|
Drugs (trippin' on NRG) (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Spad |
| quote: | Originally posted by Thor
Lets use the example of prohabition. Alcohol was controlled by crime, a great deal of the law enforcement and punishment was focused on the illegal drug 'alcohol'... Once alcohol was legalized, the crime around it nearly dissapeared. The rogue distillers all went out of business since they couldn't compete now with the bigger and cheaper distillers who sprung up to supply the now legal drug.
With drugs being legalized you'll see drugs at a fair price, if any moron wanted to buy Xtc from a source other than the legal source to save a few bucks, they would be pretty dumb... Lets say the government sold a pill of X for $20 dollars, and you could get one on the black market for $10.. Wouldn't you pay $10 more to get quality and safety?? I think thats a pretty easy answer :D
We could see a drug version of liquor stores in the future, but with hard drugs like Heroin, you won't ever see those in stores, just with doctor perscriptions and monitoring... |
I don't think it's fair to compare alcohol with other drugs. Yes the situation was similar but I don't think we can possibly expect the same sort of results by legalising other drugs.
Lets take Heroin as an example. You say there would never be an open market, but that this substance would be available only on perscriptions etc. I agree totally that this is likely to be how legalisation would be handled. But I don't see how that would effect the illegal production in the slightest. If it's controlled in this way there would still be a demand for Heroin and the illegal trade would continue.
Now lets say they deal with E in a similar fashion to when alcohol was decriminalised (I assume that's the term, there was never a prohibition over here so I'm not sure how it was dealt with). But lets imagine that Ecstacy is available to the public in licensed outlets.
Ecstacy is amazing. There's no getting around that, it just is. And all of a sudden you've got the government saying "it's OK people, X is now controlled and safe and you're free to use it". So people do, and of course they love it so they do it more. Pretty soon you're going to have the majority of the population using ecstacy as they use alcohol now. We mustn't start thinking that alcohol is a wonder-drug that causes no harm. Look at the social problems it causes, and on the drug scale, alcohol is pretty much a lightweight. I'd expect that a drug such as Ecstacy would cause even greater problems in society. Although I agree it's not addictive in the same way as alcohol it's still more than capable of creating a dependency, as Slylee testified.
I'm in no doubt that a great many people are capable of controlling their drug use, and I'm all for a society where people are free to do whatever they like as long as they're not hurting anybody else. But the reality is that it's not possible.
I agree that legalising drugs in the way you've described would solve a lot of problems. Decreases in crime, increase in government income etc. But lets not pretend that it wouldn't cause just as many - if not more - new problems. |
|
|
| Thor |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spad
I don't think it's fair to compare alcohol with other drugs. Yes the situation was similar but I don't think we can possibly expect the same sort of results by legalising other drugs. |
Why not? You say the situation was similar, why wouldn't the results be similar? Alchohol can best be compared to legalizing weed, thats mainly whats at stake here...
| quote: | | Lets take Heroin as an example. You say there would never be an open market, but that this substance would be available only on perscriptions etc. I agree totally that this is likely to be how legalisation would be handled. But I don't see how that would effect the illegal production in the slightest. If it's controlled in this way there would still be a demand for Heroin and the illegal trade would continue. |
Users can get the heroin for free or next to nothing under the medical supervised program. The idea of this is to bring the addicts to the doctors and have the chance to help these people. Addicts would go to these clinics because #1 its cheap/free #2 its safe heroin #3 its hope for them. The illegal trade couldn't compete with that, it would quickly die out.
| quote: | Now lets say they deal with E in a similar fashion to when alcohol was decriminalised (I assume that's the term, there was never a prohibition over here so I'm not sure how it was dealt with). But lets imagine that Ecstacy is available to the public in licensed outlets.
Ecstacy is amazing. There's no getting around that, it just is. And all of a sudden you've got the government saying "it's OK people, X is now controlled and safe and you're free to use it". So people do, and of course they love it so they do it more. Pretty soon you're going to have the majority of the population using ecstacy as they use alcohol now. |
Again, ecstacy would be handled differently than weed and alcohol. Its not an easy one because there isn't enough research being done into the dangers of ectacy. But saying that ectacy use would become like alcohol use is crazy. You people forget that getting E is pretty damn easy, if you wanted to do it you would.. So why do you think all those who choose not to do E would all of a sudden because its legal. With legality the drugs would be openly discussed, and you can bet there would be education about all these drugs, many people would learn there are dangers with E and thus lots of people would never want to try it. Yes I think more would, but it would level off and not be a big change, not to mention all the E then would be safe.
| quote: | | We mustn't start thinking that alcohol is a wonder-drug that causes no harm. Look at the social problems it causes, and on the drug scale, alcohol is pretty much a lightweight. I'd expect that a drug such as Ecstacy would cause even greater problems in society. Although I agree it's not addictive in the same way as alcohol it's still more than capable of creating a dependency, as Slylee testified. |
I think alcohol does more damage to this society than any other drug, including tobacco. Alcohol is not a lightweight compared to weed, mushrooms, etc.. Obviously cocaine, meth, heroin are much worse, but like has been said before those would be handled by special means. With ectacy the legalization would cause medical researchers to study the drug since its now so profitable. E would be used again in medical uses, and lots of research would be done on the drug. Its a way better solution than right now where little research is being done, and unsafe E is available for unsuspecting people. I like the way Dancesafe approaches this, people who want to do E will, its easy enough to get.. So why not help those people make sure they are getting safe pills? Why not legalize and guarantee that, plus bring more education to the table.
