| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5 |
tupence_hapeny
Hazard to Others
Posts: 131
Registered: 25-3-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: continuing respiration (touch wood)
|
|
Drugs are addictive, in the main, simply because they work. They are particularly effective at what they are/were designed to do, whether that is the
alleviation of pain, tiredness, symptoms of trauma, psych illness, alleviation of symptoms of withdrawal, etc. THEY WORK.
Drug addicts are addicted to the drugs simply because they choose to put off experiencing the pain (whether physical, emotional, mental or whatever)
for the time being. They have this choice, as the drug is effective at stopping that problem.
However, it has been demonstrated time and time again, that even where the immediate pain associated with withdrawal can be alleviated (or even
prevented), people still choose to continue to use the drug.
Why is it so? Perhaps the reason why addicts continue to take drugs is related, perhaps even directly, to whatever issue caused them to prefer a
medicated existence in the first place?
I believe that this is the short, sharp and incredibly simple answer to addiction to any substance. Quite simply, unless the problem causing the
larger problem is addressed, the original problem will not go away. Punishing the person by imprisonment for taking drugs will not change their
willingness to use the same (unless and of course their root problem was the fear of freedom (commonly known as institutionalization)).
Fear of the consequences of taking a particular substance can only cause the person to swap their addiction to more socially acceptable drugs, such as
alcohol, sex, gambling, etc. (the last two are basically pro-drugs).
http://law.jrank.org/pages/494/Alcohol-Crime-Prohibition-Exp...
We are all the sum of our experiences, and our reactions to the same
|
|
|
PainKilla
Hazard to Others
Posts: 306
Registered: 29-4-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Sauron
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.
|
Quitting many times is not quitting... it's called failing. If you do it again, you didn't quit. And nicotine is more addictive in the long run than
any of the drugs you mentioned... What is your point? I don't overestimate the willpower of an addict. An addict is a person, not a machine. They have
as much potential willpower as the next person, that they choose to not exercise that willpower is a product of their own actions and choices.
Some people don't care as much about the harmful effects despite knowing about them. The idea comes to mind "If I'm to die anyway, why stop?", and so
truly, why stop? I know they may want to stop... but THEY CAN, it's simply that they don't TRULY want to.
| Quote: | Originally posted by Sauron
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.
|
Compulsion is a product of human actions, we aren't predestined toward taking the next puff - it's because we choose to.
| Quote: | Originally posted by Sauron
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?
|
They may not be helpful but they are nevertheless true to your point. I am not denying addiction - I know what addiction is. I personally find it to
come in the form of asking "Well why not?" and if that reason isn't good enough, then I will continue my habit. This reasoning is amplified many times
with the more addictive drugs to the point where it is pain v. pleasure - BUT, it's still only a matter of willpower to say "No, I won't do this
again; I am going to stop, no matter what the consequences." Most people just don't say this, either because they don't want to, or because they are
compelled to feel the effects of the drug opposed to their sober life. But it is still their decision to do so. Nothing changes that. Nothing.
| Quote: | Originally posted by Sauron
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.
|
It's not like that at all, an addict can stop and be free. A bankrupt individual can't grab money from thin air. Our hypothermic friend can't pull a
jacket out of his ass, and the man in the desert typically won't be lucky enough to find an oasis. There is no choice for any of these people, as they
are already in a situation they can't change. An addict can. Whether they do or don't is again, up to them, not to the drug.
Edit: How about having some more faith in people instead of assigning the blame to a drug? I have helped people get off heavy drugs, or at least curb
their use so that they don't do harm to themselves and society... Taking away the source will, like Tupence said, merely cause them to find pleasure
from other things in life. Anything can be addicting, drugs are simply so effective at dissolving the inadequacies of life that there is no logical
reason to stop, which is precisely why your 99% of people don't. They are told they want to stop, but they really don't. If they really did, they
would. And of course, this is going to be rebutted with the "You are overestimating the willpower of addict and underestimating the addictive power of
the drug." argument... Well, there is nothing I can do at this point, is there? If you have no faith in people to change, then I suppose that
viewpoint applies to yourself too, and nothing I can say can even lead you to consider otherwise?
[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
|
|
Drug habits are economically costly (as well as in other ways), on the simplest level drug addicts generally do not have sufficient discretionary
income to support their habit, that is to pay for their drugs.
So, they work at ways to get the cash by whatever means. They steal, mug, rob, embezzle, sometimes kill. Women and men both prostitute themselves. It
is a rare addict who has the means to pay for his shit, like Wm.S.Burroughs. Not every junkie is the scion of a business machine empire.
