Options

FUCK the DEA!

123468

Posts

  • Options
    AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    420 in the 604. Love this town.

    Azio on
  • Options
    Nexus ZeroNexus Zero Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ALocksly wrote: »
    The main lobbiests against it's legalization are the liquor industry, because they fear it would cut into their profits. Honestly though, the ones who would stand to lose the most from it's legalization would be the organized crime syndicates who profit from it.


    This is why I don't understand proponents of the current system. We've got nothing to lose and so much to gain from legalising drugs. They'd be safer and we wouldn't be funding the actions of criminals. When I buy weed, it irks me to know that I've possibly bought some bullets for some child militia to kill others. At the end of the day, it wasn't me who set up the system and I'm sure as shit not going to stop smoking weed because some overly moralistic gits can curb my freedoms just in case some random harms themselves. If I harm my self, I'm not going to blame it on anyone else or let that effect other's freedoms.

    Edit: Azio that's beautiful. Also, MrMister, the reason I think dangerous drugs like meth and heroin should be legalised is because prohibition is making them more dangerous than they need to be. I don't think they should be promoted.

    Nexus Zero on
    sig.jpg
  • Options
    MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ALocksly wrote: »
    are you gonna suddenly start using it because it's legal?

    I would smoke pot more if it were legal. I don't care about it enough to get it, but if it were on the shelf at Safeway I'd probably have some now and then. In the case of pot, that's not problematic at all--I don't see why it would be a problem if your average person had some pot every now and then.

    However, drugs like the aforementioned crystal meth, which both have incredible uptake-rates (the Life or Meth site said 95% of two-time users become regular users) and are also much more destructive to your health. Pot is about as non-addictive and benign to your health as they come.

    MrMister on
  • Options
    WevsWevs __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2007
    I don't actually have a problem with any drugs being legal, especially weed, I just didn't think some of the arguments people were using were very good. I'm pretty much with everyone in here.

    I might just stop posting.

    Wevs on
  • Options
    ALockslyALocksly Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I know a buncha guys (and gals) who smoked pot in college just because it was the thing to do. I know several who flat out told me they did it mainly because of the excitement of doing something they wern't supposed to. All but one of them is now done with college and also done with weed.

    ALocksly on
    Yes,... yes, I agree. It's totally unfair that sober you gets into trouble for things that drunk you did.
  • Options
    SarcastroSarcastro Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ALocksly wrote: »
    The main lobbiests against it's legalization are the liquor industry, because they fear it would cut into their profits. Honestly though, the ones who would stand to lose the most from it's legalization would be the organized crime syndicates who profit from it.

    I wonder if this cuts closer to the truth about legalization. Nobody in power wants it legalized. The government has their reasons, and heavy crime also has it's reasons. For the most part only the people tired of paying through the nose for it want it legalized.

    Sarcastro on
  • Options
    WorLordWorLord Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Xaquin wrote: »
    WorLord wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Aemilius do you use drugs?

    Before he answers, I'd like to know what difference that makes?

    I'm just curious if he'd be stopping use when it's legal since it will have lost its forbidden nature

    Well, *I* did. So I don't think it entirely a stretch.

    WorLord on
    ...privately black.
  • Options
    ALockslyALocksly Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Nexus Zero wrote: »
    Edit: Azio that's beautiful. Also, MrMister, the reason I think dangerous drugs like meth and heroin should be legalised is because prohibition is making them more dangerous than they need to be. I don't think they should be promoted.


    A few facts though, If you can secure a clean supply of heroin you can function just fine, provided you get your daily fix, with negligible harm to body or mind. Many addicts are doctors who have a ready supply of morphine. Smoking is probably less healthy. This is why the Swiss program works, the addict gets to keep his life while he works though the addiction with no ill effects.

    Meth is another animal though, it rots the body and mind; though I would favor enforced detox over incarceration. Heroin addicts shoot up and feel good, meth addicts hit it and go fucking nuts and kill people.

    ALocksly on
    Yes,... yes, I agree. It's totally unfair that sober you gets into trouble for things that drunk you did.
  • Options
    AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    ALocksly wrote: »
    The main lobbiests against it's legalization are the liquor industry, because they fear it would cut into their profits. Honestly though, the ones who would stand to lose the most from it's legalization would be the organized crime syndicates who profit from it.

