cocaine you'll know that it doesn't last that long at all and you have to either crash or keep using more to avoid the crash. Yes it can make you horny and aroused. I was able to ejaculate while on it and while having sex on it.

[darkeyes]

simply and bluntly, I am a ex drug addict ...

Actually ur not... once an addict..always an addict.. u may not be a user ne longer but u remain an addict...

..as to why legalisation will benefit addicts has been explained several times... more, it will benefit society as a whole...that has been explained also...

[Long Duck Dong]

Actually ur not... once an addict..always an addict.. u may not be a user ne longer but u remain an addict...

..as to why legalisation will benefit addicts has been explained several times... more, it will benefit society as a whole...that has been explained also...

once a addict, more likely to relapse, there is a difference...... a addict is a person that is addicted to something, a ex addict no longer has the addiction but has the increased risk of relapsing.....

as for how it will benefit addicts has been explained, not proven to work as you will create more addicts, except they will be legal addicts...

how it will benefit society has been explained, not proven, as you will have more people legally using drugs in society and then you will have to deal with the effects of that......

what has been proven is that legalizing something doesn't fix the issue, it can make it worse... hence the increasing binge drinking issues of the UK and NZ....

we have a system that is seeing more and more people on benefits for drug and alcohol addiction than 10 years ago...... the taxpayer has to support them cos they can not work.... how is that benefitting society, rather than creating a added burden for society to deal with.......

when they had the legal syn cannabis * kronic * on the market, in less than 2 months, they had teens turning up at school stoned out of their heads, even tho it was not legal for them to buy the stuff.......

prohibition doesn't work, we all know that, but making it legal is not going to make things better..... its going to be free and wide ranging access to a addictive substance..... and if you look around at the way that people are complaining about the issues with second hand smoke etc.... how the hell do you think that you are going to deal with second hand drug smoke ?????

oh thats right, create laws...... the things that people break and ignore when it suits them..... so you are not fixing a issue as much as creating new ones.... but refusing to see the effects of what you create, only that you get what you want.... then expect others to clean up the mess......

if anybody can come up with a intelligent solution to second hand drug smoke... and a way to stop people driving under the influence of drugs, I am all ears and eyes.... cos legalising it is not going to stop that, its going to make it worse.....

[darkeyes]

I have no idea what they tell u in our little part of the world Duckie, but in mine they tell us once an addict always an addict, having had your brain so altered and diseased by abuse of a substance that you are never entirely free of it.. relapse is likely because you are an addict.. it may be out of your system but the brain sits in wait for a little taste of what isnt good for it and then bites your arse so hard that a return to the mess you were in before is almost inevitable...you may be in recovery, and maybe remain clean for the rest of your life, but drug addiction will always be a part of you, and you can never use the substance safely again just to be sociable.... the addiction is in the brain, not psychologically, but physically due to changes made while you used...

Whether the drug be alcohol, crack, coke or heroin the worst thing a person can do is tell themself that they are no longer addicted because that makes relapse and a return to substance abuse more likely.. if you truly were an addict then you do yourself and those around you a disservice by saying that you are no longer an addict.. therein lies the greater likelihood of relapse..

My partner is an addict... she tells herself that and lives with that knowledge every day of her life.. we all do... she does not let that knowledge dominate or poison her life but she knows and we know that she will never be cured, merely that she is free for the moment of the drug in her system.. she is not, and never shall be free of her addiction.. her brain has been changed, and is diseased by several years of drug abuse and will never entirely free its grip on her..

Forgive me for the moment if I do not comment upon the rest of your post but I may return to it time permitting..

[Long Duck Dong]

I have no idea what they tell u in our little part of the world Duckie, but in mine they tell us once an addict always an addict, having had your brain so altered and diseased by abuse of a substance that you are never entirely free of it.. relapse is likely because you are an addict.. it may be out of your system but the brain sits in wait for a little taste of what isnt good for it and then bites your arse so hard that a return to the mess you were in before is almost inevitable...you may be in recovery, and maybe remain clean for the rest of your life, but drug addiction will always be a part of you, and you can never use the substance safely again just to be sociable.... the addiction is in the brain, not psychologically, but physically due to changes made while you used...

Whether the drug be alcohol, crack, coke or heroin the worst thing a person can do is tell themself that they are no longer addicted because that makes relapse and a return to substance abuse more likely.. if you truly were an addict then you do yourself and those around you a disservice by saying that you are no longer an addict.. therein lies the greater likelihood of relapse..

My partner is an addict... she tells herself that and lives with that knowledge every day of her life.. we all do... she does not let that knowledge dominate or poison her life but she knows and we know that she will never be cured, merely that she is free for the moment of the drug in her system.. she is not, and never shall be free of her addiction.. her brain has been changed, and is diseased by several years of drug abuse and will never entirely free its grip on her..

Forgive me for the moment if I do not comment upon the rest of your post but I may return to it time permitting..

now tell me again why you want to legalise drugs ???????

I am a ex alcoholic and a ex drug addict, I can sit down with a beer or whisky and enjoy it, without suffering issues...... and the reason is simple... I do not pay into the crap that I will always be a addict and controlled by a need for a substance.....

maybe you need to learn the difference between a psychological and biological addiction.....

[Hephaestion]

On the BBC radio 4 program(me) "Black is a Country" (with an annoying female negro commentator) the allegation was made that in the USA

a) ghettos were planned; they were created and sited purposefully; they were surrounded by waste disposal plants and therefore high in toxic pollutants; they had strategically placed police stations on their periphery to keep diquiet under check

b) the "Black Power" movement was undermined by government agencies promoting drug usage amongst the returning VietNam veterans so as to dissipate motivation.

.

[BiJoe696]

Some good info here on Coke ( & Coca-Cola)

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/813959-overview

:flag3: :flag2:

[tenni]

darkeyes
I agree with much that you write about being an addict. My sister is finishing up her training to be a certified Drug and Alcohol Addiction counsellor and talks on and on and on :eek: about this during family gatherings. Her pet buzz is about co dependency. My own formal education on addiction was brief but there are a few levels and interpretations about it as I recall. There are physiological forms of addiction. There are certain groups of people who are inclined to move from one addiction to the next. I've known and suspect other have known people who have had difficulty with drugs and alcohol. Certain tendencies to addiction can be found in families and some might propose even cultures. The nurture nature aspects may be argued until the cows come home.

The original question is so broad and inclusive as to nearly be unresolvable. My own personal approach to addicts is to be cautious about how much I become involved with them. If they are in your family, its difficult. I don't however think that certain drugs should be illegal and some are not. The debate as to which ones should be permitted is beyond me and my general interests. I can live quite happily without certain substances that create an altered state. I can take a drink and stop at a few while some of my direct ancestors of the Irish kind couldn't. I'm more drawn to sweet tastes and therefore chocolate is a substance I need to be cautious with. I can also be led into developing "habits" of a "Brown Cow" late at night lately. You know Khaluha and milk Brown Cow and not some slur about a woman..lol It may be argued that there is an addictive aspect to coffee consumption.(physiological or psychological or both) That is more socially acceptable than taking coke. Why one person is more inclined to cross over a control line to abusive behaviour is a bit of a mystery but factors are known.

[darkeyes]

now tell me again why you want to legalise drugs ???????

I am a ex alcoholic and a ex drug addict, I can sit down with a beer or whisky and enjoy it, without suffering issues...... and the reason is simple... I do not pay into the crap that I will always be a addict and controlled by a need for a substance.....

maybe you need to learn the difference between a psychological and biological addiction.....

It is not an issue of wanting or not wanting to legalise what are now illegal drugs.. it is an issue of what is the least odious alternative and will provide our societies with the most realistic chance of dealing constructively with the whole issue of illegal drugs, crime and addiction.. you have said yourself that prohibition does not work.. the only realistic alternative is to legalise, regulate and control, thus removing from organised crime at a stroke so much of its stranglehold on our societies.. not ideal.. no panacea..but sadly much needed in my opinon..

..and with regard to your second para, I will not comment and allow others to ponder what you have said and what it means vis a vis u, alcohol and drug addiction... except maybe to say this.. and it isnt in the least why I make no comment.. I know a number of alcoholics and drug addicts who believe they have no issues with their drinking or doping...

...and I know about addiction, phsycological and biological if I may borrow your expression.. however, I am not convinced you know very much about either because while an addiction to drugs (including alcohol) may have its psychological issues, it is not fundamentally a pyschological matter.. it is physical and biological...

[drugstore cowboy]

I am a ex alcoholic and a ex drug addict, I can sit down with a beer or whisky and enjoy it, without suffering issues...... and the reason is simple... I do not pay into the crap that I will always be a addict and controlled by a need for a substance.....

If you can do that with alcohol then you never were addicted to alcohol at all.

Or perhaps it is like Darkeyes wrote that you're just kidding yourself that you don't have a problem with addiction.

The alcoholics I know and have met are like Tenni described where once they start drinking they can't stop, and some will stay sober for short periods of time but then all of a sudden binge on a large amount of alcohol all at once and go on a bender for a few days or weeks.