Does the expression "crack ho" ring any bells? The local equivalent is ee dawk Sampeng, Chinatown whore, a drugged out streetwalker - expression dates
from period when the local Chinatown was still full of opium dens. When opium was banned in the 50s the opium dens became whorehouses, the drug trade
never went away, just went underground of course.
I've heard all that claptrap about drug users being more sensitive to life's vicissitudes, and I think it is bullshit. Life is by definition a series
of jolts and shocks and pains of all varieties. You DEAL WITH IT. Putting oneself into a morphia haze is a slow form of suicide. However, as
enumerated above, it's the rest of us who pay the price. The asshole who sticks a gun in your face and demands your wallet and watch has a free will
too, his free will is to rob and sometimes kill and most likely he is paying for some smack or some crack.
@Painkilla, faith in people? Fith in PEOPLE?
Walk with me sometimes, with your eyes open, and I will show you the world as it is, you are apparently ery naive, quite inexperienced, or quite young
(usually same thing). I am old, experienced and cynical.
Maybe you are better off with rose colored glasses, as you doubtless won't much like what you see if you ever take them off.
[Edited on 8-4-2007 by Sauron]
|
|
|
PainKilla
Hazard to Others
Posts: 306
Registered: 29-4-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
So what is your point in saying that... Drugs FORCE people to rob other people? It is their choice. The reason drugs are so expensive is that they are
illegal and so people do what they need to do to support their habit.
You were a defense advisor or something along those lines, right? I guess it's ok to kill other people with nerve agents or other nasty weapons for
YOUR cause, but it's not OK for a drug addict to rob people because of what THEY want? Seems illogical to me. In fact, it seems like the same damn
thing.
The rest of us pay the price only because our society is built that way. Instead of letting the junky control his habit with a job that is productive,
we put him into rehab with OUR money, and since he doesn't want to be there, we are paying for his addiction instead of letting him, in the very
least, produce for society in order to sustain the habit.
Edit: Yes, I have faith in people. I have seen people killed, people kill (at least, through passive means), and children suffer at the hands of
others. Don't play the age card as if it's some golden ticket to a hall of wisdom. If you lose faith in people, nothing ever changes, and you are
nothing more than a spectator with opinions.
You are right, I am naive... but I prefer my naivete to believing we live in a world that is doomed. It is. But I will do my best to do what I can to
change it. At least then when I die, I can say I did something, instead of complain about how drugs are bad, people are nothing more than clockwork
oranges, and society is forever doomed at the hands of the ignorant masses.
[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
|
|
By definition and addict (as opposed to erely a user) is someone who has a chronic insufficnecy of will to stop taking drug(s) because for them it is
TOO DAMN HARD. Drugs are expensive, because drug makers and dealers are greedy grasping carrion eating lowlifes who really ought to be exterminated.
So addicts exercise that free will you think they have and go do what they HAVE TO DO which includes a whole panoply of violent crime to feed their
habits, enriching the scumbag dealers and the entire illicit supply chain, at OUR expense.
And you want to argue that this is OUR fault?
As to defense, well, next time someone wants to conquer your useless ass, I'll just let them, if you don't appreciate being defended. Or maybe you
will talk them to death? Or preach to them about free will? I'm obliged to conclude you are a simpleminded boob.
|
|
|
PainKilla
Hazard to Others
Posts: 306
Registered: 29-4-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Too damn hard? So I guess we are at least past the machinated humans aspect. I am glad.
Yes, it is our fault. If we didn't teach people bullshit about how bad drugs are and how you do them once and then die, then people wouldn't be
curious enough to try them after seeing many of their friends using and enjoying them. I personally have never used cocaine, amphetamines, or opiates,
despite the fact that they are offered on numerous occasions (for free even). I just have no interest in taking drugs for the sake of pleasure... why?
Because I educated myself before I started using drugs... educating through reading about peoples experiences, journals pertaining to how they act on
the mind, and books outlining various philosophies that spoke of the various moral/philosophical conflicts that arose from the use of drugs. And I
decided to not try them, simple as that. If I do, and I probably will eventually, since there's no point in living in complete ignorance to those
drugs, I will do so responsibly and know my limits, know what I am doing, and have an observer's perspective on my life, so that I know when I am
taking things too far. If people were educated in the same way, we would have far less problems. I can tell you this from experience, because many
people I’ve spoken to now share, to an extent, the same views that I hold.
