Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Let's talk about drugs!

2456717

Posts

  • flamebroiledchickenflamebroiledchicken Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Variable wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    I don't think that drugs like cocaine or heroin should be legal, however, since they're so physically addicting.

    This is a minor point, but cocaine isn't physically addictive.

    really?

    because I've done a lot of it and I'm pretty sure it's some kind of addictive.

    Yeah I had to edit that real quick to add "Not that it really matters because it is super duper psychologically addictive." But no, it is not believed to be physically addictive.

    y59kydgzuja4.png
  • GooeyGooey Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    All mind altering substances (FDA approved substances included) tend to cause people to act outside thier own personal rational bounds and established social norms. People (both users and bystanders) can get hurt from even moderate/responsible use of these substances.

    The problem with hard drugs is they tend to take this behavior to an extreme - ie. you don't see anyone giving BJ's out behind the Olive Garden for a dimebag or a beer. Heavily addictive substances are detrimental to society because they create addictions so strong that people are willing to do just about anything for them. It affects them constantly, making them a less/unproductive member of society.

    While more people die a year from smoking than from drug abuse I'd venture that hard drugs are deadlier than cigarettes. But I have no data. Anyone?

    919UOwT.png
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    sanstodo wrote: »
    I don't think that drugs like cocaine or heroin should be legal, however, since they're so physically addicting.

    This is a minor point, but cocaine isn't physically addictive.

    You sure about that? I'm finding lots of physical side effects of withdrawal, including but not limited to:

    Dysphoric mood, fatigue, unpleasant dreams, insomnia or hypersomnia, E.D., increased appetite, psychomotor retardation or agitation, anxiety, insatiable hunger, aches, insomnia/oversleeping, lethargy, and persistent runny nose.

    It's physically changing the brain state, screwing up your dopamine and serotonin levels. Long-term use can damage internal organs and permanently shorten attention span.

    Maybe we have different definitions of "physical."

    The headquarters for my writing:
    hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
  • Chake99Chake99 Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    sanstodo wrote: »
    I don't think that drugs like cocaine or heroin should be legal, however, since they're so physically addicting.

    This is a minor point, but cocaine isn't physically addictive. Not that it really matters because it is super duper psychologically addictive.
    man WHAT?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine
    Cocaine addicts were offered little support and frequently accused of being ‘weak willed' or of imagining withdrawal symptoms. Unlike heroin, alcohol or tranquillizers that have a dramatic withdrawal syndrome, inducing obvious physical symptoms, the physical addiction to cocaine takes place in the mostly in the brain. Physical withdrawal is not dangerous, and is in fact restorative. Over time with repeated use, your brain becomes addicted to cocaine. Cocaine attaches its self to the receptor sites in your brain where the pleasurable neurochemicals (dopamine especially) are stored, before being excreted from your body and lost. The net result is that you are left with a shortage of dopamine, without enough dopamine you feel miserable and irritable and in extreme cases can experience anhedonia, a near inability to experience pleasure from normally pleasurable activities and objects.

    Hic Rhodus, Hic Salta.
  • Fleck0Fleck0 Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Gooey wrote: »
    All mind altering substances (FDA approved substances included) tend to cause people to act outside thier own personal rational bounds and established social norms. People (both users and bystanders) can get hurt from even moderate/responsible use of these substances.

    The problem with hard drugs is they tend to take this behavior to an extreme - ie. you don't see anyone giving BJ's out behind the Olive Garden for a dimebag or a beer. Heavily addictive substances are detrimental to society because they create addictions so strong that people are willing to do just about anything for them. It affects them constantly, making them a less/unproductive member of society.