[csrakate]

I am a ex alcoholic and a ex drug addict, I can sit down with a beer or whisky and enjoy it, without suffering issues...... and the reason is simple... I do not pay into the crap that I will always be a addict and controlled by a need for a substance.....

maybe you need to learn the difference between a psychological and biological addiction.....

Thanks for demeaning the struggle of so many who fight this disease, LDD. I don't give a crap how YOU do it....just don't negate the efforts and struggles of others! That so called "crap" as you label it has saved the lives of very many....myself included! Go ahead and fool yourself if you wish but there is no such thing as an EX alcoholic....just someone who refuses to give up control over something they insist isn't hurting them. I'd much rather believe in the "crap" and live a healthy life.....and a longer life.

Maybe you don't have a problem, LDD....maybe you were never REALLY an alcoholic. I can't speak to that and I am in no position to judge what you are. I just know that you do a great disservice to others when you make such a statement. Unless I am missing something here, you are not a professional addiction specialist and before you make any claims to the contrary, your life experience does NOT make you one

[jamieknyc]

On the BBC radio 4 program(me) "Black is a Country" (with an annoying female negro commentator) the allegation was made that in the USA

a) ghettos were planned; they were created and sited purposefully; they were surrounded by waste disposal plants and therefore high in toxic pollutants; they had strategically placed police stations on their periphery to keep diquiet under check

b) the "Black Power" movement was undermined by government agencies promoting drug usage amongst the returning VietNam veterans so as to dissipate motivation.

.

Ghettos certainly were planned: in the years when blacks were going north in large numbers, they were steered into certain areas of large Northern cities. The rest of that is a little over the top.

[drugstore cowboy]

Thanks for demeaning the struggle of so many who fight this disease, LDD. I don't give a crap how YOU do it....just don't negate the efforts and struggles of others! That so called "crap" as you label it has saved the lives of very many....myself included! Go ahead and fool yourself if you wish but there is no such thing as an EX alcoholic....just someone who refuses to give up control over something they insist isn't hurting them. I'd much rather believe in the "crap" and live a healthy life.....and a longer life.

Maybe you don't have a problem, LDD....maybe you were never REALLY an alcoholic. I can't speak to that and I am in no position to judge what you are. I just know that you do a great disservice to others when you make such a statement. Unless I am missing something here, you are not a professional addiction specialist and before you make any claims to the contrary, your life experience does NOT make you one

I am glad that you are sober.

I am not addicted to drugs or alcohol since I have not used either in a long time and while I did drink some wine over Christmas I only had two glasses at a holiday party and one of them was with a meal.

You're right about calling out Long Duck on his shit about how just because he thinks or wants to believe that NA/AA are failures and that you can somehow become an EX-addict or EX-alcoholic when you can't.

With wrong and flat out dangerous attitudes like that towards addiction LDD should go to one of those sham clinics that I see commercials on TV for Passages Malibu where they say "You're not really an addict!" even though if you're going to a treatment/rehab center you are a drug addict or alcoholic.

Just watch, LDD will go on about how he's somehow really a "counselor" and how this includes drug/alcohol addiction too! Then again LDD has claimed at his convenience that he's "bisexual" when he's not trashing us bisexual men; but he's completely asexual and always has been, and is no more bisexual than a straight person is since he is asexual.

[bigbadmax]

look chaps and chapesses, lets not get personnal over this......everyone is entitled to their view...in some circumstances it may be entirely unfounded BUT people should be acceped and every viewpoint counts, no matter whether they agree with you or not.

Please give each other head and chill out, maybe smoke a toke as well!:cowboy: (no sherrifs badge on here!)

[darkeyes]

Dont start a row Max if u dont want peeps 2 take different views.. nowt is personal but lots is questioning wot othas thnk an feel... this is important..much more than u may realise...

[Darkside2009]

Legalising and taxing tobacco hasn't removed any problems, it has created more. It hasn't eradicated smuggling of the product either.

Similarly with alcohol, ever increasing taxes on alcohol, has simply driven people out of pubs and into the local supermarket for a cheaper source, not one of better quality.

It has not eradicated illicit stills with people making Moonshine or Poteen. If you have to tax it, you are going to make it more expensive than the untaxed equivalent.

Criminals will always seek to make their profit by selling it cheaper than the producer can who has to pay taxes on it.

If you create more alcoholics and addicts, those people will not be reliable as full-time employees, they will languish on unemployment, supported by those who are not so addicted.

In the UK, alcoholism has increased with the availability of cheap alcohol from supermarkets, this in turn leads to more medical problems, greater costs to the Health Service, lost production from absenteeism from work, loss of foreign investment in setting up factories and businesses.

There are examples a plenty to contradict what some of you claim is a good idea. During the recent riots in England, there were those on these very threads who claimed unemployment led to disaffection, which led to resentment, which led to violence and crime because the rioters didn't have the money to buy luxury goods, They were unemployed after all.

So if we legalise drugs, create more addicts, this will somehow be a cure for unemployment? It doesn't seem quite rational to me. If farmers have to grow anything I would rather it be food crops rather than drugs. Better by far to be as self-sufficient in food as possible, it creates more employment, less expenditure of fuel bringing food from one side of the World to another.

As for releasing prisoners from prison who are there on drugs offences, I think that idea is a little irrational too. Those prisoners are there primarily because they didn't want to work. They viewed selling drugs as an easy option to a more affluent lifestyle. They were wrong, they got caught, but like most criminals, they never thought they would get caught, the lazy and the stupid tend to harbour such notions.

To them the profits to be made are worth the gamble, release them and most will simply return to whichever criminal enterprise rakes in the most profit. To the criminal, the guy working the normal job is a fool to be bled dry by opportunistic Government taxes.

I think that those who would legalise illegal mind altering substances, might mean well, but the reality of their actions would be somewhat different than they envisage.

I believe it was DD who posted a link to an article on the history of tobacco, in a previous thread. It should be required reading for those who think legalising another drug is a good idea.

[Long Duck Dong]

Thanks for demeaning the struggle of so many who fight this disease, LDD. I don't give a crap how YOU do it....just don't negate the efforts and struggles of others! That so called "crap" as you label it has saved the lives of very many....myself included! Go ahead and fool yourself if you wish but there is no such thing as an EX alcoholic....just someone who refuses to give up control over something they insist isn't hurting them. I'd much rather believe in the "crap" and live a healthy life.....and a longer life.

Maybe you don't have a problem, LDD....maybe you were never REALLY an alcoholic. I can't speak to that and I am in no position to judge what you are. I just know that you do a great disservice to others when you make such a statement. Unless I am missing something here, you are not a professional addiction specialist and before you make any claims to the contrary, your life experience does NOT make you one

no I do not do a disservice to anybody, cos I am not everybody, people with alcohol issues are all affected differently... some drink to get drunk, some drink cos they have a dependancy, some drink as a defense mechanism.... there are many different levels and reasons as to why people drink....

unless all of the specialists and drug and alcohol addiction people I saw over the years, are all idiots... then they must know what they are talking about when they acknowledged I had a alcohol and drug problem... but it took years for people to listen to me when I said the reasons why I was using drugs and alcohol, was cos I was not copying with something I could not understand.....

it took the diagnosis of ptsd and then the dystimia before people realised I was telling the truth, I was not using to get drunk and stoned, I was using to deal with issues that I could not fix or deal with.....

I was using to feel NORMAL, to be like other people, and it was not working so I got frustrated and angry and more depressed, which fueled the issue more.... it become one of the most vicious cycles a person could go thru, and my heart goes out to those people that are in a cycle that they may never escape...... like my father who can not stop drinking, tho he has his drinking under control..... and the same as my step father and my mother, and my elder sister..... btw thats alcohol co dependancy running in a family, so I grew up with alcohol abuse in the family......

at my worst, I was reaching for a drink the moment I wake up in the morning.. first thing in the morning, that was not part of the alcoholism as such, it was a need to have something, anything to drink.... and that was the key starting point for getting myself off the bottle......

while I had episodes of being drunk, I once drunk myself to the point where I lost track of time, I was in christchurch on a thursday and next thing I was in motueka on a tuesday, 9 days later, and I still have no idea what happened in those nine days........

it was a 4 point stroke that changed my life around.... I suddenly lost the desire for alcohol after that, I stopped suffering the painful migraines I have suffered since 13 and I could not remember why I drunk..... however, I continued to and still do, have the need to reach for a drink, so I drink coke, its a habitual reflex now, not a addiction......
the reason why I am so careful with alcohol now, is there are times that I will have a drink of beer and within minutes I am vomiting my guts out..... but drinking alcohol no longer effects me in the way it used to.....

hence I use the term EX alcoholic.... as I am not longer affected by drinking or a need and desire to drink.... thanks to a 4 point stroke......

did I win the fight, NO, the fight was won for me, I would have never won my battle, just fought it for the rest of my life, as I have a addictive personality, I am a person that is still struggling with smoking, I have been addicted to energy drinks, coca cola, jigsaw puzzles, computer games etc...... something that I have come to terms with and even then I have to be careful what i do.... as sitting down at a jigsaw puzzle for days on end and forgetting to eat and drink, is something I have been known to do........