    I wonder if this cuts closer to the truth about legalization. Nobody in power wants it legalized. The government has their reasons, and heavy crime also has it's reasons. For the most part only the people tired of paying through the nose for it want it legalized.
    Uh, price isn't the only thing we're tired of. There's also the constant fear of being put in jail to get buttfucked by STD-carrying men, easily twice our size, who actually are dangerous.

    Azio on
  • Options
    Nexus ZeroNexus Zero Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ALocksly wrote: »
    Nexus Zero wrote: »
    Edit: Azio that's beautiful. Also, MrMister, the reason I think dangerous drugs like meth and heroin should be legalised is because prohibition is making them more dangerous than they need to be. I don't think they should be promoted.


    A few facts though, If you can secure a clean supply of heroin you can function just fine, provided you get your daily fix, with negligible harm to body or mind. Many addicts are doctors who have a ready supply of morphine. Smoking is probably less healthy. This is why the Swiss program works, the addict gets to keep his life while he works though the addiction with no ill effects.

    Meth is another animal though, it rots the body and mind; though I would favor enforced detox over incarceration. Heroin addicts shoot up and feel good, meth addicts hit it and go fucking nuts and kill people.


    I'm in complete agreement. Although, I'm a little vague on the effects of crack; I've assumed it's a halfway house between meth and heroin?

    Nexus Zero on
    sig.jpg
  • Options
    BigJoeMBigJoeM Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Crack is the freebase form of cocaine (just as crystal meth is the freebase of Meth)

    It results in a shorter but far more potent high but results in incredibly high rates of addiction.

    It also severly messes up your heart and lungs do to smoking rocks in glass pipes.

    BigJoeM on
  • Options
    ALockslyALocksly Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    ALocksly wrote: »
    The main lobbiests against it's legalization are the liquor industry, because they fear it would cut into their profits. Honestly though, the ones who would stand to lose the most from it's legalization would be the organized crime syndicates who profit from it.

    I wonder if this cuts closer to the truth about legalization. Nobody in power wants it legalized. The government has their reasons, and heavy crime also has it's reasons. For the most part only the people tired of paying through the nose for it want it legalized.

    Until they finnish that formula for soma anyways.

    I hear a lot of noise on this from the religious right, it seems a hot button with the evangelicals and baptists particulary. I don't know where the "pot is evil" idea came from either. They, in turn put pressure on the politicians, which, when added to that from lobbiests on an issue with litte general support anyways makes it a "safe" stand when running for office. If only after the party guests had consumed every drop of alcohol in the place Jesus had turned water into weed instead.

    ALocksly on
    Yes,... yes, I agree. It's totally unfair that sober you gets into trouble for things that drunk you did.
  • Options
    nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ALocksly wrote: »
    Nexus Zero wrote: »
    Edit: Azio that's beautiful. Also, MrMister, the reason I think dangerous drugs like meth and heroin should be legalised is because prohibition is making them more dangerous than they need to be. I don't think they should be promoted.


    A few facts though, If you can secure a clean supply of heroin you can function just fine, provided you get your daily fix, with negligible harm to body or mind. Many addicts are doctors who have a ready supply of morphine. Smoking is probably less healthy. This is why the Swiss program works, the addict gets to keep his life while he works though the addiction with no ill effects.

    Meth is another animal though, it rots the body and mind; though I would favor enforced detox over incarceration. Heroin addicts shoot up and feel good, meth addicts hit it and go fucking nuts and kill people.

    There's a reason there's addictslike iggy Popand stuff who hang around for decades. Herion isn't that physically destructive. It's biggest problems are it's highly addictive nature and the supply is iffy. Street herion's quality varies quite a bit and sometimes is plain tainted. So a herion addicts tend to keep going till they overdose or get bad drugs.

    That's why is recent years street herion isn't all that popular anymore. Presciption opiates are more predictable and often legally prescibed.

    nexuscrawler on
  • Options
    durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    There's a reason there's addictslike iggy Popand stuff who hang around for decades. Herion isn't that physically destructive. It's biggest problems are it's highly addictive nature and the supply is iffy. Street herion's quality varies quite a bit and sometimes is plain tainted. So a herion addicts tend to keep going till they overdose or get bad drugs.

    That's why is recent years street herion isn't all that popular anymore. Presciption opiates are more predictable and often legally prescibed.
    My father always warned me against heroin by saying that until I was rich enough to have it administered by a medical professional, it was too dangerous to trust the dealer.

