[BioHazzard]

We should do it the sameway the Brits do it with steroid use. Using steroid is legal, but dealing steroid is a no-no. Same methodology should be used when it comes to hallucinogen. The only reason small time users should not be prosecuted is so that the resources can be used to target the big dealers instead.

Argument like that may have a better chance of being accepted by the public.

You are not going any where if you keep pushing the bull**** about amphetamine being less harmful than alcohol, or heroine being less addictive than cigarette, or meth is not harming people but the drug policy is instead. That just sounds like druggists blowing smoke. The public will never go for such BS. Thus, rendering such argument a total waste of breathe.

[TINYTOAD]

Here's a link to the section of the Consumer Reports guide to Licit, and Illicit drugs, where it discusses the study in Sweden.
The Swedish Experience

At this time, I don't have a link to a legitimate study that will tell you that cigarettes are more addictive than heroin, but I have a couple of reasons for believing this. When I was in college, my psychology professor specialized in criminal psychology, and he had a lot of opportunity to work with the Los Angeles police, and various inmates. What he shared with us, is that those inmates who were addicted to heroin, and smoked, found heroin an easier habbit to kick.
Also, if you have ever listened to Dr. Dean Edell's radio show, time and time again, he will tell you that nicotine is the most addictive drug that we have. He also will go on to say that given the choice of being an alcoholic and a heroin addict, who had access to clean heroin, he'd take being a heroin addict any day of the week.

-Tinytoad

Originally Posted by BioHazzard

We should do it the sameway the Brits do it with steroid use. Using steroid is legal, but dealing steroid is a no-no. Same methodology should be used when it comes to hallucinogen. The only reason small time users should not be prosecuted is so that the resources can be used to target the big dealers instead.

Argument like that may have a better chance of being accepted by the public.

You are not going any where if you keep pushing the bull**** about amphetamine being less harmful than alcohol, or heroine being less addictive than cigarette, or meth is not harming people but the drug policy is instead. That just sounds like druggists blowing smoke. The public will never go for such BS. Thus, rendering such argument a total waste of breathe.

[kwyckemynd00]

tinytoad

people are conditioned to think that because its "legal" its not as bad as something that is "illegal". Much like people thinkin "natural" is better than "synthetic". ROFL.

Cobra venom is natural... .would u like that or splenda in your tea? haha

[Nullifidian]

Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00

tinytoad

people are conditioned to think that because its "legal" its not as bad as something that is "illegal". Much like people thinkin "natural" is better than "synthetic". ROFL.

Cobra venom is natural... .would u like that or splenda in your tea? haha

A perfect example is organic fruits and vegetables. In order to be labelled "organic", certain pesticides may not be used on it. Does that mean no pesticides were used? No it doesn't. It means that only pesticides which are deemed "organic" by the USDA may be used.

One of these common "organic" pesticides is copper sulfate. Copper Sulfate is a Toxicity Class I pesticide as labelled by the EPA. It has been proven to cause significant liver damage in humans, it is deadly to fish, and is a persistant soil contaminent.

Another "organic" pesticide is Pyrethrum. It was labelled a human carcinogen by the EPA in 1999.

On top of that, organicly grown produce has been found to contain much higher amounts of bacteria. In fact, some organic fruits and vegetables have tested positive for E. Coli bacteria because of the fertilizer used. Various techniques used by "non-organic" produce farmers eliminate these dangers.



So yeah, there is a lot of misinformation and misconceptions out there regarding what is or isn't healthy.

[CDB]

Originally Posted by TINYTOAD

At this time, I don't have a link to a legitimate study that will tell you that cigarettes are more addictive than heroin, but I have a couple of reasons for believing this.

Try the '99 IOM study on medical marijuana. Section 3, the most controversial section, had a comparitive analysis of common drugs and this included rates of addiction. I don't remember the numbers offhand for cigs and heroin, just the absurdly low number for marijuana which was around 7 or 8 percent I believe, about the same as coffee if I recall.

[Nullifidian]

Originally Posted by CDB

Try the '99 IOM study on medical marijuana. Section 3, the most controversial section, had a comparitive analysis of common drugs and this included rates of addiction. I don't remember the numbers offhand for cigs and heroin, just the absurdly low number for marijuana which was around 7 or 8 percent I believe, about the same as coffee if I recall.

Ironically, I'm heavily addicted to coffee and it is an addiction I do not intend to kick anytime soon.

[CDB]

Originally Posted by TINYTOAD

Here's something for you...
Suppose that that the drug market is saturated, and everybody that wants to be taking illegal drugs, is already taking them.

For the most part it is, and for the most part they are. Legalization would likely cause an increase in first time use and some social use of some more common drugs just because of availability issues. But for the most part anyone who wants to try it has, and anyone who wants to use does.

