| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5 |
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
For every altruistic idealistic drug researcher there seem to be 1000 wannabe heads of the Cali Cartel out there. So it is hard to blame the cops for
throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I steer clear of the things they are sensitized about, those being drugs, explosives and chemical weapons. Where I am interested in such things I
confine myself to the paper chase.
|
|
|
PainKilla
Hazard to Others
Posts: 306
Registered: 29-4-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
There is no blame to be assigned, it's just the way things are, much to my and perhaps a few (literally) others' dismay. I hate the cartel individuals
even more than you probably, seeing as I can't even do research on LEGAL, note, not quasi-legal, but LEGAL drugs, without being chastised or hassled.
The work is really interesting... and I plan on pursuing it through the legal channels - such as going to school for medicinal chemistry/pharmacology
(soon too, and I can't wait...).
People like an easy way out and unfortunately, many drugs like meth, are cheap to make and thus profitable. These people don't have ethics - selling
is unethical in general. I don't even like the big pharmaceutical companies poisoning children with sympathomimetic amines and SSRI's and all of that
junk. It's really quite sad... I bet you if someone started making patented pharmaceutical drugs for personal use, they'd get arrested too.
I know what you mean, finding someone with ethics in the world of drugs is akin to searching for a politician without a personal agenda - that is,
best of luck to you. It sucks, but that is the way it is. I just wish that the penalties for personal use weren't so harsh, then I'd actually consider
some sort of activity in the field; now instead, I have to wait until my professional career.
Truly limiting todays society is…
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
Oh, I can and do involve myself in medicinal chemistry, just not the recreational variety.
|
|
|
PainKilla
Hazard to Others
Posts: 306
Registered: 29-4-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Heh... well, to each his own of course  .
Still, recreation provides a psychological benefit - so one can consider that therapeutic in a way. Recreation is good sometimes, after all, look what
happens when you mix too much serious in the average persons lifestyle: see Bush. He should go back to recreation.
But let's not veer the thread into the bottomless pit of political debate... just an example folks - let us move on .
[Edited on 5-4-2007 by PainKilla]
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
Not my meaning at all.
For "recreational drugs" read "abuse drugs" which covers all the formally illicit ones and a lot of prescription medications as well. "controlled
substances" would put it equally well. I also steer clear of performance enhancing (sports) drugs, and knocking off of Viagra etc. even though I
certainly know how.
|
|
|
PainKilla
Hazard to Others
Posts: 306
Registered: 29-4-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
But some controlled substances are banned for political reasons despite their potential medicinal use. Of course, this is another topic all together,
especially since some of these can be abused.
But overall, I share your sentiments. Again, I just wish the penalties were a bit less extreme.
|
|
|
uncompromisedfreedom
Harmless
Posts: 8
Registered: 24-3-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
To go back to the OP, I vote for the end of the drug war.
Why? Simple: It is morally wrong to lock someone in a cage for trying to get high/providing people with the material to get high.
If the drugs which are currently illegal are deservedly illegal, then surely alcohol should be illegal as well.
Such blatant hypocrisy -- with lives at stake -- is not tenable for a civilized world, or even one that plays at being civilized.
There's no bad guys who are bad simply because they prepare drugs. People who make and take drugs are not doing so to harm and cramp the chemical
pastimes of amateur chemists who happen to find themselves on the other side of these immoral and arbitrary laws. Don't think you're better than
anyone -- enjoy a beer? Have a friend who does? Compare the effects drugs have had on Joe Sixpack-twice-a-week to the effect they've had on the guy
who uses opiates twice a week. The laws are senseless.
The "warriors" (believe me, they won't have a seat at the table in Valhalla) are the ones who are responsible for your problem.
Read the reason drugs should be legal one more time. There's no argument here. There's no "In my opinion".
Putting people in jail who haven't harmed another or another's property directly is akin to murder: you are stealing a part of their life. A murderer
steals the entire remainder. The legal system is just stealing a portion -- but it's in cold blood.
I tell you -- it's gonna land them in the same circle of hell, though. And anybody who supports these laws isn't going to be in a much better place,
IMHO. It's just partial murder -- and that's what you support if you support the drug laws.
BTW, none of you -- none of you -- who are social beings don't have someone in your circle of family, friends, and associates who is both a good
person and a current or former drug user. You must ask yourself: are you for full enforcement of the current laws? That means every pot head whose had
a decent amount of pot in their possession, say 5 different times is going to be doing substantial time in prison. Does that make sense? Know a middle
aged housewife who gives her stressed out friends a Xanax once in a while? They're everywhere -- filthy drug dealers. Say goodbye to your friends and
family -- whether you know they use or not -- 'cause if you're going to stand idly by while other people's brothers and sisters are locked up, it's
only logically and morally consistent for you to start NARC'ing your people out, too.