So yes, it's our fault. Is it that hard to accept? Blame the drugs, blame the junky, but don't blame yourself. It's never our fault. WE are a part of
society, and it's society that causes people to be junkies. However little we influence this is unimportant, as we are still a part of society, and
thus - at fault. I am doing my part to repent and change what has been done.
As to defense: good, you won't have to raise a finger, and nor will I. The only reason people are so hostile towards each other is because of
precisely what you are doing now - instigating. I will always try and find a democratic solution to things, and if democracy doesn't work, then I will
reconsider my own viewpoint as there must be something wrong with it if no one else can agree with it.
|
|
|
Levi
Hazard to Others
Posts: 196
Registered: 24-1-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by PainKilla
Compulsion is a product of human actions, we aren't predestined toward taking the next puff - it's because we choose to.
|
100% true but still missing the point. Altering one's brain chemistry also alters the way they make choices. Doing drugs is still a choice, but in
reality the only "fair" choice is the first one.
"You cant help yourself because yourself sucks" -- Billy Bob Thornton, School for Scoundrels
Chemcrime does not entail death. Chemcrime is death.
|
|
|
PainKilla
Hazard to Others
Posts: 306
Registered: 29-4-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I know it changes the mind. It doesn't change it so that saying no is impossible, merely extremely unreasonable and illogical.
Doing drugs is definitely the "only" fair choice - why not? It's just a matter of using them in a responsible way. I didn't say a junky had to quit,
it would be preferably for sure, but taking an opiate every friday to kick back provides recreation with minimal side effects.
"All things are poison and nothing is without poison, only the dose permits something not to be poisonous." - Paracelsus
|
|
|
Levi
Hazard to Others
Posts: 196
Registered: 24-1-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by PainKilla
Doing drugs is definitely the "only" fair choice - why not? It's just a matter of using them in a responsible way. |
What I meant was the decision to *start* taking drugs was the only unbiased choice. After one has started taking drugs their future decisions will be
biased.
Chemcrime does not entail death. Chemcrime is death.
|
|
|
PainKilla
Hazard to Others
Posts: 306
Registered: 29-4-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I understand completely - but the bias created is never so absolute as remove the person's consciousness from the equation. Addiction, stems from
(personal observations) dissembling to oneself. The bias created in favor is huge, but there is never a forced hand literally binding you to take the
drug and ingest it. You are convincing yourself to do so. This is why addiction is such a difficult barrier to overcome. You need to tell yourself,
and actually convince yourself, of your desire to stop. The desire to stop will be opposed by many, many, many, reasons not to.
But there is always the ability to stop. Always. It's just very difficult for some to muster enough energy to overcome. But it is always there, even
with the bias, the inclinations, and the pain/anguish of withdrawal.
[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
|
|
Not really sure what you mean (@Painkilla) by "democracy" or what relation it has to this or any other discussion. Do you mean majority rule? We
should see what most people think and be obliged to alter our views to agree with them? Bullshit on that.
Democracy is a much abused word, it means something very different in Hanoi than in Moscow or Beijing or London or Wash DC. I wonder how you are
abusing it?
I applaud your never having experimented with drugs. Very wise. My observation is that during the 60s and continuing till now popular culture
dominated by Hollywood and TV and the music industry glorified drugs and drug culture and that more than anything else moved drug use to center stage
where before it had been confined to the so called underclasses and the inner cities. It moved into the suburbs and the middle class and Middle
American small towns. Any and all attempts at education by schools, churches, etc were drowned out. Celebrity overdoses became commonplace, the young
idolized popstars and actors before and after they died like Hendrix and Belushi and a pantheon of other idiots of same ilk. Comics who are still
alive but who apparently aren't all that funny when not on coke abound as well. How about the one who burned his face off freebasing and that was
before crack became a part of the vocabulary?
Only in that sense is this "our" fault but I say WE aren't Hollywood nor are WE the media moguls in NY and WE did not decide that celebrities were
only celebrities if they were also self destructive doper assholes.
If you want to educate, start by reshaping all of that into something that does not promote drug use, as it most certainly still does.
|
|
|
PainKilla
Hazard to Others
Posts: 306
Registered: 29-4-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I didn't say I have never tried drugs - I just haven't used the very addictive ones.
I'd rather change my view than get into a conflict that results in people getting killed over something as trivial as a viewpoint. And yes, by
democracy, I didn't mean it as a political term so much as majority rule.