    While more people die a year from smoking than from drug abuse I'd venture that hard drugs are deadlier than cigarettes. But I have no data. Anyone?

    not even close

    while there are deaths cause by meth heads drowning a baby or the recent benoit killings

    400,000 a year from cigarettes is tough to beat

    steam_sig.png
  • real_pochaccoreal_pochacco Registered User
    edited July 2007
    Dagrabbit wrote: »
    Variable wrote: »
    Dagrabbit wrote: »
    My concern with mainstreaming drug use is that I distrust strangers to use them responsibly, where responsibly means not affecting me in any way.

    yeah and I don't trust people not to hit me with their cars when I cross the street.

    but I can't tell them not to drive.

    edit - I meant to imply that they might drive drunk... got ahead of myself.

    Agreed; the problem already exists. Mainstreaming more drugs could potentially make the problem worse.

    I find it very hard to believe that for drugs like shrooms and LSD will be widely embraced by the general populace. They are, honestly, not drugs that your average person is going to enjoy too much/seek out. I think a lot of the drug misinformation just gives people excuses for not doing these kinds of things. Instead of saying, "Well, that kind of experience isn't really for me," they tend more to say, "Oh yeah that shit make you go crazy and kill yourself every time I heard."

    On the other hand, with weed I think there would be an increase in consumption shortly afterward, and then it would naturally decline. I think this is the pattern legalization has found in other places.

  • GooeyGooey Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Fleck0 wrote: »
    not even close

    while there are deaths cause by meth heads drowning a baby or the recent benoit killings

    400,000 a year from cigarettes is tough to beat


    I also bet that more people smoke cigarettes than do coke, or whatever.

    919UOwT.png
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Variable wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    I don't think that drugs like cocaine or heroin should be legal, however, since they're so physically addicting.

    This is a minor point, but cocaine isn't physically addictive.

    really?

    because I've done a lot of it and I'm pretty sure it's some kind of addictive.

    Yeah I had to edit that real quick to add "Not that it really matters because it is super duper psychologically addictive." But no, it is not believed to be physically addictive.

    Kind of an unimportant distinction given the strength of the addiction. That's what I'm really basing my ideas on combined with the immediate effects of the drug. It's nearly impossible to overdose on weed or nicotine given standard use. You don't hear about stoners overdosing and dying. But you certainly do hear about people dying from ODing on coke.

    The headquarters for my writing:
    hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
  • flamebroiledchickenflamebroiledchicken Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Chake99 wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    I don't think that drugs like cocaine or heroin should be legal, however, since they're so physically addicting.

    This is a minor point, but cocaine isn't physically addictive. Not that it really matters because it is super duper psychologically addictive.
    man WHAT?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine
    Cocaine addicts were offered little support and frequently accused of being ‘weak willed' or of imagining withdrawal symptoms. Unlike heroin, alcohol or tranquillizers that have a dramatic withdrawal syndrome, inducing obvious physical symptoms, the physical addiction to cocaine takes place in the mostly in the brain. Physical withdrawal is not dangerous, and is in fact restorative. Over time with repeated use, your brain becomes addicted to cocaine. Cocaine attaches its self to the receptor sites in your brain where the pleasurable neurochemicals (dopamine especially) are stored, before being excreted from your body and lost. The net result is that you are left with a shortage of dopamine, without enough dopamine you feel miserable and irritable and in extreme cases can experience anhedonia, a near inability to experience pleasure from normally pleasurable activities and objects.

    I think that's what they meant by "psychologically".

    y59kydgzuja4.png
  • tdonlantdonlan Registered User
    edited July 2007
    Here's a tangential question:

    If brain state is determined via neurotransmitters and psychological problems can be fixed with perscription medication, does the definition of psychological addiction change? Is psychological addiction merely the brain getting attuned to a certain configuration of neurotransmitters? How is this any different than a physical addiction?

    Also - think Pavlov's dogs. Phychological effects can trigger physical effects.

    Isn't it just a threshhold between physical and psychological? If that's the case, why do we treat it as black/white binary?

    ==========
    |daydalus.net|
    ==========
  • GooeyGooey Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    tdonlan wrote: »
    Here's a tangential question:

    If brain state is determined via neurotransmitters and psychological problems can be fixed with perscription medication, does the definition of psychological addiction change? Is psychological addiction merely the brain getting attuned to a certain configuration of neurotransmitters? How is this any different than a physical addiction?

