"Drugs are the curse of the land and turn women into prostitutes"

[Vincent Vega]

http://www.bathtubginstill.com/

Ah, ok, I thought ther was a word missing or something like that.

There are really all kinds of things

 

[U2Bama]

You keep mentioning meth, and you are right in doing so to a certain extent, it's a very dangerous drug.

But what you don't seem to get, is that meth is the moonshine of drugs. There is no regular recipe, there is no exact science, it's people in a basement making this shit.

Honestly meth, probably would never fit in this discussion because of this. Just like "moonshine" would never fit into the discusion of alcohol.

That's part of my "speculation:" even if we legalized certain narcotics, opiates, etc. in version manufactured under a closely regulated process, you would still have these moonshine basement versions, because to some people, that's where the fun is...

What do we do about the illegal, black market manufacture, distribution and use of those potent products?

~U2Alabama

 

[A_Wanderer]

The problem that argument has is that under the current regime of illegality the only option people have is the street stuff - with 100% of the profits going to crime.

 

[U2Bama]

Then I go back to the argument that making more of them legal would make them more acceptable to people who would nod experiment or use them if illegal; that opens up the risk of those people creating additional dangers, risks and burdens to me.

So you would have a new batch of users consuming these new legal versions, and many of the same old experienced users consuming the current toxic versions. And you would have the legal predators and the illegal predators.

~U2Alabama

 

[maycocksean]

Then I go back to the argument that making more of them legal would make them more acceptable to people who would nod experiment or use them if illegal; that opens up the risk of those people creating additional dangers, risks and burdens to me.

I agree with Bama here. I think you have to be kidding yourself not to think that legalizing currently illegal drugs won't lead many people to believe that the drugs are more "acceptable." Being able to walk into a store and buy something as opposed to find a dealer is a lot easier. Whatever drugs are legalized will, I predict, enter the same realm of relative acceptability currently occupied by alcohol and tobacco. We need to weigh the impact of that shift with any drugs we consider legalizing. Marijuana, I'd say MIGHT be okay, especially since it's practically arrived in the realm of alchohol and tobacco WITHOUT legalization. But LSD, crack cocaine, and what have you? I don't think so. . .

[Bmany of the same old experienced users consuming the current toxic versions. And you would have the legal predators and the illegal predators.

~U2Alabama [/B]

However, I disagree with this. I think you'd see the "toxic versions" pretty much evaporate. Moonshine is hardly widespread today, certainly not to the extent was during Prohibition or in "dry counties." I think the key may be to look at whether use of the drug is so widespread and so common that it's not worthwhile to keep criminalizing it--that was the case the alcohol. Again, marijuana may fit the bill.

As to the dangers of drugs--I dunno. . .I just saw two movies "Sherrybaby" and "Half Nelson" which made me soooo glad I never used drugs. But then maybe those were propaganda films using scare tactics, put out by The Man. . .

 

[A_Wanderer]

LSD is arguably the single greatest drug discovery of the 20th century and the way that the US Government managed to deal with it is an exellent illustration. Powerful to be sure but less dangerous than alcohol.

 

[BVS]

What do we do about the illegal, black market manufacture, distribution and use of those potent products?

~U2Alabama

What do we do now? Is it working?

 

[A_Wanderer]

LSD is arguably the single greatest drug discovery of the 20th century and the way that the US Government managed to deal with it is an exellent illustration. Powerful to be sure but less dangerous than alcohol.

Just to clarify I am talking about psychoactive drugs, not in general - since LSD < Penicillin

 

[U2Bama]

However, I disagree with this. I think you'd see the "toxic versions" pretty much evaporate. Moonshine is hardly widespread today, certainly not to the extent was during Prohibition or in "dry counties." I think the key may be to look at whether use of the drug is so widespread and so common that it's not worthwhile to keep criminalizing it--that was the case the alcohol. Again, marijuana may fit the bill.

People in dry counties an go to the next county over to purchase it and bring it back home for consumption; or more illegally, they can bootleg it - go to the next county and bring it back to their county to sell it.

The toxic versions - the more potent, more dangerous versions ont he street today, would remain in a black market culture because they would be more fun and better at satisfying the addictions of the addicted. That is my speculation.

~U2Alabama

 

[U2Bama]

What do we do now? Is it working?

I am not saying that what is done today is a complete success, but I certainly don't think that making it more available will alleviate the problems that remain wiht the black market versions.

~U2Alabama

 

[BVS]

I am not saying that what is done today is a complete success, but I certainly don't think that making it more available will alleviate the problems that remain wiht the black market versions.

~U2Alabama

But you keep speculating that somehow the treatment of blackmarket drugs will change, and I just don't see any basis for this.