I have watched my friends die from drugs and alcohol.... hence why I have no desire to see drugs made legal cos of the suffering and pain I have seen... but there is another side to it, I know how marijuana ( and some other drugs ) can help people live a normal life, be human.... be free...... so that is why I have the dual opinion I do... I do not want to see people turn in to addicts but NOR do I want to see people be stopped from using the same thing that can set them free........

I have not and never will be one of the * mainstream * people that fit and match societies defination and understanding of what a drug and alcohol addict should be..... in the same way that people like the trans sexual / trans gender are being treated like they are some sub human class of human being..... in the same way that the LGBT were treated as mentally ill people ......

growing up, I turned into a alcohol and drug fueled monster that left a trail of destruction, heartache, pain, suffering and death, and I spent years doing counselling and therapy work with others to try and help others not to become like I had.... I had grown to hate myself and what I was.....

I have turned my life around and I am more accepting of myself, my past and acknowledging how much I regret what I did to others.... when I am told that I do not even know about my own life, my own struggles and my own acknowledgement of the hell I caused cos of what I was and what I did to other people, and how my view of myself is wrong and insulting and demeaning to others, I seriously question why I fucking bothered to do anything about the asshole I was once......

no I am not a professional addiction specialist, I am just somebody that spent years going to them for help, and turning my life around, only to be rubbished in a goddam forum by people cos I do not fit their image of what a alcoholic should be, do and say.....

so I apologise for suffering a stroke that enabled me to regain control over my life... and I offer my sincerest regrets that others are not able to suffer 4 point strokes as well and have the same chances I did

[darkeyes]

I know how to move goalposts as well Duckie... prob bettern u....

[csrakate]

OMG LDD.....play the Martyr card why don't you??? Why couldn't you just simply admit, for ONCE, that perhaps you were wrong. Don't you realize it's not about you? It's not about your damn drinking...nor is it about your stroke....it's about how you spew comments about alcoholism as fact based purely on YOUR experience. And THAT is what is such a disservice to others.....that you would base a conclusion about addiction on how it affected YOU....not the millions of others who have suffered and who will suffer. Don't bother to reply as I am sure you will only repeat your history and attempt to further engage us in another pity party. I am glad you are happy....I am glad you can drink when you want....I am glad you have all the answers. Enough said. My serenity is way too important to me to jeopardize it with a petty argument.

[tenni]

Post 71 seems to be a continuation of denial and delusion about why "I" am special. Weak.... Weak..

[DuckiesDarling]

Hey Tenni, get off the bandwagon, you have no clue, as always.


Kate, he wasn't demeaning your husband's struggle just trying to explain why alcohol was different to drug addiction because someone who was never addicted to drugs is going on and on about how once an addict always an addict and mindsets.


Fran, really, give it a rest.


LDD, hon, I love you, but enough. Just end the arguments.

And really at the end of the day NOTHING anyone posts in THIS FORUM will do anything to LEGALIZE ILLEGAL DRUGS anywhere in the WORLD. So please y'all take a chill pill, grab a drink or smoke your choice. It's a free world.

[darkeyes]

Fran, really, give it a rest.





Love to..when he finally stops talking to everyone as if they are shite and when he stops rabbiting garbage himself...

[Long Duck Dong]

Love to..when he finally stops talking to everyone as if they are shite and when he stops rabbiting garbage himself...

then maybe people like you, may want to stop telling people they are always wrong.....

[Long Duck Dong]

You're right about calling out Long Duck on his shit about how just because he thinks or wants to believe that NA/AA are failures and that you can somehow become an EX-addict or EX-alcoholic when you can't.


considering that I never mentioned them or used them in NZ, I am doing very well there......

I happen to be in AWE of the NA / AA system in the us as its far superior to some of the NA / AA groups in NZ..... so do me a favour and shut the hell up

[drugstore cowboy]

considering that I never mentioned them or used them in NZ, I am doing very well there......

I happen to be in AWE of the NA / AA system in the us as its far superior to some of the NA / AA groups in NZ..... so do me a favour and shut the hell up

NA and AA are going to be the same no matter where you go.

It's the same program in the United States as it is in NZ and other countries.

[Long Duck Dong]

NA and AA are going to be the same no matter where you go.

It's the same program in the United States as it is in NZ and other countries.

doesn't change the fact I never said they were crap..

[Hephaestion]

Humans (probably a great many mammals) are designed to be addicted. That's how sex and the urge to reproduce is rewarded - through endogenous morphines (endorphines).

This spills out into other endorphine release practices (e.g. simples as eating or as extreme as masochism being a misuse of the the mechanism intended for injury survival). Taking external substances which promote the same effect, leads to drug dependancy. That's roughly the physiological side. There is also a psychological component where the anticipatory mechanisms kick in. The proportions vie for prominence.

As humans are designed to be addicted, then there is no surprise in the approach that drug addicts (all sorts) are lapsed rather than cured.

If LDD had discovered some mechanism for overcoming addiction then that would have been of tremendous interest to the medical society. LDD tells of a stroke as altering levels of susceptibility. In historical terms this would be analogous to (a) 'lobotomy'; certainly brain damage.

One wonders if there might be merit in pursuing this along a scientific course to see of there are sites which can be located to reduce / remove external drug addiction. Nowadays NMRI is a valuable tool along with localised energy beam excision / destruction. Side effects of induced 'immunity'? Perhaps no more pleasure from food which some stroke sufferers have reported or no desire for / pleasure from e.g. sex.


JamieNYC - thanks for the feedback - item b was certainly alleged.

.

[Long Duck Dong]

lol hep, its been tried..... very limited chances of success apparently.... as its not just a matter of hitting the area that deals with addiction but you also need to change the chemicals in the brain......

this link talks about what happened to me.... well not the smoking part, I still have that issue brain damage assists smokers to quit (http://notexactlyrocketscience.wordpress.com/2007/02/13/the-insula-the-brains-cigarette-addiction-centre/)

[darkeyes]

then maybe people like you, may want to stop telling people they are always wrong.....

Forgive me my misunderstanding of what debate and argument is all about.. maybe I should just sit in a corner like a litle church mouse and not express my opinions..

[Long Duck Dong]

I have no issues with debating with you fran.... I am just sick to death of being told that I am constantly wrong about issues that affect ME and are diagnosed by professionals, yet rubbished by non professionals in a forum....

my point with the " once a addict, always a addict " remark, was not a issue with you.... its cos I am sick of being told that I should not refer to myself as a ex alcoholic cos " no body is a ex alcoholic "

I am not in the same class as recovering / reformed addicts, as I am not recovering or reformed..... they are in a league of their own and I do not even come close to comparing to people that do what they do every day, which btw, is me acknowledging that they are incredible people, not saying that I am better than them........

people like me, fall between the gaps, we are no longer dealing with a addiction, yet we are former alcoholics, so why are we not allowed to refer to ourselves as ex alcoholics ? which is correct.....
which does beg the question, why are smokers allowed to call themselves ex smokers and not reformed / recovering smokers ? they are addicts too.....

any way, I will apologise for any offense caused by my wording ( which was not directed at NA / AA, so drugstore can go fuck himself ) to you, kate, kate :tong: and any other person that is dealing with a addiction or have a friend / partner / family / loved one that has a addiction issue......

and if you read the link in my last post, you will see what I was talking about with the effects of a stroke on a addict.... and how it can change a person with a addiction, into a person without a addiction, over night......

[Hephaestion]

LDD - From what you say, there has been an effect upon you. Yes agreed that the chemicals in the brain remain the same. However, there must have been some configurational changes to affect functionality. The brain can reconfigure itself to adapt to damage and demand. What needs to happen is a long term study of designation and re-desigantion i.e. configurational changes to see what the brain has done to survive stroke.

Just a thought. Reward initiators in their commonality would not be evolutionarily associated. Therefore they must be deep seated. If these have been damaged then the event could well have been life threatening. Perhaps not a stroke at all but a deep seated tumour or trauma with stroke as a secondary manifestation.

Best regards from myself
and my good friend
Baron von Frankenstein

PS - I am sure that you are ok really.

[darkeyes]

The condition u describe Duckie is 1 of which I have been unaware.. but there are so many different ways things affect or dont affect us that I should have thought of it.. remember when I was a young girl, an article about a guy who coudnt get sozzed no matter how much booze he drank.. didnt even register on breathalisers.. and changes in our health can and does change how things affect us quite frequently.. in a small way it has happened to me cos after being ill last year, when I got out of hospital me auntie from Lancashire brought me up some Eccles cakes from her local baker... 1s ya get up here are tripe.. bit in 2 1 an it was ghastly.. have eaten an luffed Eccles cakes made by that same baker since ever I can remember and now I cant stand them.. a little thing but thats how it goes I spose..