    Also - think Pavlov's dogs. Phychological effects can trigger physical effects.

    Isn't it just a threshhold between physical and psychological? If that's the case, why do we treat it as black/white binary?

    Psychological has always meant "habitual" to me. Like how a lot of smokers complain when they quit about the habit of holding a cig.

    But since it's a personal definition it's probably wrong.

    919UOwT.png
  • flamebroiledchickenflamebroiledchicken Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    tdonlan wrote: »
    Here's a tangential question:

    If brain state is determined via neurotransmitters and psychological problems can be fixed with perscription medication, does the definition of psychological addiction change? Is psychological addiction merely the brain getting attuned to a certain configuration of neurotransmitters? How is this any different than a physical addiction?

    Also - think Pavlov's dogs. Phychological effects can trigger physical effects.

    Isn't it just a threshhold between physical and psychological? If that's the case, why do we treat it as black/white binary?

    I think it's mostly to with withdrawal symptoms. Like with pot or, say, video games. You can really really like those things, but if you stop doing them your physical body is not going to suffer.

    With stuff like heroin or amphetamines your body will actually begin to deteriorate if you just quit cold turkey.

    It's kind of a blurry divide when it comes to cocaine- you won't show any physical symptoms during withdrawal and your physical body doesn't suffer but your brain chemistry certainly does

    y59kydgzuja4.png
  • Fleck0Fleck0 Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Chake99 wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    I don't think that drugs like cocaine or heroin should be legal, however, since they're so physically addicting.

    This is a minor point, but cocaine isn't physically addictive. Not that it really matters because it is super duper psychologically addictive.
    man WHAT?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine
    Cocaine addicts were offered little support and frequently accused of being ‘weak willed' or of imagining withdrawal symptoms. Unlike heroin, alcohol or tranquillizers that have a dramatic withdrawal syndrome, inducing obvious physical symptoms, the physical addiction to cocaine takes place in the mostly in the brain. Physical withdrawal is not dangerous, and is in fact restorative. Over time with repeated use, your brain becomes addicted to cocaine. Cocaine attaches its self to the receptor sites in your brain where the pleasurable neurochemicals (dopamine especially) are stored, before being excreted from your body and lost. The net result is that you are left with a shortage of dopamine, without enough dopamine you feel miserable and irritable and in extreme cases can experience anhedonia, a near inability to experience pleasure from normally pleasurable activities and objects.

    I think that's what they meant by "psychologically".

    Coke is way physically addictive
    On the other hand, with weed I think there would be an increase in consumption shortly afterward, and then it would naturally decline. I think this is the pattern legalization has found in other places.

    Weed is legal for medical purposes in california, and it's hardly a problem, meth however, which is quite illegal is very rampant

    steam_sig.png
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Gooey wrote: »
    All mind altering substances (FDA approved substances included) tend to cause people to act outside thier own personal rational bounds and established social norms. People (both users and bystanders) can get hurt from even moderate/responsible use of these substances.

    The problem with hard drugs is they tend to take this behavior to an extreme - ie. you don't see anyone giving BJ's out behind the Olive Garden for a dimebag or a beer. Heavily addictive substances are detrimental to society because they create addictions so strong that people are willing to do just about anything for them. It affects them constantly, making them a less/unproductive member of society.

    While more people die a year from smoking than from drug abuse I'd venture that hard drugs are deadlier than cigarettes. But I have no data. Anyone?

    Hard data isn't easy to come by because a large group of the people who use hard drugs don't tend to be the type that will respond to a survey or go to the lab. In some cases I know of, people use hard drugs to self-medicate, which makes it even harder understand. Which ruined their life first, the schizophrenia or the herion addiction? They're already close to the edge, and of course, putting the drug in your body doesn't help. The 'casual' user, like the person who is addicted and might get help from a treatment center or family, is easy to come by but not really what most people see as the problem, which is also dangerous.