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I know I'm jumping back in time 8 pages but goddamn it why did you have to start a drug thread on a morning I had meetings?
    MrMister wrote: »
    Aemilius wrote: »
    Yes, "hard" drugs are really bad for you. I'm sure the people who are willing to fucking go on meth are not the type to be deterred by prison, nor are people going to suddenly start saying "Hey, you know what legal substance sounds like a lot of fun to try? Fucking meth! I would love to have a paralyzing addiction to a nearly-invariably lethal substance which destroys my sanity and covers me in scabs!"

    You catagorize people into two types: crazy fuckers who will always do meth no matter what, and lovely gentlemen who would never try meth no matter what. I think this characterization is retarded.

    Nobody ever does a dependence-forming drug (like meth or heroin) planning to get addicted. That said, just because somebody was impulsive and ill-informed when they started doing meth doesn't mean they're still impulsive and ill-informed. Addiction can be traced back to a number of factors, many of which are correctible, so characterizing hard drug users as people who are just fucked up for life is off the mark.

    The criminal justice system is the only system available for forcing people who have hit rock bottom to actually deal with their addiction. See, as Nexus said on the first page, you can be dependent on some very habit-forming drugs for years or even decades and not die. These people are ultimately a drain on our economy and healthcare systems and present a risk to themselves or others. Heroin and meth addiction are much like illiteracy or smallpox in that there is a vested state interest in ending these conditions. I'd also make the argument that the vast majority of unrecovered addicts are not sane, responsible citizens purely by the nature of their addictions, which means that I have no problem with the law treating them much the same as we would treat the mentally ill or children - IE, as people with diminished capacity for rational decision-making; consequently they don't get the same rights and freedom as other adults. By making highly addictive drugs illegal, it's possible to pull some of these addicts into the system (by busting them for possession or sale) and force them into treatment.

    However, right now, the criminal justice system in the US is very bad at treating addicts. There are a lot of good ideas in place in various jurisdictions but in my admittedly limited experience they are underfunded and poorly implemented. Santa Clara County, CA found a significant cost-savings by putting addicts in a drug court (ie, with judges and lawyers experienced in dealing with issues of drug abuse) and helping them with access to mental health and recovery services. I think implementing similar drug courts across the country is a really good idea.
    That's not to say that the Santa Clara County drug court isn't a bureaucratic clusterfuck of mind-boggling proportions. It is; it's just a less expensive bureaucratic clusterfuck than the prison system.

    I also support decriminalization of "soft" drugs (marijuana, psilocybin, LSD, arguably MDMA).

    Feral on
    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.
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ALocksly wrote: »
    Nexus Zero wrote: »
    Edit: Azio that's beautiful. Also, MrMister, the reason I think dangerous drugs like meth and heroin should be legalised is because prohibition is making them more dangerous than they need to be. I don't think they should be promoted.


    A few facts though, If you can secure a clean supply of heroin you can function just fine, provided you get your daily fix, with negligible harm to body or mind. Many addicts are doctors who have a ready supply of morphine. Smoking is probably less healthy. This is why the Swiss program works, the addict gets to keep his life while he works though the addiction with no ill effects.

    This is mostly true.

    There is another way that even "pure" heroin can cause death. There's a documented reflex response that happens in heroin addicts when they're about to do a hit. Blood pressure rises and heart rate and respiration increase. It's been theorized that this causes a momentary increase in tolerance by counteracting the respiratory depression that normally causes death from opioid overdose. However, this reflex response seems tied to the injection site - if you switch to a new site, the response does not occur.

    Consequently, it's possible that an addict who switches injection sites at the same time as they increase their dose (in response to the natural buildup of tolerance that accompanies all opioids) they can basically overshoot their dose increase and OD.

    However, for the most part, I do agree that unadulterated heroin is far less likely, in general, to cause death than is popularly believed.

    Feral on
    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.
  • Options
    RandomtaskRandomtask Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Azio wrote: »
    420 in the 604. Love this town.

    I swear I could smell that through space, time and my computer.

    Randomtask on
    Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it.
    - Soren Kierkegaard
  • Options
    RandomtaskRandomtask Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ALocksly wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    WorLord wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Aemilius do you use drugs?

    Before he answers, I'd like to know what difference that makes?

    I'm just curious if he'd be stopping use when it's legal since it will have lost its forbidden nature

    are you gonna suddenly start using it because it's legal?

    FUCK [strike]YES![/strike] NO!


    I'm of legal age and I very, very rarely drink.

