"Drugs are the curse of the land and turn women into prostitutes" - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-28-2007, 09:54 AM   #61
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 10:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


You don't think you pay for it now? You are paying for a first time offenders stay in prison right now...
I know we are paying for it now. But the costs involve much more than putting first-time offenders in prison. What about the increased costs of caring for new drug users? What if increased drug use leads to higher unemployment rates? Who takes care of the drug-addicted, unemployable users?

~U2Alabama
__________________

__________________
U2Bama is offline  
Old 02-28-2007, 10:37 AM   #62
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 10:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Bama


I know we are paying for it now. But the costs involve much more than putting first-time offenders in prison. What about the increased costs of caring for new drug users? What if increased drug use leads to higher unemployment rates? Who takes care of the drug-addicted, unemployable users?

~U2Alabama
My point was if it's legal you'll stop paying to keep someone in prison for having pocession of pot.

What do you honestly think the % of increased addicts will be? Addicts are addicts and will be addicts regardless of legality.

Who takes care of the alcoholic users?

Your points are actually pretty moot. Especially from a financial standpoint, for you'll have highly taxed drugs and less tax dollars going to a dead end war on drugs.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 02-28-2007, 02:09 PM   #63
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:30 PM
The war on drugs isn't dead end, it is an end in itself for consolidating power with the government.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-28-2007, 09:49 PM   #64
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 10:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


My point was if it's legal you'll stop paying to keep someone in prison for having pocession of pot.

What do you honestly think the % of increased addicts will be? Addicts are addicts and will be addicts regardless of legality.

Who takes care of the alcoholic users?

Your points are actually pretty moot. Especially from a financial standpoint, for you'll have highly taxed drugs and less tax dollars going to a dead end war on drugs.
I get your argument about the cost of incarcerating drug users. I am not talking about pot. The only way they would risk being jailed would be if they commited crimes while under the influence of pot. Trust me, I have been to enough Grateful Dead and Widespread Panic concerts over the past 16 years to know that argument by memory from hearing it in the parking lot and reading the tracts that NORML passes out. Pot is not the issue. Pot is not addictive. Unless someone has gotten themselves psychologically addicted to pot, I don't think the use of pot will encourage them to break in to people's homes and take things from other people. They do not have to "cook" pot in highly combustible contraptions that endanger their neighbors' homes and apartments.

I do think there will be an increase in addictions from new users. We can say "But the legalized versions will be controlled and the addictive elements will be taken out." But then you have the issue of reducing the "fun" factor of these drugs if you weaken them, and thus a black market for the harmful formulas will still exist, and black market dealers will continue to sell it to people who want the "fun" version. I have known several drug dealers through the years (not as a customer, fortunately). They are predators. Their profit comes from the addictive qualities of their products. The value of return customers is an understatement. They don't want people coming back a month later for another dose, They want people building up an immunity so that they want more quantity. Funny thing about many of these predators, excuse me, dealers: many of them DON'T use their products!

You are correct that addicts will be addicts regardless of legality, but what about the new users who become addicted? What about the side effect risks that all of these legal users, addicted or not, pose to other members of their families or communities when under the influence of drugs? How do we explain it to a girl who gets raped by a guy on meth driven to overly-aggressive sexual desire, when she was the closest target? Just tell her, "Oh but he's not usually like that; he just got some bad meth. It doen't affect everyone like that."

On a lighter note, I hope my dental insurance doesn't go up due to the pool having to treat the awful teeth of meth-heads.

Knowing what meth, opiates and cocaine can do to people who use them and the people that they encounter, I cannot see any societal benefit in making these things more available to the general public.

To dismiss my points as "moot" is rather short-sighted. I know that's your style in here because you are usually dismissive towards posters you disagree with and that's fine. But everything I have said has been based on observations. Much of what I have posted has been of a questioning nature...who is responsible if legalization leads to scenario A, or who pays for the side effects of scenario B? Don't include pot in this discussion; let's look at some of the current trends and the dangers they pose; it goes far beyond the economics of incarceration.

