CRYSTAL METH has no health benefit ...
it was created for the sole purpose to cause addiction and profit from it.... illegally.
You really should do your research before you continue to spout off even more false information. Crystal Meth dates back to WWII. It was used by both the axis and the allies forces. It was extensively used to reduce fatigue and suppress appetite. Following the war era, Meth tablets were referred to as "work pills" and used widely in Japan. Not only that, it was legally used in the U.S. as well.
it has been around for a long time...and it will be around for a long time into the future. making it illegal does nothing to stem the tide. it just puts money in the pockets of those that don't deserve it
I would love for drugs to be legal because it would be a step in the direction of personal freedom...but i would settle for drug decriminalization. it would be a start and would focus the efforts of the DEA and local police in the direction of the suppliers and not the get highers
CRYSTAL METH has no health benefit ...
it was created for the sole purpose to cause addiction and profit from it.... illegally.
You really should do your research before you continue to spout off even more false information. Crystal Meth dates back to WWII. It was used by both the axis and the allies forces. It was extensively used to reduce fatigue and suppress appetite. Following the war era, Meth tablets were referred to as "work pills" and used widely in Japan. Not only that, it was legally used in the U.S. as well.
Blitzkriegs were more effective because of meth. Bombers used to stay alert and awake for runs until they complained it made them too angry and agitated. They switched to Dexedrine (an amphetamine).
CRYSTAL METH has no health benefit ...
it was created for the sole purpose to cause addiction and profit from it.... illegally.
You really should do your research before you continue to spout off even more false information. Crystal Meth dates back to WWII. It was used by both the axis and the allies forces. It was extensively used to reduce fatigue and suppress appetite. Following the war era, Meth tablets were referred to as "work pills" and used widely in Japan. Not only that, it was legally used in the U.S. as well.
Blitzkriegs were more effective because of meth. Bombers used to stay alert and awake for runs until they complained it made them too angry and agitated. They switched to Dexedrine (an amphetamine).
angry and agitated yeah we need more people like that around :roll:
CRYSTAL METH has no health benefit ...
it was created for the sole purpose to cause addiction and profit from it.... illegally.
You really should do your research before you continue to spout off even more false information. Crystal Meth dates back to WWII. It was used by both the axis and the allies forces. It was extensively used to reduce fatigue and suppress appetite. Following the war era, Meth tablets were referred to as "work pills" and used widely in Japan. Not only that, it was legally used in the U.S. as well.
it has been around for a long time...and it will be around for a long time into the future. making it illegal does nothing to stem the tide. it just puts money in the pockets of those that don't deserve it
I would love for drugs to be legal because it would be a step in the direction of personal freedom...but i would settle for drug decriminalization. it would be a start and would focus the efforts of the DEA and local police in the direction of the suppliers and not the get highers
It's nice to see you guys join the conversation after a weekend of overly dramatic posts that brought nothing worth reading to the conversation......well for the most part
Remember I think legalizing marijuana would be reasonable and I would support such a movement. I'm strongly opposed to legalizing the more destructive harder drugs. I'm not going to provide any links describing the negative effects of drugs such as meth or heroin, nor am I going to provide links detailing the potential impact on society given legalization. When you come to a forum such as this, genuine discussion is what I seek to engage in. I can google any topic and become well-versed in a minute if I so choose. I don't need to for this one though.
I'm curious to know from the pro-legalization side a couple of things:
1. If it was possible to rid the world of the aforementioned 'hard' drugs, would the pro-legalization side concede that this would be a good thing? Or would this side suggest that the world needs these drugs? Despite having no medicinal value and used rather almost exclusively in recreational fashion, do these drugs actually have some value that is legitimate?
2. Given that it is likely the answer to the first question above is 'yes'... I'm wondering why we would make a move to legalize and accept these drugs into society's fold? The war on drugs has been difficult - because this is so... do we give this fight up? If we did, what becomes our next fight? Do we give that one up too when it gets difficult?
3. When an addict needs their drugs, theft, prostitution, and violence has shown to manifest itself so that the dependent can make it to their next fix- day to day. Further, medical costs for treatment and rehabilitation are shared by all. Can we really cite freedom of choice given the direct impact of the drug on the user as well as the indirect impact on the rest of society? In other words, can we actually condone such drug use knowing very well of the destructive qualities related to the usage?
To further illustrate what I am getting at (and using an example I have used before): if someone wanted to raise a cougar in an urban setting, should they have the same freedom? Despite the potential risk to themselves and others, consistency would demand that it be the person's freedom of choice to raise the cougar as a pet. Are rules and regulations that serve to maintain the safety and welfare of the larger masses not significant? Is it only freedom of choice when it serves a position's side to an argument (for this, 'yes'... but for that, 'no')?
Remember I think legalizing marijuana would be reasonable and I would support such a movement. I'm strongly opposed to legalizing the more destructive harder drugs. I'm not going to provide any links describing the negative effects of drugs such as meth or heroin, nor am I going to provide links detailing the potential impact on society given legalization. When you come to a forum such as this, genuine discussion is what I seek to engage in. I can google any topic and become well-versed in a minute if I so choose. I don't need to for this one though.
I'm curious to know from the pro-legalization side a couple of things:
1. If it was possible to rid the world of the aforementioned 'hard' drugs, would the pro-legalization side concede that this would be a good thing? Or would this side suggest that the world needs these drugs? Despite having no medicinal value and used rather almost exclusively in recreational fashion, do these drugs actually have some value that is legitimate?
2. Given that it is likely the answer to the first question above is 'yes'... I'm wondering why we would make a move to legalize and accept these drugs into society's fold? The war on drugs has been difficult - because this is so... do we give this fight up? If we did, what becomes our next fight? Do we give that one up too when it gets difficult?