    Randomtask on
    Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it.
    - Soren Kierkegaard
  • Options
    AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Randomtask wrote: »
    Azio wrote: »
    420 in the 604. Love this town.

    I swear I could smell that through space, time and my computer.
    Not surprising. The smell blanketed a 10-block area for hours.

    Azio on
  • Options
    YarYar Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Being a pothead was more fun knowing that I was a total rebel and outlaw for it.

    Yar on
  • Options
    RandomtaskRandomtask Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Yar wrote: »
    Being a pothead was more fun knowing that I was a total rebel and outlaw for it.

    Is this supposed to be sarcastic?

    Because it's like saying "Psh, heh, hitting my hand with that hammer totally hurt." The hammer hurting is so easily painful that it might be sarcasm, but I'm just not sure.

    Randomtask on
    Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it.
    - Soren Kierkegaard
  • Options
    NickleNickle Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I just want to throw in my two cents. I was a heroin addict, for about 4 years, and I just recently quit at the end of last summer. The reasons why inclue the enotional a financial burden I was placed in, but the main reason I quit was because of my 'overdose'. I never injected, I hate needles, but rather snorted it, it was usually mixed with some sort of sleeping pill. One night, I was getting a damn good deal from my dealer, so I bought a bit too much, and did every last bit of it (minus the one bag you always keep for the morning). That morning I woke up and vomited so hard that I burst every blood vessel in my face and eyes, and did severe damage to my lungs in the process. After my time at the hospital, I was made to understand that the reaction I had wasn't even due to the heroin itself, but the substance that it was 'cut' with.

    I'm in no way advocating heroin, because, like I said, I spent all of my money and time doing it (though I never did anything illegal to obtain it, and this isn't something that should be assumed of all drug addicts, either), but I do think strongly that if heroin were legal and regulated, that this never would have happened. The fact is that I was buying my drug from a dealer who I doubt very severely wanted to harm me (I was paying his kid's way through college, after all), but rather just did not have any idea that he was mixing the drugs improperly.

    I will say though, that I was entirely functional, I kept my jobs, and appearances up, throughout the entirety of my addiction (until, of course, that morning). People are assuming that anyone who does a drug is going to automatically go on to commit other crimes, and that's just blatant idiocy. If a person is an idiot, yes, they're bound do do idiotic things, with or without drugs, and if a person is at least decently intelligent, they're not going to automatically rob a liquor store because they like to smoke some weed. When Gun control advocates can say "Sure guns kill people, but they're guns that are obtained illegally, and the people using them this way are already criminals", but aren't willing to give that same benefit of the doubt to a drug user, that's something I like to call 'hypocracy'. Guns don't force anyone to kill anyone else, and neither do drugs. They're both 'tools' and either can be both harmful and beneficial.

    That being said, I'm almost positive that there aren't that many people sitting on the sidelines, saying to themselves 'Man, I'd LOVE to smoke some crack! If only it were legal...'. Not everyone owns a gun because they're legal. Not everyone smokes cigarettes (I still can't quit those, and I quit HEROIN for god's sake.) because they're legal. Not everyone becomes an alcoholic because it's legal. Why can this logic not not be applied to drug use, as well?

    You can't say that people who shoot other people, or commit armed robberies, aren't representing all gun owners, and say that the people who do these things under the influence of drugs ARE indicative of all drug users. That's just idiotic. You think that drug use invariably leads to armed robberies and other crimes, but aren't you glossing over the 'armed' part of the robbery? If those people weren't 'armed' they wouldn't be commiting the robberies in the first place. To be clear, I'm not trying to say we should make guns illegal, just pointing out the hypocrasy in your stance.

    Nickle on
    Xbox/PSN/NNID/Steam: NickleDL | 3DS: 0731-4750-6906
  • Options
    YarYar Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Randomtask wrote: »
    Is this supposed to be sarcastic?

    Because it's like saying "Psh, heh, hitting my hand with that hammer totally hurt." The hammer hurting is so easily painful that it might be sarcasm, but I'm just not sure.
    I don't understand your question exactly.

    There's usually some amount of subtle sarcasm in any short statement these days. My word choices were probably made at least partly for sarcastic/ironic effect. But my message was mostly un-sarcastic.

    Being a pothead was more fun knowing that I was a rebel and outlaw for it.

    Yar on
  • Options
    nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Feral wrote: »
    ALocksly wrote: »
    Nexus Zero wrote: »
    Edit: Azio that's beautiful. Also, MrMister, the reason I think dangerous drugs like meth and heroin should be legalised is because prohibition is making them more dangerous than they need to be. I don't think they should be promoted.