..but all throught his debate I have been talking of drug addicts.. proper addicts.. and its them, and our society, in fact our world as a whole that concerns me cos the drugs trade is so international is why I feel as I do.. am sorry if I've been a bit off hand but we all get niggled about something at times and I'm human just like anyone else and frustration and irritation can and does get the better of me too..

[sammie19]

we all get niggled about something at times and I'm human just like anyone else and frustration and irritation can and does get the better of me too..

Really? Wow. I'd never have known.:bigrin:

[fubar13]

Did we not learn anything from prohibition? Prohibition is what brought about organized crime in the 1st place & gave it the power it holds to this day.
Anytime a product is outlawed it creates a black market to be exploited, the more money to be made the greater the organization becomes. This includes everyone from producers, pickers, distributors, users, etc. This in turn creates a larger law enforcement industry, which the taxpayer pays for, fills the jails with mostly low level abusers, which in turn leaves less room for more serious criminals, clogs the court systems, all the while creating larger & more powerful syndicates, payoffs to judges, cops, & murders to protect the industry.
How did the government finally get a hold on prohibition? They repealed it!!! Now the alcohol industry brings in billions of dollars to the government, federal, state, & local. There are penalties imposed on those who would break the laws & "mostly" they are adhered to. Will there be abuse??? Yes, but there's abuse in everything, booze, prescription drugs, food, anything you can name because there is a certain segment that will always abuse the system, trying to find an easier way.
You can not legislate peoples actions on all levels, there will always be druggies, drunks, gluttons, murderers, rapist, etc. What gives one person the right to legislate the action of another person in the privacy of there own home, as long as they're not hurting another?? Society??? The Church??? Your Neighbor??? What happens if one day the "majority" of people around you decide your behavior is wrong?? Ask yourself this, If all drugs are legalized on Monday, are you going to be shooting heroin on Tuesday?? No, of course not & neither is anyone else, no more then our Grandparents all became alcoholics after prohibition was repealed.
My idea, legalize it all, Give the farmers another cash crop, thereby doing away with farm subsidies, thereby saving billions more in tax money...sell it in liquor store with same penalties, age limits, driving, etc. as alcohol has. Tax hell outta it thereby bringing in even more cash to the government so they get out of your pockets...
By doing that you would destroy the cartels & other criminal organizations by taking the profit out of it. Law enforcement could then focus on real crimes taking place....nuff said...

[darkeyes]

Did we not learn anything from prohibition? Prohibition is what brought about organized crime in the 1st place & gave it the power it holds to this day.
Anytime a product is outlawed it creates a black market to be exploited, the more money to be made the greater the organization becomes. This includes everyone from producers, pickers, distributors, users, etc. This in turn creates a larger law enforcement industry, which the taxpayer pays for, fills the jails with mostly low level abusers, which in turn leaves less room for more serious criminals, clogs the court systems, all the while creating larger & more powerful syndicates, payoffs to judges, cops, & murders to protect the industry.
How did the government finally get a hold on prohibition? They repealed it!!! Now the alcohol industry brings in billions of dollars to the government, federal, state, & local. There are penalties imposed on those who would break the laws & "mostly" they are adhered to. Will there be abuse??? Yes, but there's abuse in everything, booze, prescription drugs, food, anything you can name because there is a certain segment that will always abuse the system, trying to find an easier way.
You can not legislate peoples actions on all levels, there will always be druggies, drunks, gluttons, murderers, rapist, etc. What gives one person the right to legislate the action of another person in the privacy of there own home, as long as they're not hurting another?? Society??? The Church??? Your Neighbor??? What happens if one day the "majority" of people around you decide your behavior is wrong?? Ask yourself this, If all drugs are legalized on Monday, are you going to be shooting heroin on Tuesday?? No, of course not & neither is anyone else, no more then our Grandparents all became alcoholics after prohibition was repealed.
My idea, legalize it all, Give the farmers another cash crop, thereby doing away with farm subsidies, thereby saving billions more in tax money...sell it in liquor store with same penalties, age limits, driving, etc. as alcohol has. Tax hell outta it thereby bringing in even more cash to the government so they get out of your pockets...
By doing that you would destroy the cartels & other criminal organizations by taking the profit out of it. Law enforcement could then focus on real crimes taking place....nuff said...

Quite.. we have touched on this already in the thread and it is important that we realise just what fighting this war we are losing and cannot win is costing and will cost.. Americans alone cough up something around £160 billion a year on illegal narcotics... a lot of money to hand over to criminals for a shit product.. add to that what is spent on fighting the war on drugs.. both within the US and in other countries by US intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies and the US military and the misery heaped upon people in those other countries as the US and other countries try to combat the crime syndicates abroad.. close to 13000 in Mexico alone last year and thats just up to September...

.. the only way to win is by legalisation which will do just as you suggest... hit organised crime where it hurts.. in their pocket and by making demand for what they offer disappear.. and the products available legally will be safer, of a higher quality and the taxation gathered on their sale will enable to provide any services which currently we are not able, and also to aid law enforcement agencies to combat other forms of crime and to prepare for what will inevitably be organised crime's attempt to make a comeback with their next wheeze.. it will be an opportunity to keep on top of organised crime not always playing catch up... as I think I have already said.. a once in a lifetime opportunity... and once it is legalised it will give us an opportunity and more resources to get on top of addiction itself..

[tenni]

"Hey Tenni, get off the bandwagon, you have no clue, as always. "

Actually, I've been rather coy about my qualifications to identify mental illness and counselling. I can identify clues and so can lots of people who read these thoughts.

"I think I have already said.. a once in a lifetime opportunity... and once it is legalised it will give us an opportunity and more resources to get on top of addiction itself."

I'm not convinced that a blanket all inclusive legalizing of all altering drugs is a good idea. Cigarettes are legal and taxed heavily. Alcohol is legalized with some restrictions and tax heavily(where I live). Revenues coming the taxation have not been directed to treat alcoholism nor nicotine addiction by the state. Where I live yes, some money is spent on hospitalization of addicts in their final stages of life but that is identified as an expense from general tax revenue, isn't it?

I think that it is too broad a sweep to include all drugs as legal. Decriminalizing use of drugs is a different angle and that has been attempted in some areas. Programmes for needle exchange was started in Vancouver BC and the federal Conservative government withdrew funding for the programme. Due to social pressure I think (not sure) that this experiment of needle exchange and a safe place to inject (I think) is still on going. Morality seems to get in the way of treatment and programmes. There seems to be a desire to see addicts in a negative manner. I can understand that based upon some addicts' behaviour.

Its complicated...:(

[darkeyes]

It's certainly complicated tenni... but for the life of me I just can't see a alternative to an incredibly complicated and difficult problem our societies face.. every year organised crime gets its sticky fingers more embedded in our societies and every year thousands more become addicted by the shit they have produced and peddled.. our societies are struggling under the weight of their oppression and there is no end in sight.. all we get is more of the same and it isnt working..

Prohibition doesnt work so we need to try something else.. how countries practice legalisation is for each to decide for themselves but it is up to taxpayers and voters to ensure that taxes gathered are invested into the areas they are needed to be.. easier said than done I accept, but even if legalisation done is on precisely the same terms as for alcohol and tobacco there are hopeful signs in recent decades especially in respect of tobacco use where in the west it has plummeted to a new low because of the taxation and other policies of many western governments.. even in respect of alcohol, for all the fact that my own little country has a severe alcohol problem and is the worst in the EU the vast majority of its people drink responsibly.. in respect of smuggling and production of counterfeit tobacco and alcohol products this is a serious problem throughout the EU but at present is more or less managed without undue stress on our societies.. it is serious but not overwhelmingly so.. legalisation of narcotics would if governments have the wit and the will to get it right can and will help I firmly believe and will stop us from wasting vast resources of manpower and human effort and human lives on a war we cannot and will not win.. legalisation will not eliminate drug use, and it will not entirely kill off the crime syndicates but it will at a stroke allow present and future addicts with safer if not entirely safe products produced to a certain legal standard and will remove from organised crime at a stroke what is their biggest earner..it will also loosen at a stroke their hold over our societies and anable us to have an opportunity to be one step ahead of them for just about the first time in almost a century..

Legalisation is not and never will be the perfect solution, and many say it is no solution at all... but as I see the tentacles of illegal narcotics and their evil masters spread ever farther into our societies, I firmly believe that it is an alternative that we have to seriously consider and actually bite the bullet and implement.. it will remove at a stroke much of the fear within our societies and also within those societies where the raw materials are grown where producers are not only afraid of the drug barons and their henchmen but of their own and also of western government detection and intervention and all that entails.. it provides them with an opportunity of growing a legal crop for cash and the opportunity of living in peace and a little more prosperity..as in fact would happen within our own countries to some extent..