\"We get one shot at life. Give us our freedoms.\"
|
|
|
The_Davster
A pnictogen
Posts: 2861
Registered: 18-11-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: .
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Levi
One cannot simultaneously believe in the inherent dignity of a human being and forcefully make their decisions for them. If a person is not allowed
to decide his or her own fate, the end situation is worse than death--it is the fate of a meaningless life which will inevitably be followed by death.
|
In response to uncompromisedfreedom
(See Levi...it works everywhere )
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
I suggest, @Tup, that you talk to some coke addicts, heroin addicts and amphetamine addicts before you make your stupid and inane arguments to justify
your criminality.
Your alcohol moral-equivalence argument will not wash.
What you do is not amateur chemistry and you do not represent amateur chemistrs, you are a drug cook and an advocate for drug cooks and I hope they
lock your ass up and throw away the key.
|
|
|
joeflsts
Hazard to Others
Posts: 226
Registered: 14-1-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Levi's comments work in any context - even to the drug user that runs an innocent person over in his car or kills the inhabitants of the apartment
building down because he/she od'ed and lit the place on fire.
It also works for the meth cook that boobey trapped his lab, forever disfiguring the law enforcement agent trying to collect dangerous material.
Yeah, those cooks are all just out of freedom of speech.
Joe
|
|
|
solo
International Hazard
Posts: 3967
Registered: 9-12-2002
Location: Estados Unidos de La Republica Mexicana
Member Is Offline
Mood: ....getting old and drowning in a sea of knowledge
|
|
......all the finger pointing and chastizing will not influence those keeping the status quo on the issue .......each man(woman) has a
choice.........that's called freedom!
No one said it would be an easy road, but its a path a few are willing to take ...........solo
[Edited on 6-4-2007 by solo]
It's better to die on your feet, than live on your knees....Emiliano Zapata.
|
|
|
Levi
Hazard to Others
Posts: 196
Registered: 24-1-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by joeflsts
Levi's comments work in any context - even to the drug user that runs an innocent person over in his car or kills the inhabitants of the apartment
building down because he/she od'ed and lit the place on fire.
It also works for the meth cook that boobey trapped his lab, forever disfiguring the law enforcement agent trying to collect dangerous material.
Yeah, those cooks are all just out of freedom of speech.
Joe |
Erm, I never meant to imply that there is no such thing as crime. The statement I made should be interpreted regarding one's -personal- decisions.
That is to say: those decisions which affect only the decision maker. Constructing booby traps is a malicious act that can not be included here.
I must say, though, you do hit the heart of the matter with your first example. Irresponsible individuals cause damage. The question, then, is
"Is it possible to prevent the damage by removing the means?"
It seems like an open and shut case until you consider the practical applications.
Example:
If a person commits a crime with a gun, the crime would have been avoided if the gun been removed from the equation.
This is true, perhaps, but the gun is not the important part of the equation--it is the person that is important.
We should not be trying to remove drugs from society because an irresponsible individual cannot be trusted with them. We should be removing the
irresponsible individual.
The war on drugs is a practical war. It is a war that exists because there is no way to remove the person from the equation until -after- a
crime has been committed. Drugs are an easy target but they are not the most important target. A drug will always be a drug but to have a criminal
you must first have a crime. It's a terrible pity evolution works so slowly--irresponsible people (and the unfortunate near them) have a much higher
death rate than those who live prudently.
(I put the important part in bold for you people that like to skim topics as much as I do)
Chemcrime does not entail death. Chemcrime is death.
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
I find I am utterly disinterested in continuing to participate in a forum where so many members are so totally and diametrically opposed to simple
values that are important to me.
|
|
|
tupence_hapeny
Hazard to Others
Posts: 131
Registered: 25-3-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: continuing respiration (touch wood)
|
|
Sauron,
I respond directly to this post:
| Quote: | Originally posted by Sauron
I find I am utterly disinterested in continuing to participate in a forum where so many members are so totally and diametrically opposed to simple
values that are important to me. |
How is this to be read?
If your concern is the fact that many of those who have chosen to participate in the argument regarding this topic disagree with your opinions, then I
must state that that is your opinion and that you are of course entitled to it.
If however, you are imputing that the argument is worthless and shouldn't take place as a result of that opinion then I am truly saddened. I have read
the opposing arguments and quite simply I am astounded at the willingness of some amateur chemists to categorise those that they disagree with, on the
basis of that disagreement. It is almost as if those individuals wish that there was a list of precursor materials which could not be discussed,
perhaps, even the same list as that issued by a variety of governments - about the effects of which those same people complain so long and so loud.