    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Whenever people start conversations about drugs I always like to bring to light the first drug that generally everyone is exposed to on a fairly high level. Caffiene.
    "world's most widely consumed psychoactive substance"
    "In North America, 90% of adults consume caffeine daily"
    Tolerence, Withdraw Symptoms, Appetite Supression.

    I have to go to drug counseling twice a week for my Use of Marijuana charge, and I just can't help but not listen to anything my counselor says when he talks about some of the ideas listen in the OP.
    "Is out life only here for druge? We wern't born high, why do some people feel the need to change their moods with the use of drugs? What do you think is the earliest drug people get addicted to?" And so on...The entire while he is saying this to us he is drinking out of his 22oz coffie mug that he's already filled up twice during the 2 hour long class.

    Thats one drug I will never try again, stupid fucking Mt. Dew.

  • anableanable Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Dagrabbit wrote: »
    My concern with mainstreaming drug use is that I distrust strangers to use them responsibly, where responsibly means not affecting me in any way.

    exactly. hell, people (according to the current laws) shouldn't have coke or acid etc. etc. but they still get it and on occasion manage to hurt themselves and/or others. If every tom, dick, and jane had easy access to some more potent drugs I'd hate to see the state of things.

    I haven't looked it up in some time but doesn't/didn't Amsterdam have an issue with rampant usage of hard drugs. I'm sure there's a study out there somewhere.
    Spoiler:

  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Shhhh. It's our little secret.

    I think >8.0z (I don't know if that's right its been so long) keeps you from feeling the addictive effects of caffine in a cup of coffee.

    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Gooey a challenge if you will: Name me a single action(aside from drug charges) that is legal while sober yet illegal while on drugs.

    My point here is that drugs may cause you to do thing you would normally do maybe even illegal or dangerous things. However any crime you could do on or because of drugs would be just as much of a crime if you were totally clean. I have trouble grasping that there's some fundemental difference between the two.

  • GooeyGooey Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Gooey a challenge if you will: Name me a single action(aside from drug charges) that is legal while sober yet illegal while on drugs.

    My point here is that drugs may cause you to do thing you would normally do maybe even illegal or dangerous things. However any crime you could do on or because of drugs would be just as much of a crime if you were totally clean. I have trouble grasping that there's some fundemental difference between the two.

    I'm not saying there is.

    919UOwT.png
  • SithDrummerSithDrummer Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Gooey a challenge if you will: Name me a single action(aside from drug charges) that is legal while sober yet illegal while on drugs.

    My point here is that drugs may cause you to do thing you would normally do maybe even illegal or dangerous things. However any crime you could do on or because of drugs would be just as much of a crime if you were totally clean. I have trouble grasping that there's some fundemental difference between the two.
    Is driving not one? Or are you putting a DUID under "drug charges"?

    It's an easy game to hate
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    I have to go to drug counseling twice a week for my Use of Marijuana charge, and I just can't help but not listen to anything my counselor says when he talks about some of the ideas listen in the OP.
    Drug counselling? For pot? Please tell me you are joking.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Gooey a challenge if you will: Name me a single action(aside from drug charges) that is legal while sober yet illegal while on drugs.

    My point here is that drugs may cause you to do thing you would normally do maybe even illegal or dangerous things. However any crime you could do on or because of drugs would be just as much of a crime if you were totally clean. I have trouble grasping that there's some fundemental difference between the two.
    Is driving not one? Or are you putting a DUID under "drug charges"?

    Technically being outside is one. Drunk and disorderly conduct.

    tea-1.jpg
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Azio wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    I have to go to drug counseling twice a week for my Use of Marijuana charge, and I just can't help but not listen to anything my counselor says when he talks about some of the ideas listen in the OP.
    Drug counselling? For pot? Please tell me you are joking.
    I had to do it when I tested positive for it in HS. Good times.