Not ideal, Tenni babes...far from it... but prohibition and the war against drugs we have now is anything but ideal... decriminalisation doesnt go far enough because it still leaves the production of hard drugs and many soft in the hands of the unsrcupulous and shitty bastards it is in now and the same shit used to cut the drugs will still be used and many will still live in fear of their lives both at home and abroad.. it is not even a half way measure...

[*pan*]

[FONT="Times New Roman"]
once upon a time one could goto the drug store and buy laudenum probibly not spelled right but it was a pain killer which had opium in it, the name coca cola had cocain in it, there were opium dens to go smoke opium in, the indians used peyoty in rituals , smoked pot which was called loco weed. my point is the drugs were available but not everyone used them.
they that forget history are doomed to repeat it.
history has tought us that if something is made illegal it just goes underground and on the black market. once on the black market anyone can get them, even childern, nothing is controled.
pros of legalization : control - taxes - registration - less crime - dealers and smuggling would no longer exist - all the money spent policing it would go to more benificial projects - less police -
would be no different then the alcohol prohibition when it ended
cons of legalization : more people would try it then before possibily at first. more clinics to treat addicts -
i believe people would eventualy realize the dangers in becomming addicted like they did in the past when it was legal, all people had the oppertunity to get them but not everyone wanted them because they knew they were addictive and one couldent achieve or aspire in life if addicted, some will use them moderatly to get through the day without a serious habit, some will use the for recreation perposes . and some will die, all this is happening now so legalizing them would be no different. the hard core addicts will die off as they are now and socity will level off. i was a drug addict but choose not to use because i know the problems associated with it.
all i have to say is legalize it see where it goes and it can always be made illegal again, this country is not winning this war either, for every one they bust there are 10 getting through. it a big waste of money if you ask me common sense dictates that the war on drugs is lost and so is all the money spent on policing it. just imagine all the paychecks to the police equiptment and not to mention what it costs to keep a helicopter in the air for one hour look it up you will be amazed at the cost of the drug war. of course this is just my opinion and :2cents:

[void()]

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein, (attributed)
US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955)


Ho Ya Hay! Glad someone finally posted this quote. It is where I have been coming from for a while, lately. Enough kicking dead horses. Change thinking, do something else, move forward. Leave it to a brother wolf. *chuckles*

[Long Duck Dong]

[FONT="Times New Roman"]
once upon a time one could goto the drug store and buy laudenum probibly not spelled right but it was a pain killer which had opium in it, the name coca cola had cocain in it, there were opium dens to go smoke opium in, the indians used peyoty in rituals , smoked pot which was called loco weed. my point is the drugs were available but not everyone used them.
they that forget history are doomed to repeat it.
history has tought us that if something is made illegal it just goes underground and on the black market. once on the black market anyone can get them, even childern, nothing is controled.
pros of legalization : control - taxes - registration - less crime - dealers and smuggling would no longer exist - all the money spent policing it would go to more benificial projects - less police -
would be no different then the alcohol prohibition when it ended
cons of legalization : more people would try it then before possibily at first. more clinics to treat addicts -
i believe people would eventualy realize the dangers in becomming addicted like they did in the past when it was legal, all people had the oppertunity to get them but not everyone wanted them because they knew they were addictive and one couldent achieve or aspire in life if addicted, some will use them moderatly to get through the day without a serious habit, some will use the for recreation perposes . and some will die, all this is happening now so legalizing them would be no different. the hard core addicts will die off as they are now and socity will level off. i was a drug addict but choose not to use because i know the problems associated with it.
all i have to say is legalize it see where it goes and it can always be made illegal again, this country is not winning this war either, for every one they bust there are 10 getting through. it a big waste of money if you ask me common sense dictates that the war on drugs is lost and so is all the money spent on policing it. just imagine all the paychecks to the police equiptment and not to mention what it costs to keep a helicopter in the air for one hour look it up you will be amazed at the cost of the drug war. of course this is just my opinion and :2cents:

lol I agree.... the war has been lost..... so the alternative put forward.... is to give the control and power to the governments and corporations..... that way we have have more threads about how the government is controlling things and wasting the money and how we have a lack of services, rising debt and give the occupy movement another reason to protest ......

thats a big part of the reason that I do not say yes to legalising it.... cos people want to hand control over to the same people they complain about for having control over things.......

personally if it was going to be legal ( marijuana ) I would perfer to see community coops or people allowed to grow for personal use... that way THEY have control over what they put in their bodies, not the government.....

[darkeyes]

lol I agree.... the war has been lost..... so the alternative put forward.... is to give the control and power to the governments and corporations..... that way we have have more threads about how the government is controlling things and wasting the money and how we have a lack of services, rising debt and give the occupy movement another reason to protest ......

thats a big part of the reason that I do not say yes to legalising it.... cos people want to hand control over to the same people they complain about for having control over things.......

personally if it was going to be legal ( marijuana ) I would perfer to see community coops or people allowed to grow for personal use... that way THEY have control over what they put in their bodies, not the government.....

I have huge sympathy with this point of view Duckie... the thought of allowing private corporations to get their hands on such an enterprise fills me with horror.. my own preference would be the creation of state owned corporations and/or co-operatives to maximise income to the exchequer or non profit making independent companies and prevent those who currently run the drugs cartels from going "legit" or for the profits which should be recycled into health and welfare for addicts from being syphoned off for the benefit of shareholders rather than where it is much more needed.. and I agree where possible smaller more localised co-ops where possible..

If it is ever to be done it will not be an easy task even in the smallest of societies.. and in the end it is for each to decide how they will undertake it... no great venture is without risk and none will ever run entirely smoothly. and there would undoubtedly great hiccups to place the venture in danger of failure or of the plug being pulled.. but that it must be done I am in no doubt.. we cant go on like we have been... and once it is decided to do it, it had better be done swiftly because organised crime cartels and sydicates are nothing if not swift...

[Long Duck Dong]

I know there has been repeated calls in NZ for the legalization of marijuana..... but there is strong opposition to drugs in the work place by employers and drug testing is becoming more common place cos of the number of accidents and injuries in the workplace cos of people on drugs

we have what is called ACC levies and they are something a employer has to pay to cover work place accidents.... and then there is insurance to pay, etc,.. in the event of drug usage, the insurance companies will NOT cover any damages or losses and the police are immediately involved, which costs time and money to the employer.....

the general public is already pissed off that they have to cover the cost of drinking drivers, by way of the ACC levy on car registrations ( car has to be registered every 12 months and close to $100 of that is, in a way, a penalty fee cos other people drink and drive.

the general public and employers are shelling out $10 of millions a year in costs cos of drug and alcohol usage.... and so most attempts to legalise drugs, is met with clear opposition..... and thats not including the cost to the health system cos of drug and alcohol related issues.....

there are costs that would NOT be met if drugs were legalised and insurance companies have indicated that they would increase premiums... still not pay out on drug and alcohol related accidents and deaths and the NZ government has indicated that if there was a increase in accidents relating to drug usage on the roads, car regos would increase to cover the costs.....

in simple terms, NZ is already carrying the drinkers, and asking them to carry the drug users as well, is something that the general public would refuse to tolerate.......

smokers pay their own way in terms of taxes for their habit.... drinkers do not, sports people do not, and it would be the same for drug users if drugs were made legal......

are the people that want drugs made legal, happy to reach into their own pockets and pay out a small fortune for their simple pleasure, in the same way that smokers do ?? lol NOPE, a NZ study found that most marijuana users were opposed to paying their own way.... and as many of them shared or had access to a mainly free supply, they saw no reason why the government should have the option to make them pay for something that they could get for free a lot of the time......

making marijuana usage legal in NZ is not something that we will see any time soon.....

[bigbadmax]

LDD did you ever drive after drinking or using drugs?????

[darkeyes]

I know there has been repeated calls in NZ for the legalization of marijuana..... but there is strong opposition to drugs in the work place by employers and drug testing is becoming more common place cos of the number of accidents and injuries in the workplace cos of people on drugs

we have what is called ACC levies and they are something a employer has to pay to cover work place accidents.... and then there is insurance to pay, etc,.. in the event of drug usage, the insurance companies will NOT cover any damages or losses and the police are immediately involved, which costs time and money to the employer.....

the general public is already pissed off that they have to cover the cost of drinking drivers, by way of the ACC levy on car registrations ( car has to be registered every 12 months and close to $100 of that is, in a way, a penalty fee cos other people drink and drive.

the general public and employers are shelling out $10 of millions a year in costs cos of drug and alcohol usage.... and so most attempts to legalise drugs, is met with clear opposition..... and thats not including the cost to the health system cos of drug and alcohol related issues.....

there are costs that would NOT be met if drugs were legalised and insurance companies have indicated that they would increase premiums... still not pay out on drug and alcohol related accidents and deaths and the NZ government has indicated that if there was a increase in accidents relating to drug usage on the roads, car regos would increase to cover the costs.....

in simple terms, NZ is already carrying the drinkers, and asking them to carry the drug users as well, is something that the general public would refuse to tolerate.......

smokers pay their own way in terms of taxes for their habit.... drinkers do not, sports people do not, and it would be the same for drug users if drugs were made legal......

are the people that want drugs made legal, happy to reach into their own pockets and pay out a small fortune for their simple pleasure, in the same way that smokers do ?? lol NOPE, a NZ study found that most marijuana users were opposed to paying their own way.... and as many of them shared or had access to a mainly free supply, they saw no reason why the government should have the option to make them pay for something that they could get for free a lot of the time......

making marijuana usage legal in NZ is not something that we will see any time soon.....