I find it intriguing that some individuals are willing to believe that because a person uses or doesn't use drugs, they are good or bad simpliciter.
The truth is, as always, somewhat more complex. Yes, some bad people use drugs (there really is no denying it), however, some good people use drugs as
well (if only of course, one is willing to overlook their choice of recreational pursuit).
I have dealt with (not to) some very nice, very normal people who happen to use drugs. Of course, when dealing with me, they often faced the loss of
their job, livelihood, family, house, freedom of movement and/or liberty because of this choice. As neither science nor medicine can demonstrate that
their choice of drugs is anymore destructive (apart from illegality) than the more socially acceptable drugs (eg. alcohol, tobacco, sleeping pills,
etc.), I find the fact that they are in this position intolerable.
I realize that this position upsets you, however, this is an ARGUMENT, precisely because their are two diametrically opposite veiwpoints - if there
were only one then it would be a lecture.
We are all the sum of our experiences, and our reactions to the same
|
|
|
joeflsts
Hazard to Others
Posts: 226
Registered: 14-1-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Levi
| Quote: | Originally posted by joeflsts
Levi's comments work in any context - even to the drug user that runs an innocent person over in his car or kills the inhabitants of the apartment
building down because he/she od'ed and lit the place on fire.
It also works for the meth cook that boobey trapped his lab, forever disfiguring the law enforcement agent trying to collect dangerous material.
Yeah, those cooks are all just out of freedom of speech.
Joe |
Erm, I never meant to imply that there is no such thing as crime. The statement I made should be interpreted regarding one's -personal- decisions.
That is to say: those decisions which affect only the decision maker. Constructing booby traps is a malicious act that can not be included here.
I must say, though, you do hit the heart of the matter with your first example. Irresponsible individuals cause damage. The question, then, is
"Is it possible to prevent the damage by removing the means?"
It seems like an open and shut case until you consider the practical applications.
Example:
If a person commits a crime with a gun, the crime would have been avoided if the gun been removed from the equation.
This is true, perhaps, but the gun is not the important part of the equation--it is the person that is important.
We should not be trying to remove drugs from society because an irresponsible individual cannot be trusted with them. We should be removing the
irresponsible individual.
The war on drugs is a practical war. It is a war that exists because there is no way to remove the person from the equation until -after- a
crime has been committed. Drugs are an easy target but they are not the most important target. A drug will always be a drug but to have a criminal
you must first have a crime. It's a terrible pity evolution works so slowly--irresponsible people (and the unfortunate near them) have a much higher
death rate than those who live prudently.
(I put the important part in bold for you people that like to skim topics as much as I do) |
I'm no advocate of the war on drugs... But I do understand it and respect the reason why it exists. Whether or not I approve is of little
consequence.
Joe
|
|
|
indigofuzzy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 145
Registered: 1-10-2006
Location: DarkCity, Bay of Rainbows, Moon
Member Is Offline
Mood: Distilled
|
|
I have to agree wholeheartedly and wholeheadedly with uncompromisedfreedom. S/he put down in words something I have known for a long time.
I do believe that some drugs are harmful in and of themselves, but I stand by my claims that drug law is causing more problems than any drugs are.
Meth cooks / other drug cooks don't ruin things for amateur chemists, the government does. They ruin amateur chemistry because many nations have
decided they value a false sense of security above freedom. As stated earlier in the thread, we have become a society that tries to remove the
objects involved in crimes, rather than deal with people. It doesn't work. It allows a few bad people to ruin freedom of choice for the many good
people.
I must reiterate, that the only thing that can ever make things better is education. WHy not try teaching this concept of
responsibility? The so-called "golden rule" - don't be ignorant and irresponsible, because it messes things up for everyone.
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
Wake up and smell the coffee. The drug cooks ARE and to a great extent already have ruined things for amateur chemists and they have done so callously
and for the sake of nothing but money. They prostitute science like $2 whore but we are the ones who are getting fucked in the process.
You want to blame government but you refuse to take it back to first cause.
Your argument is too facile and your solution is too ineffectual.
|
|
|
PainKilla
Hazard to Others
Posts: 306
Registered: 29-4-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
There is truth in Sauron's words; every day that a clandestine lab is busted, amateur chemistry suffers a setback.
But...
Removing the "cooks" from the equation solves nothing. It's not those people that are harming chemistry - it's the laws. The laws are made because of
the people that can't use drugs in a way beneficial to all, and so, laws are required in order to ensure that these people don't hurt themselves and
society.