Drugs have been a part of mankind since the dawn of time. Tobacco, entheogens, alcohol, you name it, and it's been around forever. Society changed
with media in general - it's not just the fault of drugs. Compare 1960 with 1850 (avoiding the Civil War  )... there is no TV, mass communication or anything like that - when these things did finally come into existence,
people were given an entirely new world, and because this new world had much information (like the celebrities doing their drugs – irresponsibly)
which could have been used in both good and bad ways, people took their chances. Of course, we see where this has led us today. If people were taught
about drugs and both sides of their use (or non-use), then we wouldn't be having such a huge "epidemic" today.
Education is meant to instill knowledge only, in my opinion. We should leave all decisions up to the receivers of that knowledge, and dissuading the
use of drugs needs a damn good reason for most people. And one that you won’t find for some drugs. It is better to take the neutral viewpoint and
show people both sides, and show them how to use, if they choose to, responsibly. Some will value the effects (of the drugs) and the costs that come
in maintaining them, while others will not want the responsibility of maintaining a habit and choose to not do them. Advocating one side only creates
confusion in the ranks, which is pretty much what we are seeing today.
Both Leary and Nixon were idiots. Both extremes lead to a path of disdain toward the other group - and very few are in the middle. So nothing gets
resolved, and both sides suffer.
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
I would not change any viewepoint to avoid violence, that is cowardice. I might however, pretend to do so. That is merely tactical.
You would likely be surprised at my personal viewpoint regarding the overall solution to the drug problem.
But first let me redict to one point: drugs are not expensive because of enforcement.
For many years we have been ratcheting UP enforcement, without so much as a pause. We are in the fourth or fifth decade of the "war on drugs" and we
are coming up on the centennial of the Harrison Act.
Yet just as remorselessly every year the drug supply gets bigger and the price goes DOWN not up.
Clearly this is a failure. Just as clearly the price is related only to the supply and enforcement/interdiction is immaterial.
----------
So faced with the totality of failure the futility of continuing on present course is obvious. It is obvious to conservative replublicans as well;
William F Buckley now advocates decriminalization. His concerns and mine are erosion of civil liberties and the rise of a police state, the absurd
costs of incarceration, the fact that 90% of our prison inmates are in for drug crimes, etc.
I doubt that he would go as far as I would. I would as the govt, contract out manuf of all "abuse" drugs to the pharm industry on usual lowest bidder
basis, and make such drugs available at pharmacies on demand without prescription. This would have the following effects:
1. No profit in drug making/dealing = end of drug business. End of accumulation of wealth by the cartels, organized crime etc. Sorry, Burma, Laos, the
Taliban, Columbia, FARC, Peru, and so one would have to find something else to do.
2. DEA etc would have to be retooled for some other tasks.
3. Addicts would no longer have to resort to crime to obtain drugs.
General reduction in crime rate seems a likely consequence.
4. A lot of drug users may fuck themselves up and die, hey, it's free will. Also evolution in action.
5. @TH will no longer "be advising client" drug makers on how to make P2P from styrene.
Now we all know why something as simple and logical as this will never happen.
1. The govt likes stripping us of civil liberties while building up a police state
2. The churches will never permit free distribution of drugs
3. Liberals will never countenance what they would call "abandonment of the underclasses" because liberals are do-gooders and that is the difference
between a liberal and a libertarian.
4. Parents expect politicians to protect their children from drugs (against all evidence that this will not happen) and so support politicians who
make emptry promises to do so.
In short the Nanny State will do what is best for you even is that means tossing your ass in the sammer and throwing away the key.
BTW drugs are, I am told, pretty easy to get even inside prison.
Cold blooded enough for you, @TH?
I don't think you really want to know what I consider to be cold blooded.
|
|
|
PainKilla
Hazard to Others
Posts: 306
Registered: 29-4-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Sauron
I would not change any viewepoint to avoid violence, that is cowardice. I might however, pretend to do so. That is merely tactical.
|
I would probably pretend too, but is being brave worth the life of another sentient being? In my opinion, it's not.
| Quote: | Originally posted by Sauron
You would likely be surprised at my personal viewpoint regarding the overall solution to the drug problem.
But first let me redict to one point: drugs are not expensive because of enforcement.
For many years we have been ratcheting UP enforcement, without so much as a pause. We are in the fourth or fifth decade of the "war on drugs" and we
are coming up on the centennial of the Harrison Act.
Yet just as remorselessly every year the drug supply gets bigger and the price goes DOWN not up.