'scuse me.. but r not most addicts, smokers an drinkers not tax payers (of whom not all are addicted)? Just as climbers, amateur and professional sports people, car drivers, clubbers, concert goers and a million and one other things human beings do, soften recklessly, r taxpayers.. societies carry all sorts of peeps and try and protect them and heal the daft things they have done to their bodies... thats what makes a society compassionate.. thats why in my humble opinion we pay tax...2 b there for all, not simply the paragons of virtue who never put a foot wrong...

[Long Duck Dong]

LDD did you ever drive after drinking or using drugs?????

yes I did, at 16 I had a car accident that cost the lives of 7 people... something that I have struggled with and will struggle with for the rest of my life..... as I had a choice, and there were sober drivers......

its part of the reason I turned into the asshole I was for many years, cos I could not deal with the fact I survived and cost so many, so much......and part of the reason why I was dealing counselling and therapy work with others, to try and help them not do what I had did..... basically a dr jeckyl and mr hyde..

[Long Duck Dong]

'scuse me.. but r not most addicts, smokers an drinkers not tax payers (of whom not all are addicted)? Just as climbers, amateur and professional sports people, car drivers, clubbers, concert goers and a million and one other things human beings do, soften recklessly, r taxpayers.. societies carry all sorts of peeps and try and protect them and heal the daft things they have done to their bodies... thats what makes a society compassionate.. thats why in my humble opinion we pay tax...2 b there for all, not simply the paragons of virtue who never put a foot wrong...

roflmao.... sorry..... not convinced that you believe any of that yourself...... cos if you did.... you would have been posting about how you would want a tax on drugs and alcohol so that users would become self supporting like smokers do ( in NZ )... not trying to justify why people should carry people in society that choose to use and abuse, but carry none of the cost of their own habits..... and you have a habit of posting about how the cost of protest is something that society has to bear as part of the burden of free speech and expression

[darkeyes]

roflmao.... sorry..... not convinced that you believe any of that yourself...... cos if you did.... you would have been posting about how you would want a tax on drugs and alcohol so that users would become self supporting like smokers do ( in NZ )... not trying to justify why people should carry people in society that choose to use and abuse, but carry none of the cost of their own habits..... and you have a habit of posting about how the cost of protest is something that society has to bear as part of the burden of free speech and expression

I do wish u would read what people write... I have said several times that upon legalisation drug users should and will be taxed (and alcohol, like tobacco already is, Duckie, and very highly) to contribute to the services we need to run our society effectively.. and it goes without saying, that those taxes will contribute to health care, rehabilitation and combating drug addiction, as alcohol taxes do in the UK and just as smokers taxes do.. it is not a matter of carrying people.. it is a matter of support and care for those who need it...and drug addicts and users will, just as drinkers and alcoholics do now and smokers also, most of whom are addicts too in their own way, pay taxes either on their income (because millions do work) and/or on their consumption... they contribute to the running of our society as a whole.. I believe in a true welfare state... where compassion is all, even for those who have damaged or wrecked their own lives...

So I really don't care what you are or are not convinced about what I believe or don't believe... I know what I believe..

[Long Duck Dong]

I do read.... I was pointing out how people in NZ fight teeth and nail AGAINST taxation for their own * vice *... but have no issues in taxing the crap out of smokers...... yet the cost to NZ in terms of alcohol related issues, is far higher than the cost of smoking tobacco

studies in NZ about legal drug usage, have found that the cost to taxpayers would not be covered by the tax on marijuana, unless it was about $65 a tinnie ( current rate is about $20-25 ).....

if the tax of beer matched the cost to the tax payer, a $12 pack of beer would cost $82

I pay $20.70 per 30 cigs now, around 85% of that is pure tax

how much tax do you pay for your drinks and your drugs ?

[darkeyes]

I do read.... I was pointing out how people in NZ fight teeth and nail AGAINST taxation for their own * vice *... but have no issues in taxing the crap out of smokers...... yet the cost to NZ in terms of alcohol related issues, is far higher than the cost of smoking tobacco

studies in NZ about legal drug usage, have found that the cost to taxpayers would not be covered by the tax on marijuana, unless it was about $65 a tinnie ( current rate is about $20-25 ).....

if the tax of beer matched the cost to the tax payer, a $12 pack of beer would cost $82

I pay $20.70 per 30 cigs now, around 85% of that is pure tax

how much tax do you pay for your drinks and your drugs ?

I do wish u would cease this talking so parochially.. of course it is important to you and all your countrymen and women.. but try talking what u would like to see instead of questioning everyone for what they believe and try and be constructive about what should happen instead of slagging off what u think happens...

Try arguing solutions and not obstructions to every solution others offer...

[Long Duck Dong]

your solutions in a forum are not being matched by reality..... btw I am debating solutions if you had not noticed....

I am a smoker, I have heard all of your *solutions * used by people in regards to smoking.... and I am not seeing any proof of the solutions at work...... but I am expected to think that posting solutions in a bisexual forum will change the reality of what I am not seeing, when the solutions are put into practice ?

sorry fran but you can live in your reality, and I will deal with the reality of what is actually happening ...... and the reality is that your solutions ( when applied to smoking ) did not and are not working and that is the reality I see

I also see the reality of amsterdam but I also see a country with a people that have a totally different way of thinking, lifestyle and understanding of things...... and we can not accomplish that, just by changing a law.....

[darkeyes]

your solutions in a forum are not being matched by reality.....

I am a smoker, I have heard all of your *solutions * used by people in regards to smoking.... and I am not seeing any proof of the solutions at work...... but I am expected to think that posting solutions in a bisexual forum will change the reality of what I am not seeing, when the solutions are put into practice ?

sorry fran but you can live in your reality, and I will deal with the reality of what is actually happening ...... and the reality is that your solutions ( when applied to smoking ) did not and are not working and that is the reality I see

I also see the reality of amsterdam but I also see a country with a people that have a totally different way of thinking, lifestyle and understanding of things...... and we can not accomplish that, just by changing a law.....

Of course they arent matched in reality... no where has had the bottle to try it yet... so u cant say they arent working when they havent even been tried.... and I know Amsterdam very well... and fail to see the point u try to make,,,

[Long Duck Dong]

if it did not work with smoking, why would it work with drugs.... changing the product would not change the fact that the solution is not working.....

I tend to look at the issue from every angle possible, as a person that has used and as a person that is now clean... as a employee and a employer... as a person that is legit and also as a criminal.... as a person that has suffered cos of others usage and as a person that has caused others to suffer......

hence I can see the pros and cons with legalizing drugs, but I can also see the obstacles and hurdles of legalizing and why people support and oppose legalization...
most of your stance rests on the idea that it would save money and free up the police... but I see nothing from a school teacher about dealing with kids in the classroom that are stoned and unable to do their school work.... yet I have seen pasadenacpl talk about drug testing in schools......so to me, hes addressing real aspects in a real society......

[darkeyes]

if it did not work with smoking, why would it work with drugs.... changing the product would not change the fact that the solution is not working.....

I tend to look at the issue from every angle possible, as a person that has used and as a person that is now clean... as a employee and a employer... as a person that is legit and also as a criminal.... as a person that has suffered cos of others usage and as a person that has caused others to suffer......

hence I can see the pros and cons with legalizing drugs, but I can also see the obstacles and hurdles of legalizing and why people support and oppose legalization...
most of your stance rests on the idea that it would save money and free up the police... but I see nothing from a school teacher about dealing with kids in the classroom that are stoned and unable to do their school work.... yet I have seen pasadenacpl talk about drug testing in schools......so to me, hes addressing real aspects in a real society......

You really havent read what Ive said at all.. it is about breaking the back of organised crime and taking from them their biggest resource.. but more importantly giving us a chance of really getting to grips with the drug problem and saving lives... there are huge problems in legalisation I know that, but done right it has to be better than what we have now.. you have a limited vision, duckie.. legalise it and Pasa and all school teachers may have a real chance of truly dealing much more adequately with the problems of drugs in schools... and at school gates for that matter...

[DuckiesDarling]

You really havent read what Ive said at all.. it is about breaking the back of organised crime and taking from them their biggest resource.. but more importantly giving us a chance of really getting to grips with the drug problem and saving lives... there are huge problems in legalisation I know that, but done right it has to be better than what we have now.. you have a limited vision, duckie.. legalise it and Pasa and all school teachers may have a real chance of truly dealing much more adequately with the problems of drugs in schools... and at school gates for that matter...