Cocaine is certainly more dangerous than aspirin, but perhaps everybody that wants cocaine is already using it. I've tried cocaine twice, and hated it. It's not that I didn't like the feeling, it's just that I couldn't handle having the numb nose and throat, and the massive bloody nose that I had the very next day. Every drug has its plusses and minuses. I just can't figure out how anybody continues with cocaine. I think it's self limiting. If cocaine were legal, do you really think that 100% of the population would be using it?

You're preaching to the choir here, TT. I want it all legal without exception, at the most I want limits on how it can be obtained and by whom, and massive penalties for dealing to underage kids in those instances.

You are wrong about coke though. Some people can and do destroy themselves with it. Myself I occasionally buy a fifty bag when my somewhat younger friends insist on going to a club. If I didn't have the coke, loud music aside I'd pass out too early for their mingling preferences.

I can go on.... I have quite an extensive drug resume. Ultimately, what I've found, is that drugs are not for me.

We're the same then. I rarely take anything these days, even OTC pain killers though my knees could use the help. As for my past well, I've taken just about everything except crack and meth. I thought I had taken meth but to my understanding not all amphetamines are the same so I probably didn't.

There was a studay I read, published by Consumer Reports, that indicated that ampetamines were actually less likely to cause you to go off into the deep end, than alcohol, yet alcohol is legal. I think I read somewhere that something like 10% of all the people that try alcohol, develop drinking problems to some degree. Alcohol is nasty stuff, yet I can go down to the local grocery store, and buy Everclear (95% pure ethyl alcohol). I've also heard that heroin addics find it easier to give up heroin than cigarettes. Cigarettes are legal.

You the the rub there is the different effects of the drug. While physical addiction and it's effects can be objectively measured, the levels of reinforcement a drug has and how habit forming it can be are less easy to define and measure. So comparing relapse rates and even indeed how hard it is to quit isn't always cut and dry.

Can somebody explain to me why sex is illegal, only if you pay for it?

People want to make us more moral. The fact that legally denying people the choice infringes on their property rights and only makes them superficially moral doesn't matter to the people who enact such laws. I agree with Null, exploitation was a part of it too but as he said, failed logic.

[BioHazzard]

Originally Posted by TINYTOAD

Here's a link to the section of the Consumer Reports guide to Licit, and Illicit drugs, where it discusses the study in Sweden.
The Swedish Experience

At this time, I don't have a link to a legitimate study that will tell you that cigarettes are more addictive than heroin, but I have a couple of reasons for believing this. When I was in college, my psychology professor specialized in criminal psychology, and he had a lot of opportunity to work with the Los Angeles police, and various inmates. What he shared with us, is that those inmates who were addicted to heroin, and smoked, found heroin an easier habbit to kick.
Also, if you have ever listened to Dr. Dean Edell's radio show, time and time again, he will tell you that nicotine is the most addictive drug that we have. He also will go on to say that given the choice of being an alcoholic and a heroin addict, who had access to clean heroin, he'd take being a heroin addict any day of the week.

-Tinytoad

First of all, it isn't THE Consumer Report, that is commonly known to most. It is the Consumers Union Report.

What exactly that it is trying to say? I glanced it and didn't know what it is trying to say. It appears to suggest that the Swedes claimed down on Amp use and Amp use skyrocketed. OTOH, how do we know it wouldn't have been 10X worse than it is, if it wasn't claimed down? If you take it to mean that the increased usage of Amp is the result of illegalization, then you are simply drawing the wrong conclusion. People don't go to shoot up just because it is illegal to do so. In countries where steroid is legal, if you make it illegal tomorrow, steroid use is not going to increase because of that. In America, if you legalize steroid, steroid use WILL go up. Scheduling has not stopped nor reduced doping. But if you de-schedule it, you can bet that many people will cue up right away to get juiced. What all these mean is, you have to becareful when you draw cause and effect relationship.

It also says the Japanese claimed down on Amp use and it was a success. At the very end, it states that ".....Whether, on closer scrutiny, the Japanese amphetamine stories circulating in the United States might prove as misleading as the stories emanating from Sweden, is an issue of considerable importance which warrants further inquiry...." So, is the info on the Swedish model misleading, or that on the Japanese model misleading, or both? WTF does that mean then?

Dr. Edell may prefer heroin over alcohol. It doesn't mean anything.

At the risk of repeating myself, if you are going to argue that amp is less harmful than alcohol and heroin is less addictive than cigarette, you wouldn't accomplish anything. No responsible parents will buy into the argument that amp and heroin should be made as readily available as alcohol and smoke.

The simple fact is, hallucinogen is destructive and has no redeeming value. The issue is what the best way is to control its spread and permeation of the society. We don't have unlimited resources. So it is only rational to devote the majority of the resources to target the major dealers. That would mean less prosecution of small users.

As for the assertion that anyone who wants to try drugs have already done it and anyone who wants to be addicted have already gotten addicted, that only means you have not been to high school, middle school and elementary school, in a long long time.

There are new crops to be hooked every year......

On a related side note, the MS-13 is recruiting 8-9 yr olds...... What is MS-13's main source of revenue? Drug trafficking and extortion.