~U2Alabama
__________________
U2Bama is offline  
Old 02-28-2007, 10:23 PM   #65
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 10:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Bama



I do think there will be an increase in addictions from new users. We can say "But the legalized versions will be controlled and the addictive elements will be taken out." But then you have the issue of reducing the "fun" factor of these drugs if you weaken them, and thus a black market for the harmful formulas will still exist, and black market dealers will continue to sell it to people who want the "fun" version. I have known several drug dealers through the years (not as a customer, fortunately). They are predators. Their profit comes from the addictive qualities of their products. The value of return customers is an understatement. They don't want people coming back a month later for another dose, They want people building up an immunity so that they want more quantity. Funny thing about many of these predators, excuse me, dealers: many of them DON'T use their products!

You are correct that addicts will be addicts regardless of legality, but what about the new users who become addicted? What about the side effect risks that all of these legal users, addicted or not, pose to other members of their families or communities when under the influence of drugs? How do we explain it to a girl who gets raped by a guy on meth driven to overly-aggressive sexual desire, when she was the closest target? Just tell her, "Oh but he's not usually like that; he just got some bad meth. It doen't affect everyone like that."
My point of addicts is that they will become addicts no matter what. So the fear of new users isn't due to the ease of finding the drug. Addicts will find their fix, it's part of their genetic make up. They search it out. The need of black market alcohol is pretty small...

I understand your fear of "new users" but the truth is addicts have a "hole" in their life that they will find something to fill it. Some can avoid that fall due to recognizing signs early, some have to hit bottom, etc... But the idea that it's just a matter of keeping it out of arm's way will prevent addicition is a misconception.


Quote:
Originally posted by U2Bama

On a lighter note, I hope my dental insurance doesn't go up due to the pool having to treat the awful teeth of meth-heads.

Knowing what meth, opiates and cocaine can do to people who use them and the people that they encounter, I cannot see any societal benefit in making these things more available to the general public.
I honestly don't see meth ever being part of the legalization of drugs. Meth differs from corner to corner and it's pretty much a "poor man's" drug. It's like the equivelance of high school kids drinking scope or nyquil to get a buzz. Alcohol is legal but they can't get their hands on it and the high school kid is desperate for a buzz.

Plus the awful teeth would come from a person who neglects everything due to their addiction. Therefore this person wouldn't have a job to have dental insurance.


Quote:
Originally posted by U2Bama

To dismiss my points as "moot" is rather short-sighted. I know that's your style in here because you are usually dismissive towards posters you disagree with and that's fine. But everything I have said has been based on observations. Much of what I have posted has been of a questioning nature...who is responsible if legalization leads to scenario A, or who pays for the side effects of scenario B? Don't include pot in this discussion; let's look at some of the current trends and the dangers they pose; it goes far beyond the economics of incarceration.

~U2Alabama
My style? I'm dismissive of those who don't back up their opinions, not those I disagree with.

I wasn't trying to be dismissive in my response. I called them moot due to the ease of negating them. Especially your financial points.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 02-28-2007, 11:51 PM   #66
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 10:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


My point of addicts is that they will become addicts no matter what. So the fear of new users isn't due to the ease of finding the drug. Addicts will find their fix, it's part of their genetic make up. They search it out. The need of black market alcohol is pretty small...



I understand your fear of "new users" but the truth is addicts have a "hole" in their life that they will find something to fill it. Some can avoid that fall due to recognizing signs early, some have to hit bottom, etc... But the idea that it's just a matter of keeping it out of arm's way will prevent addicition is a misconception.
Not necessarily; "potential" addicts will never become addicted to something they do not try. Someone who merely experiments with these drugs is a potential addict. Think of the marketing campaigns that they tobacco companies have run through the year, even marketing to kids. The legal peddlars of these drugs will push them as something new to try. Hook, line and sinker, plenty of new catches. Customers for life. Legal predators, just like the tobacco ad campaigns of old. They'll probably even try to push fake research that their products aren't harmful, aren't addictive, etc.

People who experiment with drugs do not necessarily have a hole in their life. Many just want to try them because their friends enjoy them.




Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
I honestly don't see meth ever being part of the legalization of drugs. Meth differs from corner to corner and it's pretty much a "poor man's" drug. It's like the equivelance of high school kids drinking scope or nyquil to get a buzz. Alcohol is legal but they can't get their hands on it and the high school kid is desperate for a buzz.
Several people, including former New Jersey polic officer Jack Cole, indra, trevster2k, U2fan628, and verte76 seem to agree with the position that ALL drugs should be legalized. So, if there is a controlled, legally dispensed version of meth available at some community dope store, does that mean that a stronger, but more addictive version that packs a much better euphoria would also be legal? As I've seen in my suburban county, opiates and meth are not restricted to the "poor" demographic. They have been quite popular with middle class teens, forty-somethings, certainly not restricted to the lower economic levels.

Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Plus the awful teeth would come from a person who neglects everything due to their addiction. Therefore this person wouldn't have a job to have dental insurance.
I'm not talking about their drug-induced laziness causing them to forget to brush their teeth. Heck, I've gone to bed without brushing and flossing after eating a pack of Starburst or a bag of popcorn.


An exemplary photo of what is known as "meth mouth:"



From the South Dakota Meth Awareness Project website:

Quote:
When a person smokes Meth, these substances are heated, vaporized and swirl throughout the user's mouth. They irritate and burn the sensitive skin inside the mouth, create sores and lead to infection. Chronic Meth smokers have teeth rotted to the gum line from the continuous affect of the vapors on tooth enamel.
Snorting Meth also causes chemical damage to teeth. Snorting draws the caustic substances down the nasal passages, draining in the back of the throat and bathing the teeth with corrosive substances.


Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
My style? I'm dismissive of those who don't back up their opinions, not those I disagree with.

I wasn't trying to be dismissive in my response. I called them moot due to the ease of negating them. Especially your financial points.
I posted several observations, concerns, and observations. Because you didn't think the economic concerns had merit, you decreed it all to be "moot." What about the additional economic costs, beyond treatment and medical concerns? What about having more people out there breaking into people's homes and taking things that do not belong to them? Do you really think some meth-head's need top get his kicks is more important than a person's right to retain their own property in the confines of their home? Are there not enough lives lost to drunk drivers, so that now we have to offer additional forms of recreational thrills that may endanger innoncent bystanders of passengers in other vehicles?

Someone said that legalization would take out the thug element - the pusher/dealer on the street. Not quite. The thug would merely be replaced by the corporate thugs who would attempt to market this shit to my kids, the kids across the street, the lady driving in rush hour traffic, the man who just lost his job, whomever may be curious, vulnerable, distraught or intimidated.
Predators wisely choose their prey.

~U2Alabama
__________________
U2Bama is offline  
Old 03-01-2007, 01:14 AM   #67
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 10:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Bama


Not necessarily; "potential" addicts will never become addicted to something they do not try. Someone who merely experiments with these drugs is a potential addict. Think of the marketing campaigns that they tobacco companies have run through the year, even marketing to kids. The legal peddlars of these drugs will push them as something new to try. Hook, line and sinker, plenty of new catches. Customers for life. Legal predators, just like the tobacco ad campaigns of old. They'll probably even try to push fake research that their products aren't harmful, aren't addictive, etc.

People who experiment with drugs do not necessarily have a hole in their life. Many just want to try them because their friends enjoy them.
Ok, I'm not saying everyone who experiments with drugs has a hole in their life. I'm talking about addicts, I've done a lot of work with addicts in a former part of my life. Most addicts are genetically predetermined for addiction. They will seek it out, if it's in the window or not.

I socially smoked for awhile never became addicted. I could probably try coke and never have a problem with it what so ever. Now of course there's a difference between the addictive properties of a cigarette and coke. In fact many will tell you cigs are more addictive than heroin.