| quote: | | I'm in no doubt that a great many people are capable of controlling their drug use, and I'm all for a society where people are free to do whatever they like as long as they're not hurting anybody else. But the reality is that it's not possible. |
Why is that not possible? Anything is possible. Right now the numbers for addiction show us that a certain percentage of people have addictive tendancies, I think that number is like 5% of the general population. The vast majority of alcohol, weed users are not in danger of addiction.
| quote: | | I agree that legalising drugs in the way you've described would solve a lot of problems. Decreases in crime, increase in government income etc. But lets not pretend that it wouldn't cause just as many - if not more - new problems. |
Again you are missing the point. Addicts of heroin would be addicts under todays laws or legalization/de-criminalization... Its just that under the latter, heroin users have hope, safe heroin, and are under the watch of doctors! Legalization/de-criminalization has way more pro's than cons, we are slowly seeing more and more people agree that not only is the drug war a complete and utter failure, but that we need to move into the thinking of at least de-criminalization.
If you haven't already please click on the link in the post "Drug War" posted by Izzy... Read the whole thing, probably take you like 20 minutes but its extremely good reading. |
|
|
| Izzy |
Thor, what's your job? i ask cause if its not in politics your talent is seriously being wasted.
about drugs all of you neglect one point i think tops it all:
"Everyone has the RIGHT to do to themselves whatever they want as long as it doesnt hurt another persons safety" period, no ifs ands or buts. |
|
|
| Thor |
| quote: | Originally posted by Izzy
Thor, what's your job? i ask cause if its not in politics your talent is seriously being wasted.
about drugs all of you neglect one point i think tops it all:
"Everyone has the RIGHT to do to themselves whatever they want as long as it doesnt hurt another persons safety" period, no ifs ands or buts. |
lol, thanks Izzy :D Unfortunately to become a successfull polititian you have to play the popular thought, I would never get elected because I'm not afraid to be honest and discuss contraversial topics...
I'm also strongly in favor of legalizing prostitution ;)
But running the Shroomery is my way of spreading my beliefs, in a way I'm an internet polititian! :D |
|
|
| Spad |
| quote: | Originally posted by Thor
Users can get the heroin for free or next to nothing under the medical supervised program. The idea of this is to bring the addicts to the doctors and have the chance to help these people. Addicts would go to these clinics because #1 its cheap/free #2 its safe heroin #3 its hope for them. The illegal trade couldn't compete with that, it would quickly die out. |
I'm honestly failing to grasp the point here :D Free Heroin from doctors? And who would this be available to? Everybody or just addicts? How would doctors decide who is applicable and who isn't? And what makes you so sure people would be willing to go down this route anyway? You're assuming that every drug user wants to give up their habit. Thousands of people use Heroin recreationally and have no addiction or dependency so how would this scenario benifit them? They could go to the doctor but they'd then be faced with the doctor giving them ever decreasing doses to ween them off. Which they don't want, so they look on the black market.
Hundreds of thousands of people are addicted to nicotine. If doctors started to give out free cigarettes to help people quit (on the provision that they smoke them while supervised and are given them on an ever decreasing number) sure it would hurt the tobacco industry but it wouldn't dry up. There would still be a demand for cigarettes because, as a lot of people don't seem to realise, not every smoker wants to give up. They ENJOY smoking, they LIKE it. Look at drugs that are only available on perscription at the moment. There's still an illegal trade in a lot of those.
| quote: | Originally posted by Thor
Again, ecstacy would be handled differently than weed and alcohol. Its not an easy one because there isn't enough research being done into the dangers of ectacy. But saying that ectacy use would become like alcohol use is crazy. You people forget that getting E is pretty damn easy, if you wanted to do it you would.. So why do you think all those who choose not to do E would all of a sudden because its legal.
|
Please don't refer to me as "you people" :D And I know how easy ecstacy is to get, I use it myself.
Yes I do think people would. Look at some of the comments on the board of instance (which don't really represent society because I'm pleased to say most people here are open minded and tolerent). The general poplulation fear drugs like ecstacy. They're inundated with newspaper reports about people who swallow one pill and drop down dead. Not to mention the "drugs are bad" message that's been drummed into them since birth.
Most people have faith in the government as a nanny state. If it was legalised they would assume it's not as dangerous as they thought. So yes, I firmly believe that legalisation would lead to a lot of people trying a drug that otherwise wouldn't.
| quote: | Originally posted by Thor
With legality the drugs would be openly discussed, and you can bet there would be education about all these drugs, many people would learn there are dangers with E and thus lots of people would never want to try it. Yes I think more would, but it would level off and not be a big change, not to mention all the E then would be safe. |
We're taught from an early age that smoking kills. No bones about it, it kills you. You can't smoke safely, have your mates look out for you, drink plenty of water - it wont help. The chances are smoking will kill you. But we still do it.
Now we can't even be that scarey with ecstacy. Tell people the truth? That it's not very dangerous at all really, that as long as you're sensible and know your limits the chances of anything bad happening are slim? And you think THAT'S going to stop people popping down the shop and buying one of these newly legalised pills?
| quote: | Originally posted by Thor
I like the way Dancesafe approaches this, people who want to do E will, its easy enough to get.. So why not help those people make sure they are getting safe pills? Why not legalize and guarantee that, plus bring more education to the table. |
I agree in part. People who want to do it can get it easily enough. And organisations such as dancesafe are doing an amazing job. The fact is that a high proportion of people who use ecstacy are aware if the dangers and are aware how to use it safely.