    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    Gooey a challenge if you will: Name me a single action(aside from drug charges) that is legal while sober yet illegal while on drugs.

    My point here is that drugs may cause you to do thing you would normally do maybe even illegal or dangerous things. However any crime you could do on or because of drugs would be just as much of a crime if you were totally clean. I have trouble grasping that there's some fundemental difference between the two.
    Is driving not one? Or are you putting a DUID under "drug charges"?

    Technically being outside is one. Drunk and disorderly conduct.

    if you're sober it's called "disturbing the peace". Different name pretty much the same crime

  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Dagrabbit wrote: »
    My concern with mainstreaming drug use is that I distrust strangers to use them responsibly, where responsibly means not affecting me in any way.

    exactly. hell, people (according to the current laws) shouldn't have coke or acid etc. etc. but they still get it and on occasion manage to hurt themselves and/or others. If every tom, dick, and jane had easy access to some more potent drugs I'd hate to see the state of things.
    Pot is illegal in Canada, and yet 16% of Canadians say they used it in 2006 . This is more than double the rate in the Netherlands, where pot is legal for possession and sale.

  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Azio wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Dagrabbit wrote: »
    My concern with mainstreaming drug use is that I distrust strangers to use them responsibly, where responsibly means not affecting me in any way.

    exactly. hell, people (according to the current laws) shouldn't have coke or acid etc. etc. but they still get it and on occasion manage to hurt themselves and/or others. If every tom, dick, and jane had easy access to some more potent drugs I'd hate to see the state of things.
    Pot is illegal in Canada, and yet 16%? of Canadians say they used it in 2006. This is more than double the rate in the Netherlands, where pot is legal for possession and sale.

    What is the rate of hard drug use in the Netherlands? Also, comparing pot use to hard drug use is tricky since they're very different.

    The headquarters for my writing:
    hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
  • GorakGorak Registered User
    edited July 2007
    Malkor wrote: »
    Azio wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    I have to go to drug counseling twice a week for my Use of Marijuana charge, and I just can't help but not listen to anything my counselor says when he talks about some of the ideas listen in the OP.
    Drug counselling? For pot? Please tell me you are joking.
    I had to do it when I tested positive for it in HS. Good times.

    Any kid who gets drug tested in school should insist that the staff are tested too.

    I know of at least two teachers from my school who were known to smoke pot and I know 4 or 5 people who went on to teach after uni who all smoked.

  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Azio wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Dagrabbit wrote: »
    My concern with mainstreaming drug use is that I distrust strangers to use them responsibly, where responsibly means not affecting me in any way.

    exactly. hell, people (according to the current laws) shouldn't have coke or acid etc. etc. but they still get it and on occasion manage to hurt themselves and/or others. If every tom, dick, and jane had easy access to some more potent drugs I'd hate to see the state of things.
    Pot is illegal in Canada, and yet 16%? of Canadians say they used it in 2006. This is more than double the rate in the Netherlands, where pot is legal for possession and sale.

    What is the rate of hard drug use in the Netherlands? Also, comparing pot use to hard drug use is tricky since they're very different.
    About a third of that in the states, according to this. Regardless, drug use in the US is at an all-time high, so it should be painfully obvious to everyone by now that the enforcement and incarceration-geared approach is not working. If you're not going to legalize, at least decriminalize or reduce the penalties so you don't have millions of people in jail for nonviolent crimes.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    The idea that the re-legalization of alcohol was because of some liberal "oh noes freedom" idea is pretty retarded.

    The reason we legalized it was that prohibition created a fucking huge untaxed black market in alcohol, run by very unsavory elements who accrued an enormous amount of influence based on it, and legalizing it elminated a fucking shitload of crime and corruption.

