|
If all drugs were legalized, would more people become addicts? (pg. 10)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| sean5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
That is a ludicrous argument based entirely on speculation - and the insinuation that anyone here said if people have money, then they can manage their addictions. Only that many who do, can. |
xanax stated that the only reason drugs are a problem is due to street price and he has reiterated this point in a few posts. |
|
|
| Allied Nations |
| quote: | Originally posted by elFreak
lol i pay 40$ for a good quarter of hydro.
120 for the ounce. |
we need to talk |
|
|
| Allied Nations |
cuz i can get 1/4s of m39 for $40, but thats not "good" hydro..
thats "h bull i got a headache 30 mins later dro" |
|
|
| Spacey Orange |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
I tend to think the answer is "yes," but I also think that the benefits of legalization would outweigh the increased number of addicts. |
'
of course there would be. btw, what benefits could possibly outweigh the costs? |
|
|
| Spacey Orange |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
Also, the Netherlands is a good example of what happens in a population once marijuana is legalized - a dramatic decrease in those who use marijuana (especially compared to the U.S. - the number is something like ~25% American adults have smoked marijuana while ~10% of the Dutch population has). |
i beg to differ. i started using boxers the same day marijuana was legalized so that must be the reason why use declined. |
|
|
| Lilith |
Drug 'lifestyles' seem to make a lot of people dead more than the actual chemicals themselves it seems. I've only known one person to OD and die, quite a few others that just either ended up on the wrong end of a dealer and at the bottom of the harbour, some just disappeared and I assume died before their time from lack of living standards, because they literally did the money-buy drugs-broke every chance they could.
Legal pharmaceuticals seem to hook enough people as-is, so I don't necessarily endorse sticking more of them on the market. |
|
|
| Spacey Orange |
just a tid bit of history.:)
| quote: | Opium: The Downfall of Imperial China
We tend to think of the "drug problem" as a modern phenomenon. But a century ago, illegal drugs brought an end an empire that had lasted for thousands of years.
In 1793, China was the home of a sophisticated culture and a rich history. Among other remarkable achievements, China invented movable type, kites, and gunpowder. They perfected porcelain, silk and tea production. 1793, however, was the beginning of the end of Imperial China.
Great Britain and other European nations, desiring her silk, tea and porcelain, wanted badly to trade with China. China, however, wanted nothing to do with Europe, and even refused to see European diplomats. Finally in 1793, a British diplomat was successful in reaching the Chinese court. He told the Chinese of the wonderful products of his country, convinced that once they really knew what Europe had to offer, they would quickly agree to engage in trade. China, however, was unmoved. In a letter to King George, the emperor said,
. . . As your Ambassador can see for himself, we possess all things. I set no value on objects strange or ingenious, and have no use for your country's manufactures. . . Our Celestial Empire possesses all things in prolific abundance and lacks no product within its own borders. There was therefore no need to import the manufactures of outside barbarians in exchange for our own produce. But as the tea, silk and porcelain which the Celestial Empire produces, are absolute necessities to European nations and to yourselves, we have permitted, as a signal mark of favour, that foreign hongs [merchant firms] should be established at Canton, so that your wants might be supplied and your country thus participate in our beneficence.
They would sell Europe their silk, tea and porcelain, but would buy nothing in return.
Because Chinese goods were so sought-after in Europe, an imbalance of trade developed. European gold and silver went to China to import goods, but none returned because there was no possibility of export. This was unacceptable to the British and they desperately looked for a solution.
The solution to Britain's problem was opium. Although opium had been used in China for medicinal purposes for a long time, it had not been used as a recreational drug. The British introduced opium to China in 1825, and soon, not surprisingly, Chinese began to be addicted to the drug. The emperor outlawed the possession, use, and trade in opium, but the profits were so immense, that an illegal trade quickly developed. The East India Company in India supplied all the opium the Chinese wanted and the Chinese government was unable to stop the smuggling. The balance of trade gradually reversed.
In 1839 the Emperor ordered Commissioner Lin Tse-Hsu to put a stop to the opium trade. Lin wrote to Queen Victoria, appealing to the British sense of justice and compassion:
We have heard that in your own country opium is prohibited with the utmost strictness and severity:---this is a strong proof that you know full well how hurtful it is to mankind. Since then you do not permit it to injure your own country, you ought not to have the injurious drug transferred to another country, and above all others, how much less to the Inner Land! Of the products which China exports to your foreign countries, there is not one which is not beneficial to mankind in some shape or other. There are those which serve for food, those which are useful, and those which are calculated for re-sale; but all are beneficial. Has China (we should like to ask) ever yet sent forth a noxious article from its soil?
He received no reply. Left on his own to solve the problem, Lin ordered the destruction of a large supply of opium stored on Chinese soil. (The Chinese had allowed the British one port in which they could trade with China).
The British were outraged, and the first Opium War began. Faced with British industrial weaponry, it was no contest, and Britain easily defeated the Chinese. As part of the settlement of the war, China was forced to agree to open up new ports for trade, and to surrender the island of Hong Kong. A second Opium War was launched by Britain in 1856, forcing more concessions on the Chinese. Among other humiliations, the Chinese government was no longer able to hold foreigners accountable under Chinese law for crimes committed in China. The proud Central Kingdom had lost the ability to control trade and foreign nationals within its own borders.
An ever-weakening Chinese government also lost the support of its own people, whom it could no longer protect. By 1911, the empire was dead and a republic was born in China. |
|
|
|
| Axer |
drugs are legal, people are addicts
drugs are addictive, people are legalized
people do drugs, addiction is legal |
|
|
| XaNaX |
ok, so I read your link, what's your point? I said that opiate use doesn't cause any long term damage to your body. Your link confirmed my point by not listing any long term physical problems associated with opiate use. That site listed physical dependence as a problem, which is not really a problem if you have a constant and cheap supply of the drug.
As far as ODing goes, most non-intentional overdoses are caused by purchasing street dope from someone that is substantially stronger than what you normally use or has been adulterated with another substance (the rash of heroin ODs from a few years ago because the H was adulterated with fentanyl for example). This would not be a problem if drugs were legal because when you purchase drugs at the government store you would know the exact strength and purity of the drug every time.
| quote: | sean5's anti-drug site
Opiates slow breathing, heart rate and brain activity. Opiates depress appetite, thirst and sexual desire. The body's tolerance to pain is increased. |
no , but none of those things are long term physical damage. All will go away if you quit using.
| quote: | sean5's anti-drug site
Potential contamination, using opiates in combination with other drugs, and using un-sterile needles all increase the danger of opiates. Use of un-sterile needles can lead to hepatitis, tetanus or AIDS. |
these are problems associated with IV drug use, not opiate use. Opiates can be taken orally, nasally, or smoked as well. Most people switch to IV drug use as their tolerance grows and they can no longer afford their addiction using one of the other methods of administration. Again, this problem goes away with a cheap, readily available supply of drugs.
| quote: | sean5's anti-drug site
Regular opiate users who abruptly stop using the drug experience withdrawal symptoms four to six hours following the last dose. Symptoms include uneasiness, diarrhea, abdominal cramps, chills, sweating, nausea, runny nose and eyes, irritability, weakness, tremors and insomnia. The intensity of these symptoms depends on how much of the drug was taken, how often and for how long. These symptoms are usually strongest 24 to 72 hours after onset and can persist for seven to 10 days. |
Yeah, again these are problems associated with withdrawal. Not a problem if you continue using. And notice how it says the symptoms persist for 7 to 10 days. That is temporary not permenent.
| quote: | sean5's anti-drug site
Opiates are harmful to a developing fetus. Pregnant women who are dependent on opiates have a higher risk for spontaneous abortions, breech deliveries, premature births and stillbirths. Babies born to opiate-addicted mothers often have withdrawal symptoms similar to adults. These symptoms may last several weeks or months. Researchers have also found an increased risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) among babies born to heroin-addicted mothers. |
I never suggested that you should continue to use opiates or any other drug while you are pregnant. This is common sense.
| quote: | sean5's anti-drug site
Some signs and symptoms of opiates include:
-lethargy, drowsiness
-constricted pupils and reduced vision
-shallow breathing
-needle or track marks on inner arms or other parts of the body from injecting needles
-redness and raw nostrils from sniffing heroin
-excessive perspiration, shaking, vomiting, chills or other withdrawal symptoms
-use or possession of paraphernalia including syringes, bent spoons, bottle caps, eye droppers, rubber tubing, cotton and needles.
|
nope, nothing listing any long term bodily damage from use there either. Track marks are from IV drug use, not opiate use.
| quote: | Originally posted by sean5
xanax stated that the only reason drugs are a problem is due to street price and he has reiterated this point in a few posts. |
no, xanax didn't say that. Please quote the post where I said that the ONLY reason drugs are a problem is because of street price. What I said was that paying inflated street prices for drugs is a major factor in people not being able to manage their use/addiction. The inability to afford their addiction is what causes people to engage in criminal behavior as well as do risky and damaging things to themselves like IV drug use. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spacey Orange
of course there would be. btw, what benefits could possibly outweigh the costs? |
Disappearance of the criminal drug trade and the violence that comes with it.
Less crowding of prisons with people who simply wanted to get high.
Police would no longer have to waste time and manpower on the "drug war" and could concentrate more on real problems like violent crime.
Drug purity and strength would be known, so there would be fewer overdoses and deaths due to misjudged strength, mislabeling, and adulteration.
Drugs would be less expensive and people would have a legal avenue to get them, so addicts would be less likely to turn criminal to pay for their habits.
Increased taxed revenue from sales of drugs. |
|
|
| XaNaX |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Disappearance of the criminal drug trade and the violence that comes with it.
Less crowding of prisons with people who simply wanted to get high.
Police would no longer have to waste time and manpower on the "drug war" and could concentrate more on real problems like violent crime.
Drug purity and strength would be known, so there would be fewer overdoses and deaths due to misjudged strength, mislabeling, and adulteration.
Drugs would be less expensive and people would have a legal avenue to get them, so addicts would be less likely to turn criminal to pay for their habits.
Increased taxed revenue from sales of drugs. |
what amuses me is how difficult it is for people to understand this. and when you ask them for a list of reasons as to why drugs should not be legal you don't get much further than 'because the government says they should be, we should just say no right?' |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by XaNaX
what amuses me is how difficult it is for people to understand this. and when you ask them for a list of reasons as to why drugs should not be legal you don't get much further than 'because the government says they should be, we should just say no right?' |
Well, I give the anti-drug folks a bit more credit than that. Usually they bring up:
1. Public health.
2. Workplace productivity.
3. Morality (mostly religious conservatives who bring this up).
4. Effects of drug addiction on families.
5. Costs of treating overdose and addiction.
6. Tendency of addicts to commit more crimes.
Of course, it is arguable whether any of these things are even improved by drug prohibition in the first place, which is why I think the rational option is legalization. |
|
|
|
|