I'm not a regular visitor of dancesafe so I could be wrong but I've never gotten the impression that they're in favour of legalising drugs in the way you're suggestion. I quote from their website:
Our volunteers staff harm reduction booths at raves, nightclubs and other dance events where they provide information on drugs, safer sex, and other health and safety issues concerning the electronic dance community (like driving home safely and protecting one's hearing).
Like you and I, they are very pro-education. Letting people know the dangers of drugs and how they can be safely used. But they don't condone drug use itself.
I just feel that legalising would cause people to use drugs who otherwise wouldn't.
| quote: | Originally posted by Thor
Legalization/de-criminalization has way more pro's than cons, we are slowly seeing more and more people agree that not only is the drug war a complete and utter failure, but that we need to move into the thinking of at least de-criminalization. |
De-criminalisation does not mean that drugs will be freely available for all. Simply that the actual use (and possession for personal use) of such drugs would not lead to criminal prosecution. The distribution and production of these drugs would still be an offence and they wouldn't be available to the public from licensed outlets.
| quote: | Originally posted by Thor
If you haven't already please click on the link in the post "Drug War" posted by Izzy... Read the whole thing, probably take you like 20 minutes but its extremely good reading. |
I read it. I found it interesting, and I find your views interesting too so please don't think I'm being pompous or anything by disagreeing. I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing, I'm genuinly enjoying this discussion. |
|
|
| Thor |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spad
I'm honestly failing to grasp the point here :D Free Heroin from doctors? And who would this be available to? Everybody or just addicts? How would doctors decide who is applicable and who isn't? And what makes you so sure people would be willing to go down this route anyway? You're assuming that every drug user wants to give up their habit. Thousands of people use Heroin recreationally and have no addiction or dependency so how would this scenario benifit them? They could go to the doctor but they'd then be faced with the doctor giving them ever decreasing doses to ween them off. Which they don't want, so they look on the black market. |
Available to everybody... Obviously most people have no intention of ever trying heroin, considering its a highly addictive drug. The ones that do use heroin will go this route simply because its cheap/free. The doses would not be weened off, just now the option or chance for doctors to try to help these people becomes much easier. There are perscription drugs now available to heroin users to help them quit. If you didn't know, quiting heroin is considered to be one of the most difficult addictions to quit known to man. You are assuming things that are wrong, the legalization model is available on the net if you want to read more... Check Izzy's link in his Drug war post, that will be a great start.
| quote: | | Hundreds of thousands of people are addicted to nicotine. If doctors started to give out free cigarettes to help people quit (on the provision that they smoke them while supervised and are given them on an ever decreasing number) sure it would hurt the tobacco industry but it wouldn't dry up. There would still be a demand for cigarettes because, as a lot of people don't seem to realise, not every smoker wants to give up. They ENJOY smoking, they LIKE it. Look at drugs that are only available on perscription at the moment. There's still an illegal trade in a lot of those. |
Comparing cigarettes to heroin is not appropriate.. Cigarettes kill you over a long time, heroin can do it in a very short period. Heroin is much more addictive, stopping heroin is brutally hard... The illegal trade for perscription drugs exists because in order for you to get certain pharms you need a doctor to give you a perscription showing that you have a legitimate need to have this drug.. Obviously lots of people want these pharms for recreational use, so thats why that market exists.. Like I said before if this is still refering to heroin, its available under doctors, and yes you do have to have an initial health exam and discussion with the doctor to get into this program, but like I said the desperation of heroin users makes it damn certain they'll go through anything to get their fix.
| quote: | | Please don't refer to me as "you people" :D And I know how easy ecstacy is to get, I use it myself. |
I'm not only speaking to you, when I write my replies I am speaking to those people who read this post :)
| quote: | Yes I do think people would. Look at some of the comments on the board of instance (which don't really represent society because I'm pleased to say most people here are open minded and tolerent). The general poplulation fear drugs like ecstacy. They're inundated with newspaper reports about people who swallow one pill and drop down dead. Not to mention the "drugs are bad" message that's been drummed into them since birth.
Most people have faith in the government as a nanny state. If it was legalised they would assume it's not as dangerous as they thought. So yes, I firmly believe that legalisation would lead to a lot of people trying a drug that otherwise wouldn't. |
Thats my point though, the government wouldn't simply just say, "hey its legal, have fun now." With legalization comes the education campaign, in order to please true anti-drug supporters this would be part of the deal so to speak. You'd see truthfull and honest represantations of drugs and the risks. Schools would now be openly discussing drug use without fear of getting in trouble from parents. With legalization comes open debate about drugs.. Its not like if it gets legal the whole country starts doing drugs, it would increase slightly but not by much... Please look at drug use statistics from the Netherlands.... Legalization does do one thing vastly different than how it is now, EDUCATION, we now promote knowladge of drugs and the truth will still keep most people today who don't use drugs away from them...
| quote: | | We're taught from an early age that smoking kills. No bones about it, it kills you. You can't smoke safely, have your mates look out for you, drink plenty of water - it wont help. The chances are smoking will kill you. But we still do it. |
The problem is that cigarettes have been manipulated for the past 60 years to make them more and more addictive. If you took a tobacco leaf, made it into a cigarette and smoked it you'd be hard pressed to feel the same addiction.. This is the major problem with tobacco, the government isn't attacking the cigarette companies for the manipulations they make to their cigarettes to make them so addictive. If tobacco companies removed all those 'manipulations' the smoker would start to find themselves much less physicly addicted.