Clearly this is a failure. Just as clearly the price is related only to the supply and enforcement/interdiction is immaterial.
|
I am not much of an economics person, so I don't have much to say in regard to pricing, except that with every year it's also getting more and more
dangerous and expensive to import/make the drugs. Also, drug lords have a monopoly on the market - since there are no antitrust laws for drugs, they
are free to do what they want, hence the high prices. Again, I am really not too sure about the whole subject though.
| Quote: | Originally posted by Sauron
I doubt that he would go as far as I would. I would as the govt, contract out manuf of all "abuse" drugs to the pharm industry on usual lowest bidder
basis, and make such drugs available at pharmacies on demand without prescription. This would have the following effects:
1. No profit in drug making/dealing = end of drug business. End of accumulation of wealth by the cartels, organized crime etc. Sorry, Burma, Laos, the
Taliban, Columbia, FARC, Peru, and so one would have to find something else to do.
2. DEA etc would have to be retooled for some other tasks.
3. Addicts would no longer have to resort to crime to obtain drugs.
General reduction in crime rate seems a likely consequence.
4. A lot of drug users may fuck themselves up and die, hey, it's free will. Also evolution in action.
5. @TH will no longer "be advising client" drug makers on how to make P2P from styrene.
Now we all know why something as simple and logical as this will never happen.
1. The govt likes stripping us of civil liberties while building up a police state
2. The churches will never permit free distribution of drugs
3. Liberals will never countenance what they would call "abandonment of the underclasses" because liberals are do-gooders and that is the difference
between a liberal and a libertarian.
4. Parents expect politicians to protect their children from drugs (against all evidence that this will not happen) and so support politicians who
make emptry promises to do so.
In short the Nanny State will do what is best for you even is that means tossing your ass in the sammer and throwing away the key.
BTW drugs are, I am told, pretty easy to get even inside prison.
Cold blooded enough for you, @TH?
I don't think you really want to know what I consider to be cold blooded. |
I agree with this completely. I just feel that if education comes first, then there will be minimal casulties in this transition and everyone could be
happy - both the users (now mostly responsible) and society (which is now profitting from the many jobs created, as well as additional workforce).
[Edited on 7-4-2007 by PainKilla]
|
|
|
halogen
Hazard to Others
Posts: 372
Registered: 18-4-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | I didn't say I have never tried drugs - I just haven't used the very addictive ones.
...
But there is always the ability to stop. Always. It's just very difficult for some to muster enough energy to overcome. But it is always there, even
with the bias, the inclinations, and the pain/anguish of withdrawal.
...
I know it changes the mind. It doesn't change it so that saying no is impossible, merely extremely unreasonable and illogical.
I don't overestimate the willpower of an addict. An addict is a person, not a machine. They have as much potential willpower as the next person, that
they choose to not exercise that willpower is a product of their own actions and choices.
|
If you haven't had the experience of going through such an addiction, who the fuck are you to describe it and criticise the people and their
willpower? It seems illogically to me that you can pass judgement with no real basis except for some 3 trenches idealism that hasn't even any
grounding in reality. In fact, do you not even state explicitly that you are wrong and you know it but still refuse to upgrade these admittedly faulty
beliefs?
| Quote: |
You are right, I am naive... but I prefer my naivete to believing we live in a world that is doomed. It is. But I will do my best to do what I can to
change it. At least then when I die, I can say I did something, instead of complain about how drugs are bad, people are nothing more than clockwork
oranges, and society is forever doomed at the hands of the ignorant masses.
|
I do admit, I find your blind faith in humanity to be... admirable although seemingly illogical. And of course, not to say I do not agree with you at
least a bit, but some of your points (what to call it?) are a bit contradictory and er (WORDS!!!  )
| Quote: |
As to defense: good, you won't have to raise a finger, and nor will I. The only reason people are so hostile towards each other is because of
precisely what you are doing now - instigating. I will always try and find a democratic solution to things, and if democracy doesn't work, then I will
reconsider my own viewpoint as there must be something wrong with it if no one else can agree with it.
|
To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, suppose you are a sheep and walk into a meeting of wolves who, in their infinite fairness, civilisation and above all
belief in democracy have decided to go juratic and decide as a commitee what to eat for dinner. They all think that you look very tasty and would
indeed satisfy their hunger. Naturally none of them wish to go chomp on some grass like some nasty dented-pail herbivores. Now does this not satisfy
the prerequisite above which you have stated? Will you say, "well, I guess if no one else thinks that I should not be ingested as some presomnary
aliment, I should change this particular view I have." ?
Of course the question of If this is the case o not or if thats even what I really think on the matter is a different question indeed. I
attack because I can. If that last sentence were in Latin, this would have ended soo much better.