Quote:
Originally posted by U2Bama

Several people, including former New Jersey polic officer Jack Cole, indra, trevster2k, U2fan628, and verte76 seem to agree with the position that ALL drugs should be legalized. So, if there is a controlled, legally dispensed version of meth available at some community dope store, does that mean that a stronger, but more addictive version that packs a much better euphoria would also be legal? As I've seen in my suburban county, opiates and meth are not restricted to the "poor" demographic. They have been quite popular with middle class teens, forty-somethings, certainly not restricted to the lower economic levels.
I didn't mean poor as a demographic, just that if someone had a choice in front of them between 3 drugs most wouldn't actually choose meth. And a mass marketed meth would be completely different from what's on the streets, just like the meth at Johnny's house is different from that at Mary's.


Quote:
Originally posted by U2Bama

I'm not talking about their drug-induced laziness causing them to forget to brush their teeth. Heck, I've gone to bed without brushing and flossing after eating a pack of Starburst or a bag of popcorn.
Yeah and I should have worded my response better. What I meant was that anyone who does enough meth to get meth mouth is doing a whole hell of a lot, and they more than likely don't have the kind of job that would provide dental care.

Quote:
Originally posted by U2Bama

I posted several observations, concerns, and observations. Because you didn't think the economic concerns had merit, you decreed it all to be "moot." What about the additional economic costs, beyond treatment and medical concerns? What about having more people out there breaking into people's homes and taking things that do not belong to them? Do you really think some meth-head's need top get his kicks is more important than a person's right to retain their own property in the confines of their home? Are there not enough lives lost to drunk drivers, so that now we have to offer additional forms of recreational thrills that may endanger innoncent bystanders of passengers in other vehicles?

Someone said that legalization would take out the thug element - the pusher/dealer on the street. Not quite. The thug would merely be replaced by the corporate thugs who would attempt to market this shit to my kids, the kids across the street, the lady driving in rush hour traffic, the man who just lost his job, whomever may be curious, vulnerable, distraught or intimidated.
Predators wisely choose their prey.

~U2Alabama
But see this is my point, this is all speculation due to the perception that "well this is happening now, so it will just get worse when it's legal." This isn't an exponential issue, and that's where your line of thinking is coming from.

Imagine if you will if alcohol is illegal tomorrow. Black market would be crazy, and there would be no regulations.

Drunk driving deaths would rise, longer drives to underground bars on the outskirts of towns, with no closing times set by law. Jails would be filling up. Break ins would rise due to search for cash for bloated costs of booze. Intoxication deaths would rise due to higher non-regulated proofs of alcohol.

Take a look at the % of alcohol related deaths, accidents, and illegal activity on a college campus between 20 year olds and 21 year olds. The 20 year old group will almost always be higher.

Now think of that nationwide.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 03-01-2007, 01:38 AM   #68
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,608
Local Time: 05:30 AM
I think what is evident is that what people are trying to do is not so much find a way to legalise a class of dugs as such, but legalise a class of drug user. The vast majority of people who partake in illegal drug use, and I mean VAST majority, are not the junkies in the crack dens shooting up with dirty needles financed by a stolen DVD player or a $10 blow job who will end up in a mental hospital or dead having spread their misery and disease to many others. The majority are the recreational drug user who has the occasional pill at a dance party, or the occasional joint in the quiet of their own home. They - and their activities - do not disturb or intrude on others. They do not commit crimes (aside from the purchase and consumption of the drug of course). They do not partake in anti social behaviour. Any minor public disturbances as a result of their consumption are generally similar to that of drinkers - eg, getting behind the wheel of a car while under the influence. The two major problems with what they are doing are the fact that they supply criminal activity with billions of dollars a year - the majority of the drug trades earnings do not come from junkies and rock stars, they come from the suburban recreational users - and they take a risk with their health when dealing in an illegal trade of what can be toxic substances when unchecked and unregulated.
You find a way to bring those people out from the underground, from illegal to legal, give them a regulated, 'safe' option, and you instantly wipe out so many of the problems related to drugs. Billions of dollars, thousands of people, so much. Bring the activities of 80% out into the open, and it makes it easier to attack the 20% - the real problem - left behind. Would it increase addictions etc? I'm not talking about legalising a substance like meth - I see no benefit in that. I'm talking about the common, dirt cheap, available in massive quantities everywhere drugs. The type that if you want it, you get it easily and cheaply anyway. Just as easily as if it were legaly sold in every drug store. Maybe just legalise three. Pot. Ecstacy. A speed/coke type. Sure, there'd be a slight rise in users. Definitely. But not some scary thing. The pay off is huge. If there's a tiny % increase in usage, but far, far, far larger decrease in emergency issues with 'bad' purchases, and billions wiped out of the drug trade, if it strips so many people away from the trade - - - - anyway, somehow I think there has to be a better solution to the current plan of attack, and it's in releasing the recreational, non-criminal, relatively harmless user out of the illegal/black market cycle. I mean, imagine if you could somehow say, okay if you have 2 pills a night, two nights a year, you can do it legally and safely. That's hundreds of thousands of people who would fall under that category. That, at AUS$30 a pill, as seems to be the current rate here in Sydney (which I know is expensive compared to, say, London where they are about 1/4 that cost), and just 100,000 people instantly wipes $12,000,000 out of the drug trade. And what difference does it make to those users? None really. Doesn't change a thing for them, except they don't have the fear of spending time in jail or swallowing industrial strength cleaning chemicals. That level of consumption leads to probably similar statistics per 100,000 people in regards to personal health and anti social behaviour as per 100,000 people on a night on the booze. The difference though from that transaction on up the drug food chain is massive, and only positive.