| quote: | | Now we can't even be that scarey with ecstacy. Tell people the truth? That it's not very dangerous at all really, that as long as you're sensible and know your limits the chances of anything bad happening are slim? And you think THAT'S going to stop people popping down the shop and buying one of these newly legalised pills? |
But ecstacy isn't as safe as we'd like it to be, there was some recent research that showed more links to long term brain damage. Of course with legalization we'd know so much more, but again thats why we need to legalize. Lets take a group of 100 people ages 18-30... Lets say (according to stats) that 15 of those 100 have tried E and use it recreationally. Lets say 50 are dead set against ever trying it and no matter its legality. That leaves 35 undecided people who some of course will try it if legalized... But my point with this is that no matter the legality of drugs, most people have decided whether they will do drugs or not... A few would be more likely to try if it was legalized, but its not anything like your insinuating. This isn't just my opinion, do some reading, its a very common belief from all sides of the legalization issue.
| quote: | | I agree in part. People who want to do it can get it easily enough. And organisations such as dancesafe are doing an amazing job. The fact is that a high proportion of people who use ecstacy are aware if the dangers and are aware how to use it safely. |
I don't agree, I think the majority of users of E do not know enough. So many people do it without reading about the drug. Before I first tried E I read magazine articles, medical journal articles, dancesafe.org, erowid.org, lycaeum.org, etc... Before I did the drug I was completely aware of what my body was doing with this drug, I doubt many do the same.
| quote: | | I'm not a regular visitor of dancesafe so I could be wrong but I've never gotten the impression that they're in favour of legalising drugs in the way you're suggestion. |
They don't make it sound bad, if you read further you'll see that dancesafe is walking a line of promoting the drug over just spreading information. There was just a recent report by 48 hours that said Dancesafe is very much promoting this drug without saying it directly. Dancesafe knows that they can't promote the drug directly, because they would lose most of their funding and be portrayed very negetively in the media.
| quote: | quote from their website:
Our volunteers staff harm reduction booths at raves, nightclubs and other dance events where they provide information on drugs, safer sex, and other health and safety issues concerning the electronic dance community (like driving home safely and protecting one's hearing).
Like you and I, they are very pro-education. Letting people know the dangers of drugs and how they can be safely used. But they don't condone drug use itself. |
Yes, pro-education, but the obvious thing is that they take the drug at rave, test it and give it back... If they didn't condone drug use they wouldnt' do that.. Thats the argument. Any organization that doesn't condone drug use wouldn't set up a table to test drugs and just let the people take the drug once they'd test it.. Obviously dancesafe would never do that, nobody would go to their table, but it does indicate that they are mostly concerned with safe pills and not the fact people are taking E. I've read some very interesting statments by dancesafe's founder, and without any doubt he is a supporter of this drug and in fact legalization as well.
| quote: | | I just feel that legalising would cause people to use drugs who otherwise wouldn't. |
Well what can I say, do more reading. I'm not alone on this belief that drug use wouldn't go up dramaticly, many others in the debate agree, and thats on both sides. Of course the numbers would go up some, but nothing to dramatic. The benefit: All users of drugs know a great deal more about them after legalization, open and free debate, safer drugs, and most importantly dangerous drugs would be promoted against heavily thanks to the new funds from legalization while theres vast amounts of research being done on the popular drugs because of their profitability.
| quote: | | De-criminalisation does not mean that drugs will be freely available for all. Simply that the actual use (and possession for personal use) of such drugs would not lead to criminal prosecution. The distribution and production of these drugs would still be an offence and they wouldn't be available to the public from licensed outlets. |
The reason I write legalization/de-criminalization is because both are being fought for. If we can't get legalization, then the first step is of course to at least get de-criminalization. They are obviously quite different, but one is a step towards the other. Most proponents of legalization are pushing firstly for de-criminalization to stop the insane approach that the USA is taking towards drugs. Drug use in the last 10 years has increased, while prisons have become overcrowded with non-violent drug offenders. Making drug laws harsher and locking up more people is solving nothing.
| quote: | | I read it. I found it interesting, and I find your views interesting too so please don't think I'm being pompous or anything by disagreeing. I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing, I'm genuinly enjoying this discussion. |
I don't take it personally either :D I love debating, people often mistake disagreements as a bad thing, but in all honesty this is the best way to learn... Too often people are afraid to discuss things like this, I think thats truly sad. So I do appreciate your thoughts and I sincerely enjoy this debate :) I think Spad that your a smart guy who knows quite a bit, I'm hoping your learning a little more, thats the idea of these debates, education :) |
|
|
| Izzy |
| hey guys i'm enjoying this "debate" a lot too... im glad its done it this manner. everyone out there can make up there mind, at least its now out there. |
|
|
| DarkTrance |
| quote: | Originally posted by -LiquidSounds-
I know this is an ignorant statement, but if you believe that Marijuana is worse than alcohol, than you need to be shot. Just because something is illegal doesn't make it bad. If driving a car was illegal...would it be bad? |
Damn rights that ignorant, Marijauana is worse than alcohol only if u respect alcohol, ppl who don't respect alcohol then weed is worse |
|
|
| Spad |
| quote: | Originally posted by Thor
Available to everybody... Obviously most people have no intention of ever trying heroin, considering its a highly addictive drug. The ones that do use heroin will go this route simply because its cheap/free. The doses would not be weened off, just now the option or chance for doctors to try to help these people becomes much easier. There are perscription drugs now available to heroin users to help them quit. If you didn't know, quiting heroin is considered to be one of the most difficult addictions to quit known to man. You are assuming things that are wrong, the legalization model is available on the net if you want to read more... Check Izzy's link in his Drug war post, that will be a great start. |
I'm interested to know what I'm assuming incorrectly. I understand what you are getting at completely and I agree that there would be benefits to people who are willing to kick their habit. I just feel that a much more benificial system would if if the government were to legalise Heroin purely for the purpose of treating addicts. Where the drug could be rationed on a decreasing basis to help ween users off the drug. People have to want to quit first though, it's no good saying "OK, we'll dish out the Heroin to anybody that wants it because at least we can then ask the buyer if he's 100% sure about what he's doing". Having a drug as addictive and damaging as Heroin freely available is madness is my opinion. I do understand what you're trying to say completly and I agree in part, but I have to go back to my original feeling that it would cause more harm than good, and that it would lead to an increase in users.