    I'd argue that there is an inherent human desire to experience altered states of consciousness; it's an impulse as fundamental to the human condition as the impulse to create or enjoy art and music; attempts to extinguish this impulse are doomed to failure.
    sanstodo wrote: »
    I generally agree with you but alcohol doesn't make you physically addicted with casual use. There are certain drugs that are nearly impossible to use casually;

    Actually, there is no drug that can make you physically addicted with casual use. Habitual use always, always, always precedes chemical dependency. You can't develop a physical chemical dependency until you've had multiple exposures to the chemical in a relatively short time frame.

    The focus on physical addiction versus "psychological" addiction is, I think, a big red herring. There are highly habit-forming drugs and there are drugs which are not highly habit-forming. There are drugs which are likely to create unpredictable, violent, or destructive mental states and there are drugs which are not. And, finally, there are drugs which are likely to kill you (either immediately or eventually) and there are drugs which are not. These three axes should be the only criteria by which we judge recreational drug use from both the legal and social perspectives.

    And, by the way: nicotine is highly habit-forming and highly physically addictive. It's actually one of the most highly physically addictive drugs in wide use today. Cocaine, surprisingly, despite being highly habit-forming, is actually not as physically addictive as popularly believed.
    Malkor wrote: »
    tdonlan wrote: »
    Myth. Anecdotally I can vouch that this is false, or at least what you're implying. Part of the hallucinatory effects include warping of light or textures. If you stare at something the "right way" this warping effect might kick in. However, you won't all the sudden have bat shriek out of the sky, etc. Read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lsd#Flashbacks_and_HPPD
    I've had neurology professors tell me that it's a myth, BUT, like my friend some people are predisposed to hallucinations in general. It's like the 'kid who was told he was a glass of juice then tripped and fell dead' story. It might happen, and there might be correlation, but there's no way to prove a cause.

    There is no known biological reason why LSD flashbacks should occur. LSD is a very, very fragile molecule that is water-soluble and eliminated from the body quickly. It should be chemically impossible for LSD to remain anywhere in any body tissue for more than a few days. As pochacco said above, it is much more likely that LSD flashbacks are psychological in nature - just like any other intense experience can create flashbacks.
    tdonlan wrote: »
    If brain state is determined via neurotransmitters and psychological problems can be fixed with perscription medication, does the definition of psychological addiction change? Is psychological addiction merely the brain getting attuned to a certain configuration of neurotransmitters? How is this any different than a physical addiction?

    It's an extremely fuzzy distinction, but the basic difference is that "physical" addiction causes somatic symptoms. 'Somatic' in this context means 'of the body,' so symptoms that are experienced in the body: nausea, trembling, hot/cold flashes, loose bowels, muscle weakness, sleepiness, etc.

    When you start talking about changes in neurotransmitter production or reuptake or changes in receptor cites, it's hard to figure what neurochemical changes are directly caused by the drug use, and what are caused by your typical psychological processes (habituation, conditioning, association, etc.). Not impossible, mind you - the kind of paranoid delusions caused by extreme cocaine addiction are unlikely to be purely "psychological" in nature - but when you're talking about something like anxiety, it gets a little harder to draw that line.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    The idea that the re-legalization of alcohol was because of some liberal "oh noes freedom" idea is pretty retarded.

    The reason we legalized it was that prohibition created a fucking huge untaxed black market in alcohol, run by very unsavory elements who accrued an enormous amount of influence based on it, and legalizing it elminated a fucking shitload of crime and corruption.

    And please don't forget that there was that whole "Great Depression" thing going on too, and recreating the liquor industry was a surefire way to create jobs.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Azio wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Azio wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Dagrabbit wrote: »
    My concern with mainstreaming drug use is that I distrust strangers to use them responsibly, where responsibly means not affecting me in any way.

    exactly. hell, people (according to the current laws) shouldn't have coke or acid etc. etc. but they still get it and on occasion manage to hurt themselves and/or others. If every tom, dick, and jane had easy access to some more potent drugs I'd hate to see the state of things.
    Pot is illegal in Canada, and yet 16%? of Canadians say they used it in 2006. This is more than double the rate in the Netherlands, where pot is legal for possession and sale.