Fran, it won't break the grip of organized crime even it was legalized. There will always be people who will seek to make money on the black market even on legalized stuff because they are not willing to pay taxes to the government. That is human nature and well documented in the history of most countries including yours and mine. I can see the argument for legalizing marijuana but only for medicinal purposes. No one has adequately offered any solutions for the secondhand smoke of marijuana. And yes you can get high off of it, I have never done an illegal drug in my life but I have been high due to going to concerts where the dope smoke was so thick there hardly any room for oxygen. What about the people that are affected just enough to slow their reflexes and have no idea they are so affected and drive like normal and have a wreck because their reactions were too slow? What about the kids going to school stoned out of their heads and unable to learn anything because mom and dad had a pile of legal marijuana at home and they just wanted to try it? What about all the people who will become addicted because it's made legal, what about the people who struggle daily to stay away from it and get exposed constantly? What about the effect on society as a whole when we go from antidrug to pushing drugs?

[Long Duck Dong]

seriously... fran..... we had legal syn marijuana here in NZ, if you had read, and immediately had kids stoned in school on it.... they had to change the law to get rid of it cos the the problems....

how do you intend to stop kids smoking it then coming to school stoned ??? cos they could not stop it in NZ ? that is the issues I am questioning....

so part of your big solution, is what I am questioning... cos I have seen it fail in my own country.........

sure it will deal with origanized crime... thats not what I am debating... the things that I am debating, are the issues I have seen going on with LEGAL shit..... and how we are supposed to combat the issues with the legalising of drugs, when we can not deal with the issues created with the legal stuff

IE second hand smoke drift.... kids stoned in school... the usage of drugs in the workplace legally....etc etc... the problems that everybody likes to ignore cos they lack any answers.......

[Hephaestion]

Driving under the influence - not new
Kids stoned at school - not new.
Disordelry conduct - not new

Those who wish to acquire drugs and use them will do so regardless of law.

Tax is the major advantage. Tax fed into the health system will help. Trading standards will be able to apply. Purity of supply will be affected.

VAT regulations in the UK allow inspectors to asses the actual amount of trade going on independantly of what is present in accounts books. Notional levels of tax apply regardless. There is also seizing of assets. Reminder that Al Capone was arrested and locked away because he flouted the tax regulations.

Effectively there will be more legislation allowing apprehending of wrong doers on a multitude of lesser grounds than if there is outright ban / prohibition. Penalties may be adjusted to cope with the degree of transgression.

[tenni]

"What about the people that are affected just enough to slow their reflexes and have no idea they are so affected and drive like normal and have a wreck because their reactions were too slow? What about the kids going to school stoned out of their heads and unable to learn anything because mom and dad had a pile of legal marijuana at home and they just wanted to try it? What about all the people who will become addicted because it's made legal, what about the people who struggle daily to stay away from it and get exposed constantly? What about the effect on society as a whole when we go from antidrug to pushing drugs?"

This seems to be a person who is opposed to legal drug use. That is the end of it for this person. Don't take drugs. Don't attend events where drugs are being used.

"What about the people that are affected just enough to slow their reflexes and have no idea they are so affected and drive like normal and have a wreck because their reactions were too slow?

Alcohol is a drug that this question would fall under. The same laws /rules would apply to the use of any drug. Don't use the drug and drive while under the influence of a drug that alters your reactions.

What about the kids going to school stoned out of their heads and unable to learn anything because mom and dad had a pile of legal marijuana at home and they just wanted to try it?

If any product is legal, there may be age restrictions on its use as with alcohol. If a child is under the age and uses the drug that is between the parent, child and police.

"What about all the people who will become addicted because it's made legal, what about the people who struggle daily to stay away from it and get exposed constantly? "
People will become addicted for reasons other than a substance is legal. The fact that it is made legal may give the addict an illogical belief that if it is illegal that it is safe. All drugs that are used as not prescribed are a danger to your health. Instructions are on labels for many legal drugs. Access to drug will not change the addiction imo. I have alcohol sitting in my house and I use it sparingly occasionally. It isn't the access that is the problem for the addict. It is the person's inability to moderate any use of a substance or not take it at all.

What about the effect on society as a whole when we go from antidrug to pushing drugs?"
I'm not sure if this is circular logic or not but it reads as irrational statement. The morality question seems to be influencing this perspective. A society has all kinds of drugs that are legal and guidelines/rules are established for their use. The society does not "push" drug use other than for safe use. Cough medicine is promoted to help a medical condition and guidelines are printed on the container. If a person abuses the use of the drug that is about that person and not a society.

What I believe is really being illustrated with these questions is one of morality. Solutions to abuse of drugs that are being used to alter perception as a recreation are not resolved by emotional and moral opinions.

I personally do not use recreational drugs outside of a couple of alcoholic drinks per week and every so many years take a toke if someone is using weed in social circumstances. Those that use recreational drugs excessively will do so whether the drugs are legal or not. Those drugs that may be proven to be detrimental to a person's health always and the drug has no other use should not be legalized in my opinion. If a person sniffs glue to alter their perception that product is not made illegal because it has another use as an adhesive. Heroine used as a drug to alter and numb the body as it is dying may be a good use of heroine.

Why certain posters continue to post opposition to legalizing drugs with such questions as above demonstrates to me a campaign to convince others to adhere to their morality. To continue posting after posting with such questions does nothing to clarify the issue imo. I don't think that this is an all one way or other issue. There are a lot of problems with drug abuse as opposed to drug use for a safe and logical reason. The word logic may be missing in this thread?

This weekend the Liberal party of Canada had a convention where the party has taken the position of legalizing the use of marijuana. Observers and commentators have pointed out that a well known former Liberal Leader (Trudeau) won an election on the pro stance of legalizing the drug. It was never made into law. Some observers comment that this is due to the influence of the USA on Canadian politics. With the strong anti drug position taken by various US governments has cooled politicians zeal in Canada. Why ? I'm not sure about the logic of that. The present government would never legalize pot as it is a near radical conservative government. The pendulum swings. The Liberal party in Canada is in a lot of trouble due to the loss of a lot of seats during the last election. It is still interesting that it takes this more progressive official stand in favour of what a lot if not the majority of Canadians see as appropriate. Legal use of pot for recreational use is ok just don't over use it.

[Long Duck Dong]

Driving under the influence - not new
Kids stoned at school - not new.
Disordelry conduct - not new

Those who wish to acquire drugs and use them will do so regardless of law.

Tax is the major advantage. Tax fed into the health system will help. Trading standards will be able to apply. Purity of supply will be affected.

VAT regulations in the UK allow inspectors to asses the actual amount of trade going on independantly of what is present in accounts books. Notional levels of tax apply regardless. There is also seizing of assets. Reminder that Al Capone was arrested and locked away because he flouted the tax regulations.

Effectively there will be more legislation allowing apprehending of wrong doers on a multitude of lesser grounds than if there is outright ban / prohibition. Penalties may be adjusted to cope with the degree of transgression.

I like you hep.... you think about things lol

there will be more legislation allowing apprehending of wrong doers on a multiple of lesser grounds.......

there is what the battle on drugs will do... it will shift sideways and instead of fighting the drug trade, they will start controlling and limiting its usage.... and that will mean more laws passed to enable the police to do that....... lol oh boy, I can hear the cries of infringement of rights and invasion of privacy, already.........

unfortunately it will mean more issues for the police to deal with... and how they dealt with that in NZ, is instant fines ( unfortunately thats meant a huge increase in the number of unpaid fines ) so I can not see a reduction in police numbers, but a shift in the role of the police.... to baby sitters :tong:

we also have the seizure of assets under the proceeds of crimes act and the seizure of property under taxation laws ( both have to be court ordered ) and if its anything like the excise and customs laws, they do not have to prove you have done anything wrong, reasonable doubt will do, in order to be a warrant to enter and seizure property......

with the issue of the kids not going to school, its the parent that becomes liable in court... and that could be what happens with kids and legal drugs, the parents pay the price for something that they may not be able to control or stop......

lol from where I am sitting in NZ, we are fast turning into a nanny state with big brother seeing everywhere..... and that is part of what I can see with legalizing drugs.... we would have to give the state, more power and rights to invade our lives in order to deal with the issues.......

we create it then we complain about it.......

[DuckiesDarling]

"What about the people that are affected just enough to slow their reflexes and have no idea they are so affected and drive like normal and have a wreck because their reactions were too slow? What about the kids going to school stoned out of their heads and unable to learn anything because mom and dad had a pile of legal marijuana at home and they just wanted to try it? What about all the people who will become addicted because it's made legal, what about the people who struggle daily to stay away from it and get exposed constantly? What about the effect on society as a whole when we go from antidrug to pushing drugs?"

This seems to be a person who is opposed to legal drug use. That is the end of it for this person. Don't take drugs. Don't attend events where drugs are being used.

"What about the people that are affected just enough to slow their reflexes and have no idea they are so affected and drive like normal and have a wreck because their reactions were too slow?