| quote: | Originally posted by Thor
Comparing cigarettes to heroin is not appropriate.. Cigarettes kill you over a long time, heroin can do it in a very short period. Heroin is much more addictive, stopping heroin is brutally hard... The illegal trade for perscription drugs exists because in order for you to get certain pharms you need a doctor to give you a perscription showing that you have a legitimate need to have this drug.. Obviously lots of people want these pharms for recreational use, so thats why that market exists.. Like I said before if this is still refering to heroin, its available under doctors, and yes you do have to have an initial health exam and discussion with the doctor to get into this program, but like I said the desperation of heroin users makes it damn certain they'll go through anything to get their fix.
|
I feel my analagy was totally appropriate in the way it was intended. I wasn't for a second comparing the two drugs by way of their addictivness, effects or dangers. Only in the way I think the public would react if they were available for free from doctors.
You mention the initial health exam and discussion with the doctor to get on the program. Surely this would lead to some who wouldn't get on the program? Thus an illegal market would still be supported. As you also mentioned the desperation of Heroin users to get a fix, I think a user would much rather pay a bit extra on the black market that go to the doctors, have the discussion and lecture and pick up the leaflets, wait for all the papers to be filled out etc. every day.
| quote: | Originally posted by Thor
Thats my point though, the government wouldn't simply just say, "hey its legal, have fun now." With legalization comes the education campaign, in order to please true anti-drug supporters this would be part of the deal so to speak. You'd see truthfull and honest represantations of drugs and the risks. Schools would now be openly discussing drug use without fear of getting in trouble from parents. With legalization comes open debate about drugs.. Its not like if it gets legal the whole country starts doing drugs, it would increase slightly but not by much... Please look at drug use statistics from the Netherlands.... Legalization does do one thing vastly different than how it is now, EDUCATION, we now promote knowladge of drugs and the truth will still keep most people today who don't use drugs away from them...
|
Yes but why can't we have all this education without legalising? There's no reason why schools and doctors and nightclubs etc. shouldn't be able to tell the truth about drugs without fear of getting into trouble. I'm all for open debate, but we don't need to legalise drugs in order to get this.
You mention the Netherlands, but we're talking about pot there which is hardly the most addictive or appealing drug. Whilst there may not be many more regular users (I'm taking your word for this as I don't have figures) than there used to be, I'd be willing to bet that most people there have dabbled with pot at one point or another. So if we legalised Heroin and a few people dabbled and gave it a go, oh hold on, they're addicts now and they're not going to stop.
| quote: | Originally posted by Thor
The problem is that cigarettes have been manipulated for the past 60 years to make them more and more addictive. If you took a tobacco leaf, made it into a cigarette and smoked it you'd be hard pressed to feel the same addiction.. This is the major problem with tobacco, the government isn't attacking the cigarette companies for the manipulations they make to their cigarettes to make them so addictive. If tobacco companies removed all those 'manipulations' the smoker would start to find themselves much less physicly addicted.
|
So what makes you think that other drugs wont be manipulated in the same way. If companies are making Ecstacy tablets and tailor-made joints, they're going to have competition from elsewhere. Why wont they, over time, make their drugs more appealing? Slyly attempt to get kids interested in them? Maybe add a few addictive ingredients to their joints? They've done it before and got away with it.
| quote: | Originally posted by Thor
But ecstacy isn't as safe as we'd like it to be, there was some recent research that showed more links to long term brain damage. Of course with legalization we'd know so much more, but again thats why we need to legalize. Lets take a group of 100 people ages 18-30... Lets say (according to stats) that 15 of those 100 have tried E and use it recreationally. Lets say 50 are dead set against ever trying it and no matter its legality. That leaves 35 undecided people who some of course will try it if legalized... But my point with this is that no matter the legality of drugs, most people have decided whether they will do drugs or not... A few would be more likely to try if it was legalized, but its not anything like your insinuating. This isn't just my opinion, do some reading, its a very common belief from all sides of the legalization issue.
|
Long term brain damage? Like smoking causes cancer? People don't care about that, if we like something we do it. Lets take your group of 100 people and assume you're figures are correct (but are they? 35% undecided? Most people I speak to have opinions one way or the other).
But anyway take your 50 who are dead set against ever taking E. Why are they against it? Is it because they've been educated about it and openly discussed it with the doctor? No, it's because in their mind drugs are bad. It's what their teachers told them, it's what their parents told them. It's what the government, their leaders, are telling them. It's what the newspapers are telling them everytime they print a picture of a girl in a hospital bed with her face caked in blood and tubes sticking out of their noses.