[Edited on 8-4-2007 by halogen]
F. de Lalande and M. Prud'homme showed that a mixture of boric oxide and sodium chloride is decomposed in a stream of dry air or oxygen at a red heat
with the evolution of chlorine.
|
|
|
halogen
Hazard to Others
Posts: 372
Registered: 18-4-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Libertarian
"Just legalise it"
Somehow, this position seems more worthwhile than centuries of political haslet gnawing. The only valid function of government is to ensure that all
people have the right to do what they want provided it does not interfere with others' rights to do the same. Certainly, one cannot defend the idea
that a valid function of government is to ensure its own ever increasing power, or that government for governments' sake is either. The present system
is in fact based solely on privledge or unequal opportunity and unequal rights; this is not an ideal I support at all. Radical change, now. Whether it
is by democracy or Other means.
F. de Lalande and M. Prud'homme showed that a mixture of boric oxide and sodium chloride is decomposed in a stream of dry air or oxygen at a red heat
with the evolution of chlorine.
|
|
|
PainKilla
Hazard to Others
Posts: 306
Registered: 29-4-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by halogen
If you haven't had the experience of going through such an addiction, who the fuck are you to describe it and criticise the people and their
willpower? It seems illogically to me that you can pass judgement with no real basis except for some 3 trenches idealism that hasn't even any
grounding in reality. In fact, do you not even state explicitly that you are wrong and you know it but still refuse to upgrade these admittedly faulty
beliefs?
|
Drug addictions aren't the only type of addictions in the world. Nicotine is something that I have known for a while too. In Europe, I started smoking
at about the age of 10. I eventually stopped, but I was a heavy smoker up until about two years ago.
I also know people who were quite heavy into heroin, cocaine and all of those drugs - even know people who have died because of them. I know first
hand what addiction is, even though I haven't personally experienced addiction under those drugs.
Also, having the willpower, and choosing not use it is two different things. When I smoked, I was always making up excuses to myself such as "Well,
why shouldn't I?". I didn't have any reason to stop, simply because I was never presented with a suitable alternative. Sure, my lifespan would
decrease and I'd die young, but you know… Fuck it. I'd enjoy my life in the process. This is the kind of reasoning that causes people to not abandon
their use of drugs. The drugs surely are persuasive, but there is always the ability to choose and change. I found my reason to come in the form of
caring for another, and that gave me, eventually, enough willpower to stop. Being near forcefully compelled to do something, and actually being forced
are still radically different things.
| Quote: |
I do admit, I find your blind faith in humanity to be... admirable although seemingly illogical. And of course, not to say I do not agree with you at
least a bit, but some of your points (what to call it?) are a bit contradictory and er (WORDS!!! )
|
Well, I can't prove anything to you without you actually knowing me, can I? If you disapprove of my beliefs, then that's totally fine - the only thing
I am curious to is why you don't have faith? My "blind" faith isn't blind because I am a part of humanity, and I know I am capable of good (and
change). If I can, then so can others. Unless I’m a mutant. Or insane.
Also, I don't care much, and this will sound illogical, to keep what I say logical. You can hold two viewpoints at once; indeed, I have found this
sometimes to be the best solution. Read the Tattvartha Sutra (at least the first chapter) and then try and continue your argument.
| Quote: |
To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, suppose you are a sheep and walk into a meeting of wolves who, in their infinite fairness, civilisation and above all
belief in democracy have decided to go juratic and decide as a commitee what to eat for dinner. They all think that you look very tasty and would
indeed satisfy their hunger. Naturally none of them wish to go chomp on some grass like some nasty dented-pail herbivores. Now does this not satisfy
the prerequisite above which you have stated? Will you say, "well, I guess if no one else thinks that I should not be ingested as some presomnary
aliment, I should change this particular view I have." ?
Of course the question of If this is the case o not or if thats even what I really think on the matter is a different question indeed. I
attack because I can. If that last sentence were in Latin, this would have ended soo much better.
|
Then I die. I am not alive to care, nor did I have anyone to try and defend. Too bad for me. Good for the wolves, I eat healthy: so I should hopefully
at least taste pretty well.
Humans don't eat each other. In fact, nothing that humans do requires that we kill each other in order to achieve our ends. The only reason people
kill is because it's often (and it is) easier to kill than find a resolution that satisfies both parties. I'd rather see no loss of life rather than
my perspective be deemed the “right” one. There is never a right perspective – it’s always a matter of viewpoint. Sometimes, this contradicts
morals, beliefs and other things – but there is no absolute right or wrong in the world. So what you say about killing… well, you are right.