 

[U2Bama]

But you keep speculating that somehow the treatment of blackmarket drugs will change, and I just don't see any basis for this.

It is not my intent to imply that the black market drug situation would change; it would remain, with all of its risks, dangers, and affiliated criminanl activity. Plus, we would have an increase of users of drugs in general due to the newly legalized versions being more acceptable and available.

~U2Alabama

 

[anitram]

The bottom line to me is that there is a difference between decriminalizing certain drugs (which I support) and the state providing all drugs to the public at a profit (which I don't support for a hundred different reasons).

Edited for clarity.

 

[maycocksean]

I am not saying that what is done today is a complete success, but I certainly don't think that making it more available will alleviate the problems that remain wiht the black market versions.

~U2Alabama

I think it depends on the drug. Right now the entire illegal drug trade IS black market, out of necessity. That would most certainly change if drugs were legalized, with the black market being relegated to a sort of "boutique drug user" market for serious drug users who want to use product that doesn't follow whatever FDA/gov regulations are put into place.

I do agree wholeheartedly with you though that there would be an uptick in casual, experimental use just because of the increased availability (just head on over to Wal-Mart for your pack of marijuana smokes) and increased social acceptablity that comes with legalization.

Which is why I would be very wary of any widespread legalizing of the drugs that are currently illegal.

 

[BVS]

It is not my intent to imply that the black market drug situation would change; it would remain, with all of its risks, dangers, and affiliated criminanl activity.

Did the black market for alcohol remain the same after the lift of prohibition?

 

[A_Wanderer]

The bottom line to me is that there is a difference between decriminalizing certain drugs (which I support) and the state providing all drugs to the public at a profit (which I don't support for a hundred different reasons).

Edited for clarity.

I think that we can both agree against the state providing recreational drugs to it's citizens.

 

[INDY500]

I think that we can both agree against the state providing recreational drugs to it's citizens.

So Huxley was wrong? The State will not hand out Soma.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I don't think that should be the domain of the state, but I also think that criminalising drug use is where the state tramples freedom of thought.

 

[U2Bama]

Did the black market for alcohol remain the same after the lift of prohibition?

No. The "black market" for alcohol did pretty much disappear with prohibition (except in "dry" counties), but for the most part, alcohol is alcohol. I've already pointed out that there are various alcoholic drinks that are of different levels of potency (beer/wine/champagne < Jaegermeister, Pure Grain Alcohol, etc.), but for the most part, drinks containing alcohol will have a general association of side effects and dangerous. The variety of drugs people want legalized have a much broader range of dangers and side effects.

~U2Alabama

 

[BVS]

No. The "black market" for alcohol did pretty much disappear with prohibition (except in "dry" counties), but for the most part, alcohol is alcohol. I've already pointed out that there are various alcoholic drinks that are of different levels of potency (beer/wine/champagne < Jaegermeister, Pure Grain Alcohol, etc.), but for the most part, drinks containing alcohol will have a general association of side effects and dangerous. The variety of drugs people want legalized have a much broader range of dangers and side effects.

~U2Alabama

I think this is where your argument starts to crumble. You constatly talk about how people will still want the non regulated drugs because they will be "more fun" but the same can be said for alcohol as well. But I don't see a bad moonshine or absinthe problem here in the states.

 

[U2Bama]

All alcohol was legalized (in most states and counties). Alcohol generally has the same effects across the board, and the severity of effects usually vary based on higher proof or consumption or lower tolerance for the consumer. As I stated in my previous post, the effects of the broad variety of drugs people want legalized vary in a much broader spectrum.

Consider this: what percentage of alcohol users are negatively affected by their consumption of alcohol? What percentage of meth users are negatively affected by their use of meth? What percentage of cocaine users are negatively affected by their use of cocaine? Is there "casual use" of a drug like meth? Well a Miller Lite version of it be enough for the people who have the addictive drive of today's street meth? I do not know the scientific answers to these questions; I am just putting them out there for consideration and discussion.

~U2Alabama

 

[BVS]

All alcohol was legalized (in most states and counties). Alcohol generally has the same effects across the board, and the severity of effects usually vary based on higher proof or consumption or lower tolerance for the consumer. As I stated in my previous post, the effects of the broad variety of drugs people want legalized vary in a much broader spectrum.

This isn't true. There are alcoholic drinks such as absinthe that are suppose to be more hallucienegentic.

Consider this: what percentage of alcohol users are negatively affected by their consumption of alcohol? What percentage of meth users are negatively affected by their use of meth? What percentage of cocaine users are negatively affected by their use of cocaine? Is there "casual use" of a drug like meth? Well a Miller Lite version of it be enough for the people who have the addictive drive of today's street meth? I do not know the scientific answers to these questions; I am just putting them out there for consideration and discussion.