Now lets take that same group of 50 people, who are living in a society where they can buy ecstacy from the off-license along with their beer. The safe use of ecstacy are openly discussed at school and on television. There are scientific study's showing how it can be used safely (but still warning of the long-term effects). The local nightclub has a machine dispensing them in packets of 2 100mg pills. Some of their friends do them, they started buying them when they looked old enough to pass for 18. There are adverts from MarlEbroro saying how the peak from their new pills not only lasts 10 minutes longer than any other, but that government tests have approved it as safe for resale. Still think all 50 of them aren't going to crack? And more importantly, 30 years into the future are you still going to be able to make a study of 100 people and find 50 dead-against pills?
| quote: | Originally posted by Thor (on Dancesafe promoting drug use)
They don't make it sound bad, if you read further you'll see that dancesafe is walking a line of promoting the drug over just spreading information. There was just a recent report by 48 hours that said Dancesafe is very much promoting this drug without saying it directly. Dancesafe knows that they can't promote the drug directly, because they would lose most of their funding and be portrayed very negetively in the media.
Yes, pro-education, but the obvious thing is that they take the drug at rave, test it and give it back... If they didn't condone drug use they wouldnt' do that.. Thats the argument. Any organization that doesn't condone drug use wouldn't set up a table to test drugs and just let the people take the drug once they'd test it.. Obviously dancesafe would never do that, nobody would go to their table, but it does indicate that they are mostly concerned with safe pills and not the fact people are taking E. I've read some very interesting statments by dancesafe's founder, and without any doubt he is a supporter of this drug and in fact legalization as well.
|
I don't think they're walking a line at all. No, they don't make it sound bad. Neither to they refer to pills in terms of how "good" they are. If you go to a dancesafe booth and handover your pill, they wont give it back saying "yep that's a good'un and you wont have any problems, have a good night now". They will tell you what is in the pill and what effect it will have on you. If they find any unexpected agents or ingredients they will explan what these are, and warn you of people who have recently had bad experiences with them. After they give it back to you, they may also give you a leaflet explaining what to do if the worst happens and encouraging you to keep an eye on your friends also. They are not only concerned with "safe" pills. Testing is just one of the services they offer. They have a great image with clubbers, they are people they can trust. You can give them your pill and you know a) that you'll get it back and b) you wont get preached at. I think it's very unfair to say Dancesafe are more interested in safe pills than in the people they help.
This is exactly what we need education-wise. But there shouldn't even be a need for them.
| quote: | Originally posted by Thor (on Dancesafe promoting drug use)
I don't take it personally either :D I love debating, people often mistake disagreements as a bad thing, but in all honesty this is the best way to learn... Too often people are afraid to discuss things like this, I think thats truly sad. So I do appreciate your thoughts and I sincerely enjoy this debate :) I think Spad that your a smart guy who knows quite a bit, I'm hoping your learning a little more, thats the idea of these debates, education :) |
Definetly am. Long live peaceful open debate :) But really, we're goning to have to agree to disagree soon coz all this cutting and pasting and quoting is taking me longer and longer each reply :D |
|
|
| Thor |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spad
I'm interested to know what I'm assuming incorrectly. I understand what you are getting at completely and I agree that there would be benefits to people who are willing to kick their habit. I just feel that a much more benificial system would if if the government were to legalise Heroin purely for the purpose of treating addicts. Where the drug could be rationed on a decreasing basis to help ween users off the drug. People have to want to quit first though, it's no good saying "OK, we'll dish out the Heroin to anybody that wants it because at least we can then ask the buyer if he's 100% sure about what he's doing". Having a drug as addictive and damaging as Heroin freely available is madness is my opinion. I do understand what you're trying to say completly and I agree in part, but I have to go back to my original feeling that it would cause more harm than good, and that it would lead to an increase in users. |
Do you honestly think that millions of people will rush to their doctors to try heroin?? I have to think that there will be little increase in useage of heroin, the vast majority of people know how terrible this drug is, its not a matter of it being madness but rather a much better solution than the way things are right now. You must know the desperation of a heroin addict, you think they would choose crime over a visit to the doctor/clinic? Even the dumbest of addicts would chose the safe/free method. How can we possibly be creating more harm than good, heroin in some areas like New Mexico is an epidemic, that governor is the first to suggest legalizing and having this medical heroin program. He's seen first hand the current state of affairs and he's wanting to try this method instead of watching his state get worse.
Would you try heroin if it was available through a doctor?? I think the vast majority of people who've never done heroin wouldn't hesitate to say no. Plus like I said before AD campaigns against heroin use would become more prevelant and the education factor would definately increase awareness thus reduce use, while the clinics are getting a handle on the addicts despair.
| quote: | | I feel my analagy was totally appropriate in the way it was intended. I wasn't for a second comparing the two drugs by way of their addictivness, effects or dangers. Only in the way I think the public would react if they were available for free from doctors. |
I still think its way wrong, the dangers is what people are worried about, just because its free it won't make people want to try it. I have some free crack, do you want some? I've been a part of an online drug community for many years now, and I think I know drug users behavior better than most.. One thing I've noticed is the vast majority of drug users don't want anything to do with heroin. So why would the non-drug users have a different viewpoint towards heroin.
| quote: | | You mention the initial health exam and discussion with the doctor to get on the program. Surely this would lead to some who wouldn't get on the program? Thus an illegal market would still be supported. As you also mentioned the desperation of Heroin users to get a fix, I think a user would much rather pay a bit extra on the black market that go to the doctors, have the discussion and lecture and pick up the leaflets, wait for all the papers to be filled out etc. every day. |
The illegal market would die out eventually, probabaly within a year. Of course some would be hesitant, but considering that most heroin addicts are homeless and constantly trying to get their next fix, why would they not want free and safe heroin? A small inconvenience for them is better than stealing to get money for their addiction, or taking chances with what could be unsafe heroin. Once they have that initial consultation they wouldn't have to go through that every day, they would come in, get their heroin, be injected with medical staff nearby and be on their way. I'm not going to say its perfect, nor am I saying that my definition of this heroin medical model is how it will be. There are more experts out there who would know more than I on this subject, I only know the basics.
