Vincent Vega
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
A_Wanderer said:
Ah, ok, I thought ther was a word missing or something like that.
There are really all kinds of things
A_Wanderer said:
BonoVoxSupastar said:
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.
U2Bama said: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.
U2Bama said:[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]
U2Bama said:
What do we do about the illegal, black market manufacture, distribution and use of those potent products?
~U2Alabama
Just to clarify I am talking about psychoactive drugs, not in general - since LSD < PenicillinA_Wanderer said: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.
maycocksean said:
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.
BonoVoxSupastar said:
What do we do now? Is it working?
U2Bama said:
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
BonoVoxSupastar said:
But you keep speculating that somehow the treatment of blackmarket drugs will change, and I just don't see any basis for this.
U2Bama said:
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
U2Bama said:
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.
I think that we can both agree against the state providing recreational drugs to it's citizens.anitram said: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.
A_Wanderer said:I think that we can both agree against the state providing recreational drugs to it's citizens.
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Did the black market for alcohol remain the same after the lift of prohibition?
U2Bama said:
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
U2Bama said: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.
U2Bama said:
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
A_Wanderer said:You keep bringing it back to methamphetamine, what of thinks like ergine, codeine or ephedrine; different bar of harm - different threshold.
Hallucinogens are interesting.
Angela Harlem said:i never thought i'd see the day intelligent people claim support for south east asia's drug handling.
A_Wanderer said: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 said: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.