    A few facts though, If you can secure a clean supply of heroin you can function just fine, provided you get your daily fix, with negligible harm to body or mind. Many addicts are doctors who have a ready supply of morphine. Smoking is probably less healthy. This is why the Swiss program works, the addict gets to keep his life while he works though the addiction with no ill effects.

    This is mostly true.

    There is another way that even "pure" heroin can cause death. There's a documented reflex response that happens in heroin addicts when they're about to do a hit. Blood pressure rises and heart rate and respiration increase. It's been theorized that this causes a momentary increase in tolerance by counteracting the respiratory depression that normally causes death from opioid overdose. However, this reflex response seems tied to the injection site - if you switch to a new site, the response does not occur.

    Consequently, it's possible that an addict who switches injection sites at the same time as they increase their dose (in response to the natural buildup of tolerance that accompanies all opioids) they can basically overshoot their dose increase and OD.

    However, for the most part, I do agree that unadulterated heroin is far less likely, in general, to cause death than is popularly believed.

    Trouble is with street drugs you can never really tell how strong it is till you use it. Someone who's already taken a few hits of herion isn't in a great place ot make the choice if they can handle more or not. Plus like pot street herion has exponentally gone up in purity and strength in the last couple decades.

    nexuscrawler on
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Trouble is with street drugs you can never really tell how strong it is till you use it. Someone who's already taken a few hits of herion isn't in a great place ot make the choice if they can handle more or not. Plus like pot street herion has exponentally gone up in purity and strength in the last couple decades.

    Sure. I agree that the legal status of heroin creates unpredictability in the purity and strength of heroin available on the black market, which significantly increases the likelihood of having a dangerous reaction.

    I just don't want the "heroin = death" myth to be replaced by an equal but opposite "you can't die from pure heroin" myth.

    A couple of other major issues are that polydrug abuse is pretty common, and heroin + alcohol is a deadly combination; and that using any injectable drug, particularly outside of a sterile medical environment (but even in a clinic/hospital as well), puts you at greater risk for antibiotics-resistant infections. Both of these issues would still be concerns if pharmaceutical-grade heroin were available to the average junkie.

    And, Nickle, great post.

    Feral on
    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.
  • Options
    RandomtaskRandomtask Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Yar wrote: »
    Randomtask wrote: »
    Is this supposed to be sarcastic?

    Because it's like saying "Psh, heh, hitting my hand with that hammer totally hurt." The hammer hurting is so easily painful that it might be sarcasm, but I'm just not sure.
    I don't understand your question exactly.

    There's usually some amount of subtle sarcasm in any short statement these days. My word choices were probably made at least partly for sarcastic/ironic effect. But my message was mostly un-sarcastic.

    Being a pothead was more fun knowing that I was a rebel and outlaw for it.

    Ok, it's wasn't sarcastic.

    Randomtask on
    Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it.
    - Soren Kierkegaard
  • Options
    ALockslyALocksly Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Feral wrote: »
    Trouble is with street drugs you can never really tell how strong it is till you use it. Someone who's already taken a few hits of herion isn't in a great place ot make the choice if they can handle more or not. Plus like pot street herion has exponentally gone up in purity and strength in the last couple decades.

    Sure. I agree that the legal status of heroin creates unpredictability in the purity and strength of heroin available on the black market, which significantly increases the likelihood of having a dangerous reaction.

    I just don't want the "heroin = death" myth to be replaced by an equal but opposite "you can't die from pure heroin" myth.

    A couple of other major issues are that polydrug abuse is pretty common, and heroin + alcohol is a deadly combination; and that using any injectable drug, particularly outside of a sterile medical environment (but even in a clinic/hospital as well), puts you at greater risk for antibiotics-resistant infections. Both of these issues would still be concerns if pharmaceutical-grade heroin were available to the average junkie.

    And, Nickle, great post.

    This is one of the reasons the Swiss program requires that the addict use the stuff only at the clinic and under supervision. (the other of course being prevention of them walking out the door and selling it to somone else)

    ALocksly on
    Yes,... yes, I agree. It's totally unfair that sober you gets into trouble for things that drunk you did.
  • Options
    nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Feral wrote: »
    Trouble is with street drugs you can never really tell how strong it is till you use it. Someone who's already taken a few hits of herion isn't in a great place ot make the choice if they can handle more or not. Plus like pot street herion has exponentally gone up in purity and strength in the last couple decades.