And then there's pot, which just seems to have absolutely zero social side affects. Really.

Anyway, I hope you see my point, even if I don't really know how to somehow pull it off successfuly.
__________________
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 03-01-2007, 11:20 AM   #69
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Lindenhurst Long Island
Posts: 174
Local Time: 04:30 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Earnie Shavers
I think what is evident is that what people are trying to do is not so much find a way to legalise a class of dugs as such, but legalise a class of drug user. The vast majority of people who partake in illegal drug use, and I mean VAST majority, are not the junkies in the crack dens shooting up with dirty needles financed by a stolen DVD player or a $10 blow job who will end up in a mental hospital or dead having spread their misery and disease to many others. The majority are the recreational drug user who has the occasional pill at a dance party, or the occasional joint in the quiet of their own home. They - and their activities - do not disturb or intrude on others. They do not commit crimes (aside from the purchase and consumption of the drug of course). They do not partake in anti social behaviour. Any minor public disturbances as a result of their consumption are generally similar to that of drinkers - eg, getting behind the wheel of a car while under the influence. The two major problems with what they are doing are the fact that they supply criminal activity with billions of dollars a year - the majority of the drug trades earnings do not come from junkies and rock stars, they come from the suburban recreational users - and they take a risk with their health when dealing in an illegal trade of what can be toxic substances when unchecked and unregulated.
You find a way to bring those people out from the underground, from illegal to legal, give them a regulated, 'safe' option, and you instantly wipe out so many of the problems related to drugs. Billions of dollars, thousands of people, so much. Bring the activities of 80% out into the open, and it makes it easier to attack the 20% - the real problem - left behind. Would it increase addictions etc? I'm not talking about legalising a substance like meth - I see no benefit in that. I'm talking about the common, dirt cheap, available in massive quantities everywhere drugs. The type that if you want it, you get it easily and cheaply anyway. Just as easily as if it were legaly sold in every drug store. Maybe just legalise three. Pot. Ecstacy. A speed/coke type. Sure, there'd be a slight rise in users. Definitely. But not some scary thing. The pay off is huge. If there's a tiny % increase in usage, but far, far, far larger decrease in emergency issues with 'bad' purchases, and billions wiped out of the drug trade, if it strips so many people away from the trade - - - - anyway, somehow I think there has to be a better solution to the current plan of attack, and it's in releasing the recreational, non-criminal, relatively harmless user out of the illegal/black market cycle. I mean, imagine if you could somehow say, okay if you have 2 pills a night, two nights a year, you can do it legally and safely. That's hundreds of thousands of people who would fall under that category. That, at AUS$30 a pill, as seems to be the current rate here in Sydney (which I know is expensive compared to, say, London where they are about 1/4 that cost), and just 100,000 people instantly wipes $12,000,000 out of the drug trade. And what difference does it make to those users? None really. Doesn't change a thing for them, except they don't have the fear of spending time in jail or swallowing industrial strength cleaning chemicals. That level of consumption leads to probably similar statistics per 100,000 people in regards to personal health and anti social behaviour as per 100,000 people on a night on the booze. The difference though from that transaction on up the drug food chain is massive, and only positive.