Wolves need to eat to, and killing is overall OK. But all I am saying is why kill when with a little more effort you can avoid it?
You can use extreme examples like, well what if they have radical beliefs like Hitler. Well, there is really nothing I can say there. At this point, I
guess it's either run or hide - but killing? Killing just about ensures a counterattack, and then also you have that weight on your chest of killing
someone. In any case, I have thought about this, and it's a good thing I know chemistry, because incapacitating agents work pretty well. It's just too
bad people can't solve problems with coin flips or friendly games. Killing seems to be the most satisfying means to an end.
I just refuse to take part in it. Unless it's some extreme scenario that will (likely) never happen. Then perhaps my beliefs will change, but only if
it’s someone else life on the line.
[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
|
|
Legalization has some corollaries.
1. Unlike alcohol and tobacco, on which the govts all profit enormously from "sin taxes" the govts must not tax drugs. If they do the drug dealers
still have a profit margin. If they do not, the dealers are out of business. Remember, the govt is going to GIVE THE DRUGS AWAY, not even sell them at
cost. The taxpayers will be subsidizing the free drugs, but that will cost far less than the present taxpayer subsidy of the drug war and its effect,
bloated prisons. We have in US 900,000 people imprisoned for drugs (and 100,000 for other offenses.) Every one of those people costs something like
$35,000 a year to keep locked up. Many of those people (the nonviolent ones) could be paroled. And the former DEA agents could be reemployed as parole
officers I suppose.
Some drug gangs/cooks might try coming up with new drugs in an effort to stay in business. The govts will need to rapidly identify and
manufacture/distribute these to destroy any possibility of a re-emergence of a drug underground economy. As simple as that.
No more drug war, fewer drug POWs, no more cartels. I predict young people will be far less attracted to drugs because the mystique of the subculture
will go away. No more HIGH TIMES magazine.
Another corollary. The Congress will have to permanently indemnify the contractor manufacturers against any and all civil/criminal liability arising
from making the drugs and the users will have to indemnify the pharmacies that distribute the drugs (and syringes etc.) as well.
Like I said all this won't happen, I can hear ATLA the American Trial Lawyers Assn, ABA, AMA the medical assn, and so on SCREAMING about all this.
Furthermore I said earlier that the contract manufacture should be lowest-bid. Let me alter that. The manufacture should be ASSIGNED as a DUTY of the
pharm industry just as we (FDA) presently assign the making of various unprofitable generic drugs to pharm companies so that the medical profession
has what it needs. The pharm companies will have to do it as part of the price of being in the business they are in. This reduces the taxpayer subsity
because the pharm industry subsidizes instead.
After all Beyer invented heroin, Merck popularized cocaine (along with Sandoz and Hoffman La Roche), many many pharm companies cranked out crank for
decades, Sandoz invented LSD, name a abuse drug that did not emerge from or through the pharm industry? Even PCP first was a legal anaesthetic. So,
let the pharm companies pay for the consequences of their own products gone awry. KARMS IN ACTION!
|
|
|
12AX7
Post Harlot
Posts: 4803
Registered: 8-3-2005
Location: oscillating
Member Is Offline
Mood: informative
|
|
| Quote: | | So, let the pharm companies pay for the consequences of their own products gone awry. KARMS IN ACTION! |
No one has yet satisfactorially explained to me the purpose of reparations.
Apu: "... I am 'selling' only the idea of karmic realignment."
Homer: "You can't sell that! Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos!" (slams the front door)
Apu: "He's got me there."
|
|
|
vulture
Forum Gatekeeper
Posts: 3330
Registered: 25-5-2002
Location: France
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Well legalization does seem to work for marihuana in the Netherlands. The government hasn't yet expanded it to hard drugs and I doubt that'll happen.
The only side effect is drug tourism from countries where it is still illegal to sell.
That said, one should consider that EU members and US members probably have an entirely different perspective. Laws in the EU are generally more
lenient and users are only seldomly incarcerated (if they are caught with large quantities). We don't have this general awareness of a war on drugs
either, atleast not in my perspective. Meth labs and such are few and far in between, most seems to be imported.
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
|
|
Scuttlebutt has it though that the MDA/MMDA precursors are mostly Dutch exports, FWIIW. And I am talking worldwide.
________________
Anyway maybe assigning the pro-bono manuf to the originating corporations is impractical, but the govts can still allot them by whatever means, with
the bigger companies getting the bigger burden. Or however they are already doing similar thing with orphan generics.