| quote: | | Yes but why can't we have all this education without legalising? There's no reason why schools and doctors and nightclubs etc. shouldn't be able to tell the truth about drugs without fear of getting into trouble. I'm all for open debate, but we don't need to legalise drugs in order to get this. |
You should know this answer, people are ignorant on the subject of drugs. Anyone who tries to have an open discussion in school, church, etc.. will quickly be told to shut up. We need at least de-criminalization to get the ball rolling and for real open debate to start. And besides, the main reason for legalization/de-criminalization is to fix the massive failure that is the drug war. This has to become a priority as we make things worse while doing nothing about drugs themselves.
| quote: | | You mention the Netherlands, but we're talking about pot there which is hardly the most addictive or appealing drug. Whilst there may not be many more regular users (I'm taking your word for this as I don't have figures) than there used to be, I'd be willing to bet that most people there have dabbled with pot at one point or another. So if we legalised Heroin and a few people dabbled and gave it a go, oh hold on, they're addicts now and they're not going to stop. |
Weed is the most appealing drug for the legalization/de-criminalization community.. Its the drug everyone wants legalized, the others are a side issue of this debate. Your forgetting again that yes many have tried pot, but they did because they knew it was no big deal.. Everybody knows how dangerous heroin is, so its a different thing altogether. Nobody wants to try a dangerous drug, even if it was legal.. Again, the availability of illegal drugs proves that point, if you wanted to try a drug you could.. Those who are on the 'fence' so to speak wouldn't be inclined to try a dangerous drug just because. Its said that people who try heroin are mostly people who are drug addicts, heroin is just the finishing off drug for many who were addicted to alcohol, cocaine, meth, etc.. The overwhelming amount of heroin users are hard core drug users, homeless, people who are desperately messed up... A normal person like yourself isn't going to try heroin just because you can, because you'd be contacting your local dealer for it if you were interested.
| quote: | | So what makes you think that other drugs wont be manipulated in the same way. If companies are making Ecstacy tablets and tailor-made joints, they're going to have competition from elsewhere. Why wont they, over time, make their drugs more appealing? Slyly attempt to get kids interested in them? Maybe add a few addictive ingredients to their joints? They've done it before and got away with it. |
Tobacco was just recently 'caught' doing this, thanks to the whistle blower who dared testify against his former employer. The US government has an investigation into this 'manipulation' and you can bet that it will be a big change forthcoming for tobacco...
The regulations for legalized drugs would be stringent, don't think this mistake with tobacco will happen again. Everything has to go through the FDA for approval, random testing I'm sure of commercially produced drugs would be guaranteed. We do learn from our mistakes, well at least sometimes :)
| quote: | | Long term brain damage? Like smoking causes cancer? People don't care about that, if we like something we do it. Lets take your group of 100 people and assume you're figures are correct (but are they? 35% undecided? Most people I speak to have opinions one way or the other). |
What if scientific data came out today that said anyone who does E more than a few times will get alzheimers when they get old... Do you think you'd do it again? Of course some would, I know what your getting at with the tobacco issue. But don't forget with tobacco, even after smoking for 20 years you can quit and your lungs will recover somewhat... Most people think to themselves, well when I'm that old will I really care about cancer.... I hear that a lot from smokers, they just think, we'll if I die 10 years earlier whats the big deal, less time in the old folks home. Sad to hear stuff like that, but I guess not enough people have seen what cancer can do to your own family like I have.
| quote: | | But anyway take your 50 who are dead set against ever taking E. Why are they against it? Is it because they've been educated about it and openly discussed it with the doctor? No, it's because in their mind drugs are bad. It's what their teachers told them, it's what their parents told them. It's what the government, their leaders, are telling them. It's what the newspapers are telling them everytime they print a picture of a girl in a hospital bed with her face caked in blood and tubes sticking out of their noses. |
I know a lot of people who don't like taking risks, they know about what E does yet it worries them because of how little is known. These people are cautious, theres lots of those people in this world. Yes many are just plain afraid of drugs, no doubt, thats what scare tactics and lies have done to people for a long time. But what I don't get is what you are more concerned with, I know you do E, why does it bother you that if legalized some more will do it? At least then they are safe, people learn more about the drug, and eventually I think a safer version of E would become available.
| quote: | | Now lets take that same group of 50 people, who are living in a society where they can buy ecstacy from the off-license along with their beer. The safe use of ecstacy are openly discussed at school and on television. There are scientific study's showing how it can be used safely (but still warning of the long-term effects). The local nightclub has a machine dispensing them in packets of 2 100mg pills. Some of their friends do them, they started buying them when they looked old enough to pass for 18. There are adverts from MarlEbroro saying how the peak from their new pills not only lasts 10 minutes longer than any other, but that government tests have approved it as safe for resale. Still think all 50 of them aren't going to crack? And more importantly, 30 years into the future are you still going to be able to make a study of 100 people and find 50 dead-against pills? |
Its hard to say, if further studies show more dangerous side effects than yes I don't see it ever becoming like alcohol. It has the potential to become widely used, but that depends on many things. How would it be distributed? Would a safer less powerfull version be made? ...... there are so many factors we can't even begin to guess, but your thought is a possibility. In my 50 people, I am including all kinds of people, parents, grandparents, etc... You truly think if you took a group of 100 people of all ages that they'd all be interested in drugs.. I know lots of people that don't drink, yet alcohol is legal, why don't they try it? :) Just because something is legal doesn't mean you'll do it, it all depends on the individual...