So, realistically:
1) We remove the source of the drugs. Aside from the fact this is impossible simply because of the money involved, it changes NOTHING about what
people know about chemistry TODAY. Chemistry will still be chastised, just because of what society is led to believe, with or without drug
manufacturers. Nothing changes; this is not an effective solution for keeping amateur chemistry afloat.
2) We change the laws. This is as equally unrealistic, since the drugs that are primarily synthesized (meth, heroin etc...) will never become
unrestricted, simply because, they are banned for a damn good reason. Very few can use them responsibly. Politics and money are of course involved, so
this solution certainly won't happen either.
3) Education. This, in the long run, holds the key to the revival of amateur chemistry. This, and only this, is the only REAL solution that will do
anything. Both sides of this argument are too naive (in my humble opinion) because they are both pointing fingers instead of looking for a VIABLE
solution. Education is the only thing that's even remotely close toward achieving our goal; removing the source does nothing - people are still
ignorant... removing the laws ruins society - now people especially hate chemistry...
And I regret to inform everyone – the change won't be in our lifetimes. Our children will be the ones changing the world. Not us. You can be
optimistic, but try convincing the people who have lost children to drugs, or are completely oblivious to science. Our children on the other hand, can
be properly taught that some drugs CAN be used responsibly, and that chemistry is a part of our lives, and then, and only then, will amateur chemistry
crawl out of Purgatory (or is it Hell?) and make the slow climb towards Heaven.
But until then, both sides, please, instead of pointing fingers, how about coming to a common resolution like democracy was meant to do?
It is, after all, just as ridiculous to attack the laws as it is manufacturers – since the true source of both of these “roots of evil” is not
they, but people… and the only thing that changes people is knowledge. And that, in my opinion, is our only hope.
And so, in conclusion, if you really want to do your part in saving amateur chemistry – stop preaching your beliefs to the choir, and stop
castigating the Buddhist – instead, show them both sides of the argument, and then let them choose. Few people like extremes when they know ALL of
the facts.
|
|
|
vulture
Forum Gatekeeper
Posts: 3330
Registered: 25-5-2002
Location: France
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I am always baffled by the hypocrisy displayed in the drugs discussion in the US.
When it comes to guns, people kill people, not guns kill people.
But when it comes to drugs, drugs kill people, not the people who use drugs.
Very fubar on the moral scale if you consider that most people take drugs voluntarely, while nobody tries to get shot on purpose, no?
One shouldn't accept or resort to the mutilation of science to appease the mentally impaired.
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
How voluntarily do addicts take drugs? By definition an addiction is a habit not easily broken. Opiates are physically addictive, as are barbiturates
and amphetamines, withdrawal ranges from difficult to life threatening. Cocaine is intensely phychologically addictive. Bottom line is that the
success rate of drug rehabilitation programs, over virtually any length of time, is only 1-2%.
That means the failure rate is 98-99%. That means almost no addicts who WANT to get clean and stay clean (and that is the language they themselves use
to describe the process) succeed in doing so.
They may have voluntarily started taking those highly addictive drugs, and most likely (to listen to what they say themselves) with no intent to
become addicted, but they DO become addicted, and once they do, "voluntarily" is not a word I would use to describe their relationship with the
drug(s). "Chemical dependency" is a clinical term, and compulsion is more like it.
A lab rat given a choice between food/water and cocaine, will continue consuming cocaine till it dies of starvation/dehydration.
Maybe it does so voluntarily?
[Edited on 7-4-2007 by Sauron]
|
|
|
PainKilla
Hazard to Others
Posts: 306
Registered: 29-4-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Sauron
That means the failure rate is 98-99%. That means almost no addicts who WANT to get clean and stay clean (and that is the language they themselves use
to describe the process) succeed in doing so.
|
First off, where do you get your statistics from? You know, 99.654321% of all people that use drugs get addicted the first time... it's true.
I saw it in The Onion.
You are also of course assuming that 98-99% of the addicts in rehab are there because they want to be. Unfortunately, something like 50-70% are
required to be there by law, and they don't WANT to quit... so the success rate isn't that bad. Many people in rehab would be functional in society,
if the laws weren't so extreme as to put them there in the first place. Of course, had they not used, then they could have avoided their fates. But
most especially, if they were taught how to properly use (or not use) drugs, they again, wouldn't be there in the first place.
You can't keep blaming the drugs... have you ever even used an addicting substance? We don't have Substance D - though apparently everything seems to
be that in your mind. People are at fault, not the drug. People ALWAYS have a choice, whether they are compelled more towards one direction or another
is irrelevant, it's still always THEIR choice.