[Edited on 8-4-2007 by Sauron]
|
|
|
tupence_hapeny
Hazard to Others
Posts: 131
Registered: 25-3-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: continuing respiration (touch wood)
|
|
Sauron,
Ex-army here, so please explain what you may think is cold-blooded? Callsign was 80 also known as dropshorts?
I too will never change my mind to avoid violence, same as I will never run anywhere but toward whatever the problem is, part of my makeup - although
I too appreciate the utility of subterfuge.
Quite frankly, I know basically what is your idea of cold-blooded and it may suprise you to know that I advocate the use of precisely those weapons in
the ongoing strife in Lebanon, preferably by non-state aligned, private Lebanese Maronite Christian bodies (old SLA would be a good start), having
established small enclaves near the southern border of the same nation, but their families will remain living in their homes to the south of that
border (Hizbollah aren' t the only ones who know how to play dirty).
As to your plan, if you read the entirety of my posts you will see that that approach is precisely what I advocate. The difference is in how to get
there. No political party has the willpower to absorb the backlash of instituting such a move unless society has gone to hell in a handbasket already.
I simply intend to accelerate the strife - and thus the decision making process. For mine, it is the lesser of two evils, far fewer people will suffer
in even a decade of accelerated strife, than would suffer in another century of half-arsed, indifferent 'enforcement'.
As to drug prices going down as a result of enforcement, you confuse the effects of greater scale manufacturing and the effect of market forces
(super-saturation of the market = competition) with the general function of price control. If the governments held the power to make, distribute and
license drug use (although prescriptions will equal quasi-prohibition) they will have the dollars to meet the social costs of allowing use. Taking the
grasping arseholes out of the equation will lower prices to the point that no-one has to steal, rob or kill to get their fix. With this approach I am
in total agreement, however, I believe distribution should be via hotels & clubs (with proof of age, etc.).
I know that this doesn't CURE the problem, however, I can't see anything that will. Thus it is time to mitigate the harm, both to the user and society
as a whole. I can't see that we will become a society of stoners anymore than we are a society of drunks now, we will simply be a society where a
persons choice of drug is not how they are judged.]
tup
We are all the sum of our experiences, and our reactions to the same
|
|
|
halogen
Hazard to Others
Posts: 372
Registered: 18-4-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | | I know that this doesn't CURE the problem, however, I can't see anything that will. Thus it is time to mitigate the harm, both to the user and society
as a whole. I can't see that we will become a society of stoners anymore than we are a society of drunks now, we will simply be a society where a
persons choice of drug is not how they are judged. |
On this I agree wholeheartedly. But one must admit that there are some fundemental changes in society and attitudes which people have for any such
thing to occur. The reason that such things are judged to be impossible is the prevalent attitude and social structure at present which is only
enforced by the government and other societalstructures that gain. Vashington gets more power as a direct result of these machinations. Who would turn
down this power. Face the facts; the system is essentially corrupt rotten to the marrow. And something must be done immediately.
F. de Lalande and M. Prud'homme showed that a mixture of boric oxide and sodium chloride is decomposed in a stream of dry air or oxygen at a red heat
with the evolution of chlorine.
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
I did not say drug prices go down as a result of enforcement, I said drug prices historically have consistently gone down due to swelling supply and
that enforcement and interdiction efforts have apparently, evidently, been irrelevant. In other words, DESPITE enforcement, not BECAUSE of it.
Which only serves to underscore the abject failure of enforcement.
My "plan" is pie in the sky and will never happen for a multitude of reasons. That makes it no plan at all.
|
|
|
joeflsts
Hazard to Others
Posts: 226
Registered: 14-1-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by halogen
| Quote: | | I know that this doesn't CURE the problem, however, I can't see anything that will. Thus it is time to mitigate the harm, both to the user and society
as a whole. I can't see that we will become a society of stoners anymore than we are a society of drunks now, we will simply be a society where a
persons choice of drug is not how they are judged. |
On this I agree wholeheartedly. But one must admit that there are some fundemental changes in society and attitudes which people have for any such
thing to occur. The reason that such things are judged to be impossible is the prevalent attitude and social structure at present which is only
enforced by the government and other societalstructures that gain. Vashington gets more power as a direct result of these machinations. Who would turn
down this power. Face the facts; the system is essentially corrupt rotten to the marrow. And something must be done immediately.
|
Awww, but the definition of corruption is in the eye of the beholder I think. In fact amateur chemists are less than a minority. Scream till you
lose your voice, it won't help I'm afraid.
Joe
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5 |
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