And then there's pot, which just seems to have absolutely zero social side affects. Really.

Anyway, I hope you see my point, even if I don't really know how to somehow pull it off successfuly.
__________________
u2fan628 is offline  
Old 03-01-2007, 10:46 PM   #70
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 10:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


I socially smoked for awhile never became addicted. I could probably try coke and never have a problem with it what so ever. Now of course there's a difference between the addictive properties of a cigarette and coke. In fact many will tell you cigs are more addictive than heroin.
I smoked cigarettes for a brief time but never had any real craving for them. I am a social drinker of alcohol but I'm obviously not addicted as I have given it up for Lent before with no problems. I am however addicted to coke, the diet version in the silver and red can. I need one every morning. It's probably a good thing I've never developed a taste for coffee, especially in this age of expensive coffe places such as Starbucks and the trendy local places around here. I'll just stick to their pastries, with a Diet Coke.



Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
And a mass marketed meth would be completely different from what's on the streets, just like the meth at Johnny's house is different from that at Mary's.
I still say, though, that it would only make good (yet sinister) business sense for the newly legal corporate manufacturers of recreational meth, opiates and cocaine to maintain the addictive qualities of these drugs. If Coke and PepsiCo can sell us addictive items, then so should they be able to. Also, if it's "completely different from what's on the streets," then it likely isn't going to be as much fun, as strong, as euphoric. The beer sold on store shelves in Alabama is not as strong as that sold in Georgia, and the Florida beer is even weaker. The Carta Blanca cerveza I had last night was nowhere near as strong as my friend's frozen margarita, but probably a bit stronger than my wife's Michelob Ultra. The street legal retail versions of the newly legal drugs would not be as strong as the black market versions that would still be available and more appealing to many users.


Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
But see this is my point, this is all speculation due to the perception that "well this is happening now, so it will just get worse when it's legal." This isn't an exponential issue, and that's where your line of thinking is coming from.

Imagine if you will if alcohol is illegal tomorrow. Black market would be crazy, and there would be no regulations.

Drunk driving deaths would rise, longer drives to underground bars on the outskirts of towns, with no closing times set by law. Jails would be filling up. Break ins would rise due to search for cash for bloated costs of booze. Intoxication deaths would rise due to higher non-regulated proofs of alcohol.

Take a look at the % of alcohol related deaths, accidents, and illegal activity on a college campus between 20 year olds and 21 year olds. The 20 year old group will almost always be higher.

Now think of that nationwide.
I do not think alcohol, or tobacco, for that matter, are fair comparisons because they are currently legal and are mainstream consumer/retail items (with the exception of a shrinking number of "dry" counties in the U.S.). Prohibition failed because it sought to ban something that was already a legally accepted part of society. It continues to have its harmful side effects in these "dry counties" because, as you allude to with your scenario, people have to drive to the next county or several counties over or even the state line to get their alcohol, and if they drink on the way there or back or at some state line honky-tonk, then, obviously, they will be impaired while driving along miles and miles of public roads.

But that is not the direction of drug legalization; it is the opposite. You want to make more harmful items more readily available to more people (as if we are not dangerous enough with the potential to abuse alcohol).

The college campus scenario is also worthy of consideration (not a "moot point," but remember that another factor there is that many of these 18-20 year olds are away from home, unsupervised, and living in their own place for the first time. As far as the difference in "illegal activity" between 20 and 21 year olds, also remember that there will obviously be de facto "illegal activity" amongst the 20 year old drinkers, since they are illegally drinking underage while the 21 year olds are of legal drinking age. Also, they may be newer to alcohol than the older drinkers. They may less mature, less experienced, and less capable of making safe decisions.

~U2Alabama
__________________
U2Bama is offline  
Old 03-01-2007, 10:55 PM   #71
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:30 PM
Quote:
Prohibition failed because it sought to ban something that was already a legally accepted part of society
Cocaine, laudanum and heroin were all legal at one stage or another with different levels of social acceptance; the demonisation of drugs and the fear mongering employed by anti-drug crusaders will lump everything in the worst category.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 03-01-2007, 10:57 PM   #72
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 10:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Bama


I do not think alcohol, or tobacco, for that matter, are fair comparisons because they are currently legal and are mainstream consumer/retail items (with the exception of a shrinking number of "dry" counties in the U.S.).
But can be just as harmful.

Quote:
Originally posted by U2Bama

As far as the difference in "illegal activity" between 20 and 21 year olds, also remember that there will obviously be de facto "illegal activity" amongst the 20 year old drinkers, since they are illegally drinking underage while the 21 year olds are of legal drinking age. Also, they may be newer to alcohol than the older drinkers. They may less mature, less experienced, and less capable of making safe decisions.

~U2Alabama
This is exactly my point. The difference in the 20 year olds and the 21 year olds will be very similar to illegal drug users and legal drug users.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 03-01-2007, 11:07 PM   #73
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 10:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Earnie Shavers
Anyway, I hope you see my point, even if I don't really know how to somehow pull it off successfuly.
I do see your point, and you made some very valid ones. but still, several of the drugs you mentioned as potential legalization candidates, ecstacy, speed and coke are the very ones that have had the worst impact on people in my area. Quite often, in regards to ecstacy and speed, it has started with a few teens who occasionally use it at a dance party and it leads to increased use and other, stronger drug use. Ecstacy use builds a person's tolerance to the drug; they need more for each repeat event. The street legal retain version may not always be enough. Not a chemical addiction, but a compulsive need for higher doses. Now, some users may indeed only use it once every couple of months, and the tolerance ramp may not occur; but others may use it as frequently as I drank beer in college, and that is where the problem begins with chemically-based drugs and opiates, which can lead to the risk of overdose. Also, with opiates and cocaine, this can be a fast track to addiction. Even with weakened, street legal versions, there is an increased potential to introduce new people to the dangers that we fear from the current black market versions. This is my opinion, but I do not see where it is worth a few more deaths, rapes, robberies or assaults of innocent bystanders to these people.

~U2Alabama
__________________
U2Bama is offline  
Old 03-01-2007, 11:11 PM   #74
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 10:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Cocaine, laudanum and heroin were all legal at one stage or another with different levels of social acceptance; the demonisation of drugs and the fear mongering employed by anti-drug crusaders will lump everything in the worst category.
But that's just it: these items had much lower levels of acceptance and were nowhere near as mainstream as alcohol and tobacco have been. Also, the production of alcohol and smoking of various plants goes back much further in just about every culture, whereas the production of opiates, coacaine and chemical drugs as used today are relatively modern. They drank mead in Beowulf and beer and wine in the Bible.

~U2Alabama
__________________
U2Bama is offline  
Old 03-01-2007, 11:21 PM   #75
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 10:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


But can be just as harmful.
I'm not ignoring the potential for harm from the use of either of those two (although I would argue that the rapid effects and addictive qualities of opiates, meth and cocaine are greater than that from typical consumption of alcohol or tobacco). My point was merely between the comparison of mainstream retail products (tobacco, alcohol) as opposed to black market products. I would suspect that more people drink alcohol and/or use tobacco than there are people who use meth, opiates or heroin. I would also suspect that there are more people who would favor maintaining the legal status of alcohol (possibly not tobacco) than there are people who would support the legalization of opiates, meth or cocaine.

Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


This is exactly my point. The difference in the 20 year olds and the 21 year olds will be very similar to illegal drug users and legal drug users.
I am a bit confused as to this analogy. I think the ones who would have turned to the illegal version would have run their course with the legal retail versions, whereas beer drinkers may taper off their consumption after awhile (I certainly have).

~U2Alabama
__________________

__________________
U2Bama is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com