Alcohol is a drug that this question would fall under. The same laws /rules would apply to the use of any drug.

What about the kids going to school stoned out of their heads and unable to learn anything because mom and dad had a pile of legal marijuana at home and they just wanted to try it?

If any product is legal, there may be age restrictions on its use as with alcohol. If a child is under the age and uses the drug that is between the parent, child and police.

"What about all the people who will become addicted because it's made legal, what about the people who struggle daily to stay away from it and get exposed constantly? "
People will become addicted for reasons other than a substance is legal. The fact that it is made legal may give the addict an illogical belief that if it is illegal that it is safe. All drugs that are used as not prescribed are a danger to your health. Instructions are on labels for many legal drugs. Access to drug will not change the addiction imo. I have alcohol sitting in my house and I use it sparingly occasionally. It isn't the access that is the problem for the addict. It is the person's inability to moderate any use of a substance or not take it at all.

What about the effect on society as a whole when we go from antidrug to pushing drugs?"
I'm not sure if this is circular logic or not but it reads as irrational statement. The morality question seems to be influencing this perspective. A society has all kinds of drugs that are legal and guidelines/rules are established for their use.

What I believe is really being illustrated with these questions is one of morality. Solutions to abuse of drugs that are being used to alter perception as a recreation are not resolved by emotional and moral opinions.

I personally do not use recreational drugs outside of a couple of alcoholic drinks per week and every so many years take a toke if someone is using weed in social circumstances. Those that use recreational drugs excessively will do so whether the drugs are legal or not. Those drugs that may be proven to be detrimental to a person's health always and the drug has no other use should not be legalized in my opinion. If a person sniffs glue to alter their perception that product is not made illegal because it has another use as an adhesive. Heroine used as a drug to alter and numb the body as it is dying may be a good use of heroine.

Why certain posters continue to post opposition to legalizing drugs with such questions as above demonstrates to me a campaign to convince others to adhere to their morality. To continue posting after posting with such questions does nothing to clarify the issue imo. I don't think that this is an all one way or other issue. There are a lot of problems with drug abuse as opposed to drug use for a safe and logical reason. The word logic may be missing in this thread?

This weekend the Liberal party of Canada had a convention where the party has taken the position of legalizing the use of marijuana. Observers and commentators have pointed out that a well known former Liberal Leader (Trudeau) won an election on the pro stance of legalizing the drug. It was never made into law. Some observers comment that this is due to the influence of the USA on Canadian politics. With the strong anti drug position taken by various US governments has cooled politicians zeal in Canada. Why ? I'm not sure about the logic of that. The present government would never legalize pot as it is a near radical conservative government. The pendulum swings. The Liberal party in Canada is in a lot of trouble due to the loss of a lot of seats during the last election. It is still interesting that it takes this more progressive official stand in favour of what a lot if not the majority of Canadians see as appropriate. Legal use of pot for recreational use is ok just don't over use it.

Well hello, Fran, nice to see FRAN answer the questions that were posed to FRAN.

Now as for your answers, Tenni. Wrong on most counts. But yes I am antidrug. Why? I have a family torn apart by them, I have friends who have lost everything to drugs, I have seen people buried who just tried it once. I have police in my family that are in narcotics, I had a cousin who was undercover narctoics til he was killed in the line of duty.

People who drink know they drink, people are not affected by the secondhand drinking of someone to the point THEY can't drive. Secondhand drug smoke will affect someone's reflexes. It's not a freaking moral question, it's a matter of choosing not to allow something to control my body and ruin my life the way I have seen drugs ruin others. I will never stand idly by and watch my kids do drugs, LEGAL or not. I didn't attend a concert to get high, I attended it for the music of the band that was playing. I didn't realize I was high til I was leaving and I wasn't driving. I don't do drugs so recognizing what affected me took a bit. So just avoiding areas where it is done will be impossible especially when it will be looked on as the same as cigs.

[tenni]

A slight correction on the position of the Liberal Party of Canada regarding pot. The convention took the official position to decriminalize the use of pot and regulate its use. This is a fine line difference (I'm told) between legalizing the use/possession of pot and decriminalizing the use /possession of pot. Regulations would be created (I assume) similar to the use of alcohol. Since the Liberal Party has fallen from a long term governing party to third (not even the Official Opposition:() marijuana may or may not become an election issue but not for another three or four years(majority Conservative government. Emotions and morality will more than not enter into any public discussion. I am not holding my breath that pot will be decriminalized but who knows.

[Long Duck Dong]

decriminalizing and legalizing, yes there is a difference.....

legalise it and you remove the prohibition of it IE alcohol....

decriminalize it and you open the way for things like medical usage under strict conditions while control is maintained over who can legally grow and use it IE medical marijuana

in simple terms they have opened the door to limited usage and access to the drug while retaining the majority of control over supply IE over the counter meds vs prescription only meds...

it becomes a controlled substance, basically....

[tenni]

Pot is available in Canada presently and legal for medical uses (ie chemo therapy). People are licensed to possess pot and may smoke it on the streets but not in restaurants (smoking is smoking ;). Technically, the government grows medical pot deep in secret closed mines. I think that you are also permitted to grow a small amount for your own use. That may have only been talked about. Even with these licenses it is difficult to get the government pot from a drugstore. People with a license still tend to buy street pot but may not be charged.

Decriminalization of pot in Canada was proposed to be much more back in 2003 but the legislation was not passed. I looked up what was proposed by the same Liberal Party when they were elected.

Canada's Justice Minister Martin Cauchon says that Canadian laws relating to marijuana could do with "modernization." Although the Justice Minister doesn't plan to go so far as to make marijuana legal, he is expected to introduce legislation in 2003 to decriminalize the use and possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use. In other words, the use and possession of small amounts of marijuana would remain illegal, but jail sentences and criminal records would be replaced with fines.

I attended a gay pride parade back maybe six years ago in the gay village of Toronto. Not only were people walking around naked (Toronto Totally Nude group had been in the parade with only sandals on..:eek::bigrin: ) but one US woman was asking me about this. I told her that she could smoke pot probably at night of the event as the police would not dare interfere. I may have been exaggerating but pot was more permissive back then. The present government is building prisons for gawd know what reasons since crime rate are down. It is suspected by some that they will crack down on the recreational use of pot and put people in these jails...:( Down with neocons:tong::bigrin:

[Hephaestion]

I like you hep.... you think about things lol

there will be more legislation allowing apprehending of wrong doers on a multiple of lesser grounds.......

there is what the battle on drugs will do... it will shift sideways and instead of fighting the drug trade, they will start controlling and limiting its usage.... and that will mean more laws passed to enable the police to do that....... lol oh boy, I can hear the cries of infringement of rights and invasion of privacy, already.........

unfortunately it will mean more issues for the police to deal with... and how they dealt with that in NZ, is instant fines ( unfortunately thats meant a huge increase in the number of unpaid fines ) so I can not see a reduction in police numbers, but a shift in the role of the police.... to baby sitters :tong:

we also have the seizure of assets under the proceeds of crimes act and the seizure of property under taxation laws ( both have to be court ordered ) and if its anything like the excise and customs laws, they do not have to prove you have done anything wrong, reasonable doubt will do, in order to be a warrant to enter and seizure property......

with the issue of the kids not going to school, its the parent that becomes liable in court... and that could be what happens with kids and legal drugs, the parents pay the price for something that they may not be able to control or stop......

lol from where I am sitting in NZ, we are fast turning into a nanny state with big brother seeing everywhere..... and that is part of what I can see with legalizing drugs.... we would have to give the state, more power and rights to invade our lives in order to deal with the issues.......

we create it then we complain about it.......

Not so sure that Nanny State equates with intrusion. Certainly we in the UK are already amongst the most intruded upon and surveilled states in the world. The 'Nanny State' concept usually refers to looking after the Citizens' welfare which they do very well when there's enough money. Registered addicts are given what they need to help them.

I am not so sure that we need to fight the drugs trade either. What needs to be done is to take it over. Let's face it, the government - our government is the biggest gang in the land. Rightly we should take control of the trade and the spoils. The police can then do what they do best and that is be heavy, with the other gangs when needed. Legalizing moves the thing from being a crime to being a taxable resource, so releasing the police from a largely unecessary role. Bank accounts at home or abroad are no longer opaque. and all cars crush easily if so needed.

Reminder that policing of the general population is usually done with consent, like a parent child relationship - sort of baby-sitting.

Parents who have difficulty in handling their kids can always ask for help (especially if the drugs are legal so nothing to fear) rather than wasting time and effort being deceptive.

Been through the 60's (and environs) and the pills and booze. So much untaxed revenue! Apart from the Mods and Rockers fights, largely the period was fun and 'well lubricated'. Only high profile people attracted unwanted attention from the authorities when their antics went over the top. Only then were the Police labelled as the 'Blue Meanies' (Beatles).

[darkeyes]

*laffs*.. I'm not sure I would describe it quite in the way you have Heph.. but its clear concise and just about it....