And here is something more to think about : as to why people choose drugs over sobriety:
"Who lives longer: the man who takes heroin for two years and dies, or the man who lives on roast beef, water, and potatoes till ninety-five? One
passes his twenty-four months in eternity. All the years of the beef-eater are lived only in time." -Aldous Huxley
Edit: Yes, the rat does so voluntarily. I would too if my life was either:
a) Stuck in a cage doing nothing, no mates, just sitting in a cage
or
b) Enough cocaine to kill me.
The choice is obvious, in the end, you still lie on the same deathbed - how you got there was entirely up to you, and I would choose the route of
pleasure, rather than boredom.
[Edited on 7-4-2007 by PainKilla]
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
@Painkilla, I have had friends and employees in rehab, and other friends who are/were rehab counsellors, and others in NA. etc, and I get my numbers
from them. I don't find your arguments satisfactory, they are circular. BTW I have read much or most of Huxley starting in easrly 60s, fiction and
non, and all in all think he was often an ass. I know several ex junkies who agree with me - the beefeater has the better deal.
I said nothing about 99% of addicts being addicted after one use.
Have I ever used an addictive substance? Yes. Coke, several times. Many years ago. Alcohol, many times, till I had to drop it due to diabetes. Did so
without any problems. But I also know many alcoholics who have whole decades blacked out. Go figure. And I have known people who became addicted to
opiates (like morphine) through solely medical use.
|
|
|
PainKilla
Hazard to Others
Posts: 306
Registered: 29-4-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
How are my arguments circular?
The statistics comment is just an example of "47% of all statistics are false." I know people in rehab too, and people that have successfully
completed rehab (to this day). Last I checked, there wasn't only one rehab, and this is why your statistics (or mine for that matter) can't be used to
definitely prove anything.
I don't understand your reasoning... are you saying that drugs are like little fallen angels in our head literally forcing us move towards a needle
and inject ourselves? I know what addiction is like too - and the only thing it takes to break it is willpower. You clearly had the willpower to
stop... those alcoholics that you knew - well, their lives may not have been so good as to be able to just stop the one thing that helped them move on
through the day.
The compulsion IS strong, but it's not a final end. The final end is willpower, and the knowledge to support that willpower. Of course a junky won't
get off of heroin because, they know even if they do, they still have so little anyway. What reason are they given to stop? If you want drug use to
stop, then teach people about why it can be bad, and why it can be good, and then go from there. Your attack on drugs themselves, as if they are some
living entity, is quite pointless I feel.
It's almost like taking away a toy that a baby likes to chew on... you took away the toy, well, now they'll chew their nails. You didn't solve the
problem - and that problem is they WANT to chew... not that they are forced to.
If you want to solve anything, always treat the root: the people - don't take away the fertilizer because some people take too much and get burned.
[Edited on 7-4-2007 by PainKilla]
|
|
|
The_Davster
A pnictogen
Posts: 2861
Registered: 18-11-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: .
|
|
There was a study done at one point. A heroin addict was locked in a room with 2 piles of powder. He was told that one pile was heroin and the other
was a poison that would kill him if he even tasted it. All other ammenities were provided to him for the duration of the test, which was longer than
his withdrawl period. He never tasted either pile of powder.
Addiction may make you want to do more drugs, but it is always your concious choice whether or not to stick more in your body.
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
I think you both overestimate the willpower of an addict (as opposed to a nonaddict) when it comes to the particular substance(s) he/she is addicted
to.
Look at cigarette smoking. Many smokers have quit...many times! (I have never been a cigarette smoker.) Some succeed, most fail. The tobacco industry
is built on the addictiveness of cigarettes, phychologically, maybe physically, the arguments rage on. I think we would all agree that heroin anc
cocaine and meth are more addictive than cigarettes would be not?
Yet, many people have a very hard time mustering the willpower to quit smoking, despite all the experience and evidence and personal observations of
the damage it does. I have had friends die of lung cancer and emphysema. Not a petty sight.
So, my point is, yes, every puff that cigarette smokers take can be said, technically, to be "voluntary" but at the same time, there remains the
compulsion acting in the other direction. More often than not, the compulsion wins out.
Reductio ad absurdam arguments like the stuopid "little fallen angels" remark are not helpful. You are not denying the reality of addiction, or its
nature, I take it? Or are you?
Telling an addict that it's justa matter of will, is like telling a bankrupt that it's only a matter of money. True but dysfunctional advice. Tell a
man in a desert that it's only a matter of water. Tell someone freezing to death that it's only a matter of staying warm. Easy for YOU to say.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