    What is the rate of hard drug use in the Netherlands? Also, comparing pot use to hard drug use is tricky since they're very different.
    About a third of that in the states, according to this. Regardless, drug use in the US is at an all-time high, so it should be painfully obvious to everyone by now that the enforcement and incarceration-geared approach is not working. If you're not going to legalize, at least decriminalize or reduce the penalties so you don't have millions of people in jail for nonviolent crimes.

    Interesting. What about poverty rates? I'm asking for this information because stats in a vacuum don't mean much since drug use is affected by external factors, namely socio-economics.

    The headquarters for my writing:
    hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
  • Fleck0Fleck0 Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    What are peoples opinion on medical marijuana?

    California has all but accepted this practice, while I think up to 11 states followed suit,

    steam_sig.png
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Fleck0 wrote: »
    What are peoples opinion on medical marijuana?

    California has all but accepted this practice, while I think up to 11 states followed suit,

    Medical marijuana is de facto legalization.
    Therefore, I'm all for it.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • redxredx Bow Down! Before the power of Santa!Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Fleck0 wrote: »
    What are peoples opinion on medical marijuana?

    California has all but accepted this practice, while I think up to 11 states followed suit,

    It improves the lives of a lot of people who are suffering. It is good.

    Probably helps to increase the social acceptability of smoking pot too, which is also good.

    It will make it more easy to study the long term effects of smoking pot. Also good.

    It might be a small step on the path to total decriminalization/legalization, but that is just a pipe dream.

    Bow Down, Bow Down
    Before the power of Santa
    Or be crushed, be crushed
    By his jolly boots of doom.
  • NogsNogs Crap, crap, mega crap. Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Prescription drugs are pretty important a lot of the times for various reasons.

    rotate.jpg
    PARKER, YOU'RE FIRED! <-- My comic book podcast Satan!
  • redxredx Bow Down! Before the power of Santa!Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Pot is not actually prescription drug anywhere in the states, IIRC

    Bow Down, Bow Down
    Before the power of Santa
    Or be crushed, be crushed
    By his jolly boots of doom.
  • Fleck0Fleck0 Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    redx wrote: »
    Pot is not actually prescription drug anywhere in the states, IIRC

    technically true, it's sort of a slang term. But in several states with a referral from a doctor a patient can legally posses, consume and grow up to 8 oz. of marijuana and state officers have no authority to do anything

    lots of info here http://www.canorml.org/

    steam_sig.png
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Fleck0 wrote: »
    redx wrote: »
    Pot is not actually prescription drug anywhere in the states, IIRC
    technically true, it's sort of a slang term. But in several states with a referral from a doctor a patient can legally posses, consume and grow up to 8 oz. of marijuana and state officers have no authority to do anything

    lots of info here http://www.canorml.org/
    This is not true. Most of these laws have been overruled by the Supreme Court.

    This is not to say that the state officers do not have discretion in whether or not they arrest you, just to say that they could, at any point, arrest you if they chose to do so.

  • Fleck0Fleck0 Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Fleck0 wrote: »
    redx wrote: »
    Pot is not actually prescription drug anywhere in the states, IIRC
    technically true, it's sort of a slang term. But in several states with a referral from a doctor a patient can legally posses, consume and grow up to 8 oz. of marijuana and state officers have no authority to do anything

    lots of info here http://www.canorml.org/
    This is not true. Most of these laws have been overruled by the Supreme Court.

    This is not to say that the state officers do not have discretion in whether or not they arrest you, just to say that they could, at any point, arrest you if they chose to do so.

    it's still legal to sell through state sanctioned dispensaries. It's just still illegal at the federal level. But that hasn't really stopped anyone so far

    steam_sig.png
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Fleck0 wrote: »
    it's still legal to sell through state sanctioned dispensaries. It's just still illegal at the federal level. But that hasn't really stopped anyone so far

    That just means that, yes Virginia, it's still illegal.

    And, yes, it has stopped people.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
Sign In or Register to comment.