~U2Alabama

I think the fairer question to ask is what percentage of alcoholics are negatively affected, and what percentage of addicts are negatively affected? If we're going to compare apples to apples, then compare addicts to addicts and casual users to casual drinkers.

Well they may not make the news but yes there are casual meth users. But once again to be fair and compare apples to apples compare meth to moonshine or bathtub gin...

 

[A_Wanderer]

You keep bringing it back to methamphetamine, what of thinks like ergine, codeine or ephedrine; different bar of harm - different threshold.

Hallucinogens are interesting.

 

[U2Bama]

I am not familiar with absinthe. What other psychoactive effects does it have? Is it potent and unpredictable enough to kill a person with one shot, as could one bad hit of acid?

Regarding the second part of your response, I am of the view that addiction is in iteself a negative effect, so asking "what percentage of alcoholics/addicts are negatively affected" answers itself...all of them.



~U2Alabama

 

[U2Bama]

You keep bringing it back to methamphetamine, what of thinks like ergine, codeine or ephedrine; different bar of harm - different threshold.

Hallucinogens are interesting.

They may be interesting, but my concerns with the three you mentioned are their potential side effects on the user and what that can do to non-interested parties whom the user may encounter. Ephedrine is most popular int his market as a component in drug coctails, which numerous risk factors for a quick thrill. Ergine and ephedrine individually run the risk of panic and hostility in the user, which can obviously affect those around him or her. Codeine is an opiate and can be addictive or at least habit-forming. The depressing post-high of this type of opiate may not affect anyone other than the user, so I guess that is only the user's problem. I would not ride in a car with anyone on codeine.

~U2Alabama

 

[A_Wanderer]

Bad acid did Tricky Dick warn you about that one?

LSD is taken such small ammounts it cannot give you an overdose (there are no well documented and verified cases of an LSD overdose and anybody using it in any reasonable ammount cannot die from the LSD; now hallucinating and falling down a flight of stairs thats another matter but no different than if you were shit faced).

Also worth pointing out that the ammounts are so small that you can't become addicted; and nor would you want to given the nature of the drug.

 

[A_Wanderer]

What I find interesting is that when it's drugs that have tradition such as caffeine, nicotine and alcohol there is one set of rules and for drugs that don't it suddenly becomes wrong to manually alter your brain chemistry. It isn't the drugs that make people act like bastards, maybe only those without anybody or with self control should be allowed free thought.

 

[fly so high!]

i never thought i'd see the day intelligent people claim support for south east asia's drug handling.

You took the words right out of my mouth! *i'm in total dis-belief!*

 

[U2Bama]

Bad acid did Tricky Dick warn you about that one?

No; an elementary school friend of mine lost a friend to this experience in high school.

LSD is taken such small ammounts it cannot give you an overdose (there are no well documented and verified cases of an LSD overdose and anybody using it in any reasonable ammount cannot die from the LSD; now hallucinating and falling down a flight of stairs thats another matter but no different than if you were shit faced).

Even in small amounts, due to the chemical formula of LSD, the variations of dosage can vary and be unpredictable. Talking about people using it "in any reasonable amount" is putting a lot of trust int he typical drug user. Keep in mind, the Grateful Dead and Widespread Panic are two of my favorite bands. Since high school, I've been around enough LSD and people using it to know that its effects on people can vary greatly from person to person. And I know it's not addictive. The risks may be remote; some random tripper may have a psychotic trip or flashback, but that won't necessarily harm him or her. Now that user may harm someone they encounter, but that is their own damn problem.

Also worth pointing out that the ammounts are so small that you can't become addicted; and nor would you want to given the nature of the drug.

A guy I went to high school with took seven hits one night, so the "small amounts" deficit can easily be overcome. He later took hits off of one of those green canister-tanks of freon. he died later that night.

~U2Alabama

 

[U2Bama]

What I find interesting is that when it's drugs that have tradition such as caffeine, nicotine and alcohol there is one set of rules and for drugs that don't it suddenly becomes wrong to manually alter your brain chemistry. It isn't the drugs that make people act like bastards, maybe only those without anybody or with self control should be allowed free thought.

I can think of several very nice, respectable people that I know personally who act like bastards when they sit around and drink all day.

I can also think of several very nice, respectable peole that I know personally who act like goofy bafoons after they take a few tokes of of a joint.

Cocaine, meth, and heroin/opiates can cause aggressive hostile beghavior in users; again, this may not be a problem for the users themselves, only those whom they encounter.

~U2Alabama