Normally, I don't give a sh1t about the adults. But the kids....

Oh yeah, I also heard people say kids need to be educated, to be told the truth. Sounds good. But kids will be kids and kids do foolish things.... like trying addictive hallucinogen, no matter what you tell them. For every one that managed to kick the addiction, we don't know how many dozens are forever doomed.

I don't disagree with the argument that we need to 'medicalize' hallucinogen such that adult addicts can register to get their fix for free. That certainly would take away drug profit and cut down crimes. Until we create a cure for the addiction, that is the containment method we need.

But we also should not throw the new generations into the drug bin, by making hallucinogen as available as alcohol and cigarette, eventhough that is pretty much what the current state is.

[BioHazzard]

Some people claimed that drug use is a moral issue or a personal right issue. No it is not. It is a matter of social issue. No one gives a sh1t if you choose to jump off the deep end, gas yourself in your garage, or hide in your room and masturbate all day.

Drug use impacts the whole society and imposes a burden, a cost on the whole society. Your right to **** yourself up is limited to you doing it without ****ing things up for others. When you do **** things up for everyone, then you can pretty much stick that right of yours up your real end and blow it out your ears.

[yeahright]

Originally Posted by BioHazzard

Some people claimed that drug use is a moral issue or a personal right issue. No it is not. It is a matter of social issue. No one gives a sh1t if you choose to jump off the deep end, gas yourself in your garage, or hide in your room and masturbate all day.

Drug use impacts the whole society and imposes a burden, a cost on the whole society. Your right to **** yourself up is limited to you doing it without ****ing things up for others. When you do **** things up for everyone, then you can pretty much stick that right of yours up your real end and blow it out your ears.

You've summed up the argument for the criminalization of steroids.

[spatch]

Originally Posted by BioHazzard

Drug use impacts the whole society and imposes a burden, a cost on the whole society.

And you can prove this....??? My school has the third highest drug use per capita of any in our state, and we scored second highest on state testings amongst public schools. Let us do our drugs and leave us alone you fucl<ing nazi's.


All I know is that since I am now a legal adult, the government IF IT SO CHOOSES could draft me for war against my will and throw me in jail when I refuse to take up arms against other human beings (unless they let me be a field medic or something along those lines). I should then have the right to put WHAT EVER I CHOOSE in my body. End of story in my book.

[BioHazzard]

Originally Posted by yeahright

You've summed up the argument for the criminalization of steroids.

huh? Do you mean to say 'de-criminalization' of steroids? I am for the de-criminalization of steroid use. This is beating on the dead horse as we are all aware of the benefit of proper use of steroids, not just from our own empirical observation. There are published studies on the effect of test administration. Saying steroid use is beneficial, is not the same as druggies saying crack or heroin is good for you.

[BioHazzard]

Originally Posted by spatch

And you can prove this....??? My school has the third highest drug use per capita of any in our state, and we scored second highest on state testings amongst public schools. Let us do our drugs and leave us alone you fucl<ing nazi's.

All I know is that since I am now a legal adult, the government IF IT SO CHOOSES could draft me for war against my will and throw me in jail when I refuse to take up arms against other human beings (unless they let me be a field medic or something along those lines). I should then have the right to put WHAT EVER I CHOOSE in my body. End of story in my book.

Drug use results in high test score? I am sure your argument will go far, into oblivion.

[anabolicrhino]

Originally Posted by BioHazzard

Some people claimed that drug use is a moral issue or a personal right issue. No it is not. It is a matter of social issue. No one gives a sh1t if you choose to jump off the deep end, gas yourself in your garage, or hide in your room and masturbate all day.

Drug use impacts the whole society and imposes a burden, a cost on the whole society. Your right to **** yourself up is limited to you doing it without ****ing things up for others. When you do **** things up for everyone, then you can pretty much stick that right of yours up your real end and blow it out your ears.

Drug use can certainly be a problem to society when irresponcible people put others in peril through their own willful or incompetent actions.(drunken drivers, doctors,civil servants, bad service at the convienence store)
Drugs also increase productivity in the work place(caffiene)They also lessen absenteeism due to illness(asprin)
Most workers that report a happy work experience are the ones that feel autonomous at their jobs.
When the government passes blanketing laws for everyone to follow, it makes the responcible independent minded citizen feel like a programmed robo clerk or just another worker drone in the hive of life. This is why escapism through either drug or non-drug use helps maintain social order. You may hate your job but you can use the money from it to get high, which inturn eases the pain of the situation.(the famous vicious cycle) It is not ideal, but until something else comes along it will have to work. Not everyone can meditate or explore martial arts or higher learning or weight train and aerobics, for them there will alway be a "beer and a dube." I am a strong anti tobacco advocate but if that's what it takes for you to relax and be a good citizen, puff away! Atleast, it is a slow death and all your cigarette taxes help run the show.

[CDB]

Quote: