OK, guys...

Watermark said:
Alcohol WILL kill during withdrawal if it isn't done right. This is because alcohol, over time, slowly comes to replace the GABA in the brain. Whenever alcohol is taken out of the system cold-turkey, there's nothing int he brain to slow it down anymore.

Heroin withdrawal is bad but it doesn't kill people.
Click to expand...
People have, and will continue, to die from Heroine withdrawal. The drug breaks down the immune system making recovery very difficult.

If the use is continued death is very likely regardless because of the effects to the immune system.
 
uscitizen said:
Hey I am all for legalizing pot and treat it just like Alcohol.
But Smack now is another matter.
Click to expand...

Methadone should be legalize, but regulated far more strictly than pot or alcohol.

It doesn't make any sense to put addicts in jail, and it doesn't make any sense to put suppliers in jail if the usage is legal.
 
If you decriminalize, just as with alcohol, the suppliers will adjust to the new regulations on sales.
 
Most decriminalization plans just prevent people from being sent to jail for usage only. Suppliers still get about 5 or so years. I don't see any reason not to legalize the suppliers also. It needs to be legal, safe, and regulated. Rehab centers need to be just steps away from addicts who wish to get back on the right track.
 
Watermark said:
Most decriminalization plans just prevent people from being sent to jail for usage only. Suppliers still get about 5 or so years. I don't see any reason not to legalize the suppliers also. It needs to be legal, safe, and regulated. Rehab centers need to be just steps away from addicts who wish to get back on the right track.
Click to expand...
Then they are stupid. Sell them to 21 or older like beer under closely checked areas of sale. It is stupid to try to limit supply while allowing the usage.
 
The only nation I know of that has completely decriminalized usage of all drugs is Mexico. Trafficking is still illegal.

I don't think there is a nation on Earth where selling Cannabis or any other "soft" or "hard" drug is legal. In the Netherlands, it isn't enforced, and that's about as close as it comes. I agree with you, it is stupid to allow use and crack down on suppliers. A complete logical contradiction.
 
Last edited:
Threedee said:
Viva Mexico! :mexicoflag: (hey, Damo, we're missing a flag from the inventory! :)
Click to expand...
M'eh. I also need to replace the clapping hands... Somehow they didn't make it on the crossover...

I'll get right on that. Expect it in a few months or so...
 
Watermark said:
What is the practical difference between prosecuting drug dealers to keep supply of drugs scarce, and legalizing drugs and setting the price at the current street price? Besides, of course, the costs to house drug dealers in prison, and the tens of billions of dollars in enforcement?

I think later generations will laugh at our lack of practicality.
Click to expand...


Who says the supply of controlled drugs has ever been scarce? Ya bust somebody--somebody who wants the money and has the biggest gun takes their place the next day. I would not be suprised if controlled drug usage has actually gotten higher since they were criminalized.

Now that we know the controlled drugs have never been scarce (popularity just comes and goes with specific drugs---accept coke and pot), weather they have been legal--or illegal

Now explain the differences.

The difference is---lol---with free health care---the people can do all the damn drugs they want--and they will. lol

We might see OD parties at the meth house across the street from the emergency room---just for fun--ya know?

Some of these drugs are really nasty stuff. It was actually more safe back when most stuff came from a plant--and even LSD. Lets say Herion is really being targeted by officials--what do the people who want it do? They learn how to make some really nasty stuff in their homes instead. They don't seem to care h what kind of industrial cleaner or chemical they use. I could make a point that the war on drugs has actually spurred some really dangerous self made drugs by young kitchen chemists.

I think it is still a fact that more people die from perscription drugs and drugs for surgery than they do for controlled substances. I am not sure which is acutally used more though.
 
Watermark said:
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/roe1.htm



Why we should legalize drugs

by Benson B. Roe, MD

Benson Roe is Professor Emeritus and former Chair of Cardiothoracic Surgery at the University of California at San Francisco.

More than 20 years ago when I was removing destroyed heart valves from infected intravenous drug abusers I assumed that these seriously ill patients represented just the tip of the iceberg of narcotic abuse. In an effort to ascertain what proportion of serious or fatal drug-related disease this group represented, I sought information from the San Francisco Coroner. To my surprise he reported that infections from contaminated intravenous injections were the only cause of drug-related deaths he saw except for occasional deaths from overdoses. He confirmed the inference that clean, reasonable dosages of heroin, cocaine and marijuana are pathologically harmless. He asserted he had never seen a heroin user over the age of 50. My obvious conclusion was that they had died from their. habit but he was confident that they had simply tired of the drug and just quit. When asked if the same were basically true of marijuana and cocaine, he responded affirmatively. That caused me to wonder why these substances had been made illegal.
Click to expand...

From a story called "hooked" on the history channel lately. The explained the reason why pot became illegal. I think it was 1937, and it not really made illegal. You had to have a license to get it--but the government never printed any licenses for it. It was the same tatic that was used to make machine guns not lawfull to have. It was done to get rid of illegal aliens mostly. They knew most of them smoked weed, and somehow (How escapes me now) they used the law to drive them back home after we were done with them. The law got reversed about 30 years later by Timmothy Leary (the hippy herion head of the 60's), and the guy had a good case. His case was, you can't get a permit unless you have possesion of weed. But if you have possesion of weed, being ilegal with out a permit, you are in violation of the law. Therefore, you would be incriminating yourslef by trying to get a permit.

The law was thrown out and pot was actually legal for part of my young life (I never knew that). Then, I think it was Regan who started the war on drugs, and made it all criminal again.

Turn on
Tune in
Drop out

and that is what the hippies did. :)

I don't know if all drugs should be legal. I have a hard time with that one.
 
theMAJORITY said:
From a story called "hooked" on the history channel lately. The explained the reason why pot became illegal. I think it was 1937, and it not really made illegal. You had to have a license to get it--but the government never printed any licenses for it. It was the same tatic that was used to make machine guns not lawfull to have. It was done to get rid of illegal aliens mostly. They knew most of them smoked weed, and somehow (How escapes me now) they used the law to drive them back home after we were done with them. The law got reversed about 30 years later by Timmothy Leary (the hippy herion head of the 60's), and the guy had a good case. His case was, you can't get a permit unless you have possesion of weed. But if you have possesion of weed, being ilegal with out a permit, you are in violation of the law. Therefore, you would be incriminating yourslef by trying to get a permit.

The law was thrown out and pot was actually legal for part of my young life (I never knew that). Then, I think it was Regan who started the war on drugs, and made it all criminal again.

Turn on
Tune in
Drop out

and that is what the hippies did. :)

I don't know if all drugs should be legal. I have a hard time with that one.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm like, why should the responsible members of society pay billions upon billions a year in order to try to eradicate drugs whenever idiots will just do it anyway? Just make it safe, legal, and controlled. Whenever people make the decision to go to rehab, it should be just a step away. But you can't REQUIRE rehab - such programs are doomed to failure.

I mean, Singapore goes as far as to require the death penalty for all people caught with drugs - no exceptions. They still have drugs in their society. It isn't a problem you can solve by getting "tough".
 
We are actually pretty light on drugs compared to other countries--- which in a way is good for the user, but also ensures that the "war on drugs" can never be won.

Japan, for instance, is super harsh on drug use.
 
Yes... but even Japan still has a drug problem. Getting harsh enough on crime to completely eradicate drug use, if it can be none, would be a genocide.
 
A trip down memory lane...........

Watermark said:
In practical consideration, you could legalize methadone, and keep heroin distribution illegal. Methadone use is much more stable. THat's why it's used for maintanance. And it could be drunk, instead of injected.
Click to expand...


First and foremost...During the Civil War Heroin was used as a pain killer for medical use...it caused severe addiction...Morphine was developed to act as a treatment...for addicts..it did not work addictive also...but became a Rx for pain...controlled substance...Now we have Methadone to treat Heroin addiction it is also addictive and must be supervised by MD's...all of the above are addictive...and yes all cause other medical issues besides addiction and withdrawal...they all cause severe digestion problems (blockage)...which can be fatal...

The bottom line keep all dangerous drugs illeagal..educate users and wannabee users that there are natural highs in life without dangerous consequences...end of story!
 
Problem is BB that politicians have failed to discriminate between various types of recreational drugs. Some are dangerous and should be rigidly controlled, some aren't and could be used like alcohol and tobacco with probably less deleterious effects. Some finer discrimination and associated regulation - and with the appropriate education - would be useful.
 
Well for the record..........

Diuretic said:
Problem is BB that politicians have failed to discriminate between various types of recreational drugs. Some are dangerous and should be rigidly controlled, some aren't and could be used like alcohol and tobacco with probably less deleterious effects. Some finer discrimination and associated regulation - and with the appropriate education - would be useful.
Click to expand...


I have never been hardline on MJ use...I do not use it...but agree it is not all that dangerous...for the other ' Hard Recreational Drugs' on the market I say hell no!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top