| quote: | | I don't think they're walking a line at all. No, they don't make it sound bad. Neither to they refer to pills in terms of how "good" they are. |
Anti-drug proponents say that Dancesafe promotes drug use. This is widely thought by many that dancesafe is promoting the use of E. I don't agree, I think dancesafe is promoting education while offering an invaluable service. But the founder himself has said some very pro - E things so we do know he's all for it...
| quote: | | If you go to a dancesafe booth and handover your pill, they wont give it back saying "yep that's a good'un and you wont have any problems, have a good night now". They will tell you what is in the pill and what effect it will have on you. If they find any unexpected agents or ingredients they will explan what these are, and warn you of people who have recently had bad experiences with them. After they give it back to you, they may also give you a leaflet explaining what to do if the worst happens and encouraging you to keep an eye on your friends also. They are not only concerned with "safe" pills. Testing is just one of the services they offer. They have a great image with clubbers, they are people they can trust. You can give them your pill and you know a) that you'll get it back and b) you wont get preached at. I think it's very unfair to say Dancesafe are more interested in safe pills than in the people they help. |
I know what they do :D
| quote: | | This is exactly what we need education-wise. But there shouldn't even be a need for them. |
But there is a need, our society treats drugs and the open discussion of drugs as taboo. The attempts to get weed legalized show us just how ignorant society can be, even with scientific data, facts, truths about the drug, we still have so many against the idea... Legalization/de-criminalization is a solution to our problems, things aren't working now, why should we continue down this road?
| quote: | | Definetly am. Long live peaceful open debate :) But really, we're goning to have to agree to disagree soon coz all this cutting and pasting and quoting is taking me longer and longer each reply :D |
lol, thats very true, this takes a long long time :D .. But at least people who take the time to read this thread will get load of usefull info.. I know that information spreads like a virus, the more people who you teach, the more in turn they teach to friends, and their friends teach to other friends, and so on ....
But did you read that stuff on the drug war, you know the one linked to in the Drug war post by Izzy.... Please take the time to read the entire thing, I'd love to hear your thoughts one all those statments. Pay special attention to what the Governor of New Mexico has to say, I'm a big fan of his :D |
|
|
| hypronix |
I like the way this thread is going. Quite clean!
About the fact that few will start usin' drugs after legalization, I think that won't be a fact. There are many who now wish to try'em, but just don't have the oportunity (I'm not reffering to weed or XTC, but the top stuff). If U can find them in a drug-store, Y not give it a shot? You are sayin' to try drugs only if U R sure U can stop w/o problems. First of all, when do U stop? Smokin' weed or trippin on XTC? What can make U? With heroin is somethin' else, maybe after a big dose U might get into a hospital and then taken to a clinic. But with these "light" trips? And again, do U think the good guys start takin' drugs? I'm not reffering to the rich ones, but at the brain-possesers! Yeah, if I would trip anytime, I'd only do it once, and to see how it is! But how can U be sure this will be aplicable to every (OK, at least the majority) of the regular users?
You'd say it's their life. It is, but when U make it so easy for them to get'em (ref. 2 the Gov.) it's like U are the 1 to give them drugs.
When legalization will occur (I have to admit this will happen), parents will be more alerted, probably that no 1 under 18 can buy , but the temptation will be bigger. Look what happens to the smokers (og tobacco). It's legal-and even if no1 under 18 is allowed to buy, U must admit there R users. Alchohol too.
This matter is.. deep.
So continue to post Ur impressions. Cause it's the only way to "enlighten" ourselves! |
|
|
| Spad |
I was hoping you wouldn't reply until tomorrow coz it's nearly midnight and I'm knackard. So you're getting the concise bullet version of my answer :)
1. No I don't think millions of people would start using Heroin if it was freely available. I just don't see the point of doing that when instead they could legalise it only for use in helping addicts kick their habit instead. All those that don't want to kick their habit can continue as they are. Not to be blunt but it's their life and they can do what they like with it.
2. I don't think the best way of getting people to talk about drugs is to legalise them. There is no reason we can't discuss drugs openly and keep the law as it is.
3. Yes I do know a lot about cancer and what it can do to a family. It's why I quit myself. That and the hole in my lung but that's another story.
4. Yes I do E, but I don't think it should be freely available to the public. In a similar way that a lot of gun enthusiasts wouldn't approve of every Tom, Dick & Harry being allowed to walk the streets with a Magnum tucked in their belt (now tell me I'm not the analagy king, they're a bit twisted but they get there in the end.... :D )
5. You said your group of people was for people ages 18 - 30, not people of all ages. In that case I'd agree with your figures.
6. Yes I did read the article. The governor of Mexico has some interesting views and I agree with most of what he said in the article. He is in a difficult situation. Luckily the situation isn't as bad as that here, which is why I think we all need to start talking about drugs openly. Legalise Heroin for use in helping addicts. As I said before, drugs can cause some awful problems. There's no need for scare tactics when the truth can be just as bad. But I don't think legalising is the way to go about it. Not with hard drugs anyway. As far as pot goes I'm pretty on the fence. I think it's pretty harmless compared to tobacco & alcohol and I don't see the harm in legalising it.
The one thing about the article though is that everybody was infavour of increased education. If all these people from all walks of life, politions, teachers, law-enforcment are all pro-education why is it not happening? I really don't know, but I think the media needs to stop -stirring a bit here. Headlines such as "nation shocked by teacher giving drug advice" aren't uncommon. How do they know we're shocked? They only told us today. I think the media try's to protray a sense of false unity among it's readers (something I'm sure I've fallen for myself on occasion). |
|
|
|
|