    Sure. I agree that the legal status of heroin creates unpredictability in the purity and strength of heroin available on the black market, which significantly increases the likelihood of having a dangerous reaction.

    I just don't want the "heroin = death" myth to be replaced by an equal but opposite "you can't die from pure heroin" myth.

    A couple of other major issues are that polydrug abuse is pretty common, and heroin + alcohol is a deadly combination; and that using any injectable drug, particularly outside of a sterile medical environment (but even in a clinic/hospital as well), puts you at greater risk for antibiotics-resistant infections. Both of these issues would still be concerns if pharmaceutical-grade heroin were available to the average junkie.

    And, Nickle, great post.

    Heroin is basically getting replaced by it's prescription equals like Vicodin and OxyContin for these reasons. Plus it doesn't have the social stigma.

    Anyway my perception was never "heroin = death" or "heroin can't kill you". It's more along the lines of "Real heroin addiction means your chances of having an accidental OD are pretty likely"

    nexuscrawler on
  • Options
    SithDrummerSithDrummer Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Wevs wrote: »
    I was just trying to point out the narrow views that some people in here seem to have on a complex situation. I thought it was cute the way you interpreted my comment though.
    If this is directed at me, don't worry, none of the quotes came from you.

    SithDrummer on
  • Options
    sdrawkcaB emaNsdrawkcaB emaN regular
    edited April 2007
    Nickle wrote: »
    I just want to throw in my two cents. I was a heroin addict, for about 4 years, and I just recently quit at the end of last summer. The reasons why inclue the enotional a financial burden I was placed in, but the main reason I quit was because of my 'overdose'. I never injected, I hate needles, but rather snorted it, it was usually mixed with some sort of sleeping pill. One night, I was getting a damn good deal from my dealer, so I bought a bit too much, and did every last bit of it (minus the one bag you always keep for the morning). That morning I woke up and vomited so hard that I burst every blood vessel in my face and eyes, and did severe damage to my lungs in the process. After my time at the hospital, I was made to understand that the reaction I had wasn't even due to the heroin itself, but the substance that it was 'cut' with.

    I'm in no way advocating heroin, because, like I said, I spent all of my money and time doing it (though I never did anything illegal to obtain it, and this isn't something that should be assumed of all drug addicts, either), but I do think strongly that if heroin were legal and regulated, that this never would have happened. The fact is that I was buying my drug from a dealer who I doubt very severely wanted to harm me (I was paying his kid's way through college, after all), but rather just did not have any idea that he was mixing the drugs improperly.

    I will say though, that I was entirely functional, I kept my jobs, and appearances up, throughout the entirety of my addiction (until, of course, that morning). People are assuming that anyone who does a drug is going to automatically go on to commit other crimes, and that's just blatant idiocy. If a person is an idiot, yes, they're bound do do idiotic things, with or without drugs, and if a person is at least decently intelligent, they're not going to automatically rob a liquor store because they like to smoke some weed. When Gun control advocates can say "Sure guns kill people, but they're guns that are obtained illegally, and the people using them this way are already criminals", but aren't willing to give that same benefit of the doubt to a drug user, that's something I like to call 'hypocracy'. Guns don't force anyone to kill anyone else, and neither do drugs. They're both 'tools' and either can be both harmful and beneficial.

    That being said, I'm almost positive that there aren't that many people sitting on the sidelines, saying to themselves 'Man, I'd LOVE to smoke some crack! If only it were legal...'. Not everyone owns a gun because they're legal. Not everyone smokes cigarettes (I still can't quit those, and I quit HEROIN for god's sake.) because they're legal. Not everyone becomes an alcoholic because it's legal. Why can this logic not not be applied to drug use, as well?

    You can't say that people who shoot other people, or commit armed robberies, aren't representing all gun owners, and say that the people who do these things under the influence of drugs ARE indicative of all drug users. That's just idiotic. You think that drug use invariably leads to armed robberies and other crimes, but aren't you glossing over the 'armed' part of the robbery? If those people weren't 'armed' they wouldn't be commiting the robberies in the first place. To be clear, I'm not trying to say we should make guns illegal, just pointing out the hypocrasy in your stance.

    Wow. This is a perfect example of exactly the kind of thing we're talking about -- minimizing harm.

    Also, while you are smart enough to go to rehab, a lot of people end up in prison instead. Would you agree, from your experience, that this would be a terribly ineffective way of getting you clean, that would have far more negative consequences than positive?

    Also, congratulations on gettting clean!

    Oh, and as to my own drug use (@ Xaquin): I've smoked a little pot. I've had a little alcohol (actually, onyl once ever, come to think of it) I don't smoke often, I mainly just do it because it's some mindless fun to have with friends. Like going to a shitty, but entertaining film. Probably 2-4 times a month, tops.

    If it were legal, I'd still probably smoke. But I definitely wouldn't go out and buy it, either. My usage would in no way increase. But I personally don't get off on "being a rebel man." I, however, am not the same as everyone who does any kind of illicit drug. But my point is my use wouldn't increase.

    Also, I wouldn't try anything else, because that shit scares me (yes, including cigarettes). Not because of its legal status, but because I'm scared of the health effects and the possibility for addiction.

    sdrawkcaB emaN on
  • Options
    themightypuckthemightypuck MontanaRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    If I could buy heroin at the 7-11 I would head there right after work. Pick up a nice amount, go home, and get high. I know I can drive to downtown LA and if I get their early enough I can with relative safety purchase some pretty good heroin for cheap. I'm not going to do this. So I am one man possibly saved a life of addiction by the illegality of heroin. That's not what this thread is about though. It is about the position that on the whole, the illegality of drugs causes more harm than if those drugs were legal. I suspect this is true. It is certainly true that the "war on drugs" isn't working. Why not legalize drugs and see what happens? If things get worse. We criminalize them again. Easy, pragmatic solution. The problem is that there is a huge political obstacle. The prison and law enforcement industries are enormous, employ a lot of people, have lobbiests, and have political impact. The devastation caused by the drug war tends to affect people who don't have a lot of political power. Also people tend to be wired to overestimate risk. All a mom with kids has to see is one news story about the hell of meth addiction and she's in the "lock em up" camp. Unless one of her kids gets locked up.

    Edit: I said "a mom with kids". LOL.

    themightypuck on
    “Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius

    Path of Exile: themightypuck
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ALocksly wrote: »
    This is one of the reasons the Swiss program requires that the addict use the stuff only at the clinic and under supervision. (the other of course being prevention of them walking out the door and selling it to somone else)

    Sure. Clean needles, no needle-sharing, plenty of alcohol, lower probability of polydrug use. I think the Swiss method is a good idea, on the surface. I wish I knew more about the details - specifically, do they make any attempt to get their addicts off heroin? Do they try methadone or opioid antagonist therapy? Are there mental health or recovery services available? Or are they basically medicalized heroin bars?

    I'll point out though that even in areas where there are heroin or methadone clinics, heroin addiction persists. Some people don't want to go to a clinic run by the man to get their fix; some people can't make it to a clinic every day so it's actually more convenient for them to buy from their old dealer. This creates an additional diversion problem where the clinic itself becomes a potential source for street drugs. (I don't care how secure you lock down a clinic, somebody will find a way to divert your stock. If not the users, then the employees.) Consequently, clinics themselves aren't an answer to the question, "Should we legalize heroin?" It's almost an all or nothing game - if you don't allow virtually unlimited access (as with cigarettes or alcohol) you will have an underground market with many of the same social issues at play.

    Feral on
    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.
  • Options
    ALockslyALocksly Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    here's my link from page three

    linky (Swiss program for prescription heroin)
    So Needle Park wasn't the solution, but the heroin-prescription program might be. In it, 340 addicts receive a legal supply of heroin each day from one of the nine prescribing programs in eight different cities. In addition, 11 receive morphine, and 33 receive injectable methadone. The programs accept only "hard-core" junkies--people who have been injecting for years and who have attempted and failed to quit. Participants are not allowed to take the drug home with them. They have to inject on site and pay 15 francs at approximately $13 per day for their dose.

    In late 1994, the Social Welfare Department in Zurich held a press conference to issue its preliminary findings: 1) Heroin prescription is feasible, and has produced no black market in diverted heroin. 2) The health of the addicts in the program has clearly improved. 3) Heroin prescription alone cannot solve the problems that led to the heroin addiction in the first place. 4) Heroin prescription is less a medical program than a social-psychological approach to a complex personal and social problem. 5) Heroin per se causes very few, if any, problems when it is used in a controlled fashion and administered in hygienic conditions. Program administrators also found little support for the widespread belief that addicts' cravings for heroin are insatiable. When offered practically unlimited amounts of heroin (up to 300 milligrams three times a day), addicts soon realized that the maximum doses provided less of a "flash" than lower doses, and cut back their dosage levels accordingly.

    ALocksly on
    Yes,... yes, I agree. It's totally unfair that sober you gets into trouble for things that drunk you did.
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    That's a good link, Locks.

    Overall I think they've thought their program through very, very well, and the article positively addresses most of my concerns. I'm really impressed, personally.

    I only have one comment about it. I don't believe that a similar program enacted in the US would result in "no black market in diverted heroin." I suspect there may be cultural issues or issues of scale that would present more of a diversion problem in the US than in Switzerland. But that's just my instinct.

    Feral on
    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.
  • Options
    ALockslyALocksly Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    scale may very well be an issue

    edit: I was particularly impressed that they approached this from the beginning as a controlled, scientific experiment so they could actually make legitimate claims about it's effectiveness.

    ALocksly on
    Yes,... yes, I agree. It's totally unfair that sober you gets into trouble for things that drunk you did.
  • Options
    TiemlerTiemler Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Aemilius wrote: »
    So, why are drugs illegal again?

    Because seizures of vehicles, homes, and other properties used in the trafficking of narcotics are unbelievably profitable for law enforcement agencies.

    Because the addictive nature of drugs, and the (further) downhill slide that accompanies any conviction on related charges, guarantees that the prison industry will have plenty of new tenants/laborers and remain incredibly lucrative and recession-proof.

    Because it is a felony charge based solely on possession, and therefore the easiest type to translate into a conviction. Bonus points because so many of the suspects are at, near, or below the poverty line and can't afford a decent attorney. Also, the sheer volume of these cases overwhelms the public defender's office, enlisting the aid of this overworked counsel in pressuring the accused to plea bargain.

    It's also worth noting that American drug policy has been rooted in suspicion and hatred toward minorities since the days when the opium trade was blamed on the "yellow peril" and used as justification for denying immigration from China.

    There are other reasons given, of course, but the above has a lot more to do with the zeal with which LE agencies wage the War On Drugs Not Produced By Glaxos, Pfizer, Etc.

    Can't necessarily blame the guys on the ground carrying out this policy, though. It's the American public that keeps buying into sensationalist media coverage and propaganda, that keeps propping up the worst of the pharmaceutical industry while hypocritically railing against substance abuse, and voting for every asshat politician who promises to "get tough on drugs" instead of talking about how he's going to benefit his constituency.

    If you want to do something about it, you need to change the public perception. "Fuck the police," "Fuck the DEA," etc. is not overly productive.

    Tiemler on
  • Options
    WorLordWorLord Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Nice.

    WorLord on
    ...privately black.
  • Options
    CrimsonKingCrimsonKing Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ALocksly wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Aemilius wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    grayson have you ever seen anything like the things I've witnessed? things that would never have happened save for a massive drug addiction?

    just curious.

    We get that you've seen bad shit.

    However, we think that if drugs are legal, fewer people will see shit that bad.

    Ergo, you should agree with us.

    That's about as simple as I can put it.

    I disagree. If drugs are presented as legal more people will use them leading to more and escalating addictions.

    and yet where they are legal that has not happened

    Which is in the fucking Netherlands, not the Bronx, or Harlem or Newark but the fucking Netherlands.

    CrimsonKing on
    This sig was too tall - Elki.
  • Options
    Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Frederick, MDRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    ALocksly wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Aemilius wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    grayson have you ever seen anything like the things I've witnessed? things that would never have happened save for a massive drug addiction?

    just curious.

    We get that you've seen bad shit.

    However, we think that if drugs are legal, fewer people will see shit that bad.

    Ergo, you should agree with us.

    That's about as simple as I can put it.

    I disagree. If drugs are presented as legal more people will use them leading to more and escalating addictions.

    and yet where they are legal that has not happened

    Which is in the fucking Netherlands, not the Bronx, or Harlem or Newark but the fucking Netherlands.

    Good point. Now feel free to say something of substance, like exactly what is different between the two that makes you think, logically, there would be a huge difference in the outcome.

    Vincent Grayson on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Good point. Now feel free to say something of substance, like exactly what is different between the two that makes you think, logically, there would be a huge difference in the outcome.

    Incredible socioeconomic differences that might lead to a higher rate of addiction to drugs, all else being equal? The income disparity and level to which we will let people sink into poverty is much higher in the US than the Netherlands, I believe.

    mcdermott on
Sign In or Register to comment.