3. When an addict needs their drugs, theft, prostitution, and violence has shown to manifest itself so that the dependent can make it to their next fix- day to day. Further, medical costs for treatment and rehabilitation are shared by all. Can we really cite freedom of choice given the direct impact of the drug on the user as well as the indirect impact on the rest of society? In other words, can we actually condone such drug use knowing very well of the destructive qualities related to the usage?
To further illustrate what I am getting at (and using an example I have used before): if someone wanted to raise a cougar in an urban setting, should they have the same freedom? Despite the potential risk to themselves and others, consistency would demand that it be the person's freedom of choice to raise the cougar as a pet. Are rules and regulations that serve to maintain the safety and welfare of the larger masses not significant? Is it only freedom of choice when it serves a position's side to an argument (for this, 'yes'... but for that, 'no')?
This is more like it.
1. If the world could somehow rid itself of hard drugs I would be all for it. You are right about one thing, they are nothing but a detriment to society.
2. The reason that even though we answer yes to your first question and feel like we should make these drugs legal is based on multiple reasons. The first reason is that eradicating these drugs from our world is impossible. You admit that the war on drugs is a complete failure yet you'd like to keep fighting it. It simply is never going to work. The Reagan government ramped up the war on drugs in the early 80's thinking that throwing a whole bunch of money into enforcement would have some ability to eradicate drugs. It hasn't and it won't. We think that legalizing drugs would quite possibly slow down gangs and violence associated with drugs. Basically diminishing the majority of the black markets drugs.
Also we feel that far too much money is spent on the war on drugs and that money would be better served towards education and help for those who have become addicted.The billions that are spent on prisons, lawyers, and enforcement of these laws may go much further towards eradicating hard drugs if that money was spent on education and treatment programs to keep people away from these nasty drugs.
There are also some that simply feel the government doesn't have the right to tell us what we can and can't do to our bodies. I'm sort of on the fence on this point. Mainly because society isn't that intelligent and may sometime need a little regulation. But I haven't quite made up my mind on this. But it does bring me to your analogy.
As I said I do believe in some regulation in society for obvious reasons like this. But there is a reason your comparison doesn't work. When people are told they may not have a cougar in an urban setting they don't try to have a cougar as a pet anyway. They either find another hobby or live on a farm or maybe buy a zoo. But drugs will just never be like that. They are always going to be around in some capacity or another. There isn't a cougar epidemic as far as I can tell.
When something doesn't work, we need to try something different.The worst society to me is one that doesn't learn from it's mistakes. The war on drugs has been a mistake for a long time. I think it's time to try something new.
there will always be pain and suffering responsibility for each individual take care of their world
blend into others share peace so much anger in this thread how many are high
think individual peace comes with drugs guess not
so why hide there why say yes legal or not why accept the hole you dig why so angry
trying to reach hell you found it already
Remember I think legalizing marijuana would be reasonable and I would support such a movement. I'm strongly opposed to legalizing the more destructive harder drugs. I'm not going to provide any links describing the negative effects of drugs such as meth or heroin, nor am I going to provide links detailing the potential impact on society given legalization. When you come to a forum such as this, genuine discussion is what I seek to engage in. I can google any topic and become well-versed in a minute if I so choose. I don't need to for this one though.
I'm curious to know from the pro-legalization side a couple of things:
1. If it was possible to rid the world of the aforementioned 'hard' drugs, would the pro-legalization side concede that this would be a good thing? Or would this side suggest that the world needs these drugs? Despite having no medicinal value and used rather almost exclusively in recreational fashion, do these drugs actually have some value that is legitimate?
2. Given that it is likely the answer to the first question above is 'yes'... I'm wondering why we would make a move to legalize and accept these drugs into society's fold? The war on drugs has been difficult - because this is so... do we give this fight up? If we did, what becomes our next fight? Do we give that one up too when it gets difficult?
3. When an addict needs their drugs, theft, prostitution, and violence has shown to manifest itself so that the dependent can make it to their next fix- day to day. Further, medical costs for treatment and rehabilitation are shared by all. Can we really cite freedom of choice given the direct impact of the drug on the user as well as the indirect impact on the rest of society? In other words, can we actually condone such drug use knowing very well of the destructive qualities related to the usage?
To further illustrate what I am getting at (and using an example I have used before): if someone wanted to raise a cougar in an urban setting, should they have the same freedom? Despite the potential risk to themselves and others, consistency would demand that it be the person's freedom of choice to raise the cougar as a pet. Are rules and regulations that serve to maintain the safety and welfare of the larger masses not significant? Is it only freedom of choice when it serves a position's side to an argument (for this, 'yes'... but for that, 'no')?
1. I agree the world would be a better place without the "harder" drugs. But there are those that like them. Actually like the effects, thinks it helps them. My opinion should way nothing into their ability to use those drugs. The value is to the person who uses them, whether it be to numb the pain of their existence, or to "expand their mind" ... it doesn't matter why they want to use them, or the benefits they seek...it isn't up to me to tell someone else what they can put in their own body...
2. There is a difference between difficult and not working. WWII was difficult, but it was working. Vietnam was difficult and NOT WORKING...there is a difference. Why does there automatically have to be a next fight...a next war on social issues...it doesn't need to exist in any capacity. Legalizing the drugs, or decriminalizing them (two different things I know) would help rid the inherent advantages to the "pushers"...the fact that society says those are taboo is an automatic trigger to people...society allowing something to exist and condoning it are two different things. If we take people in and quit the back alley black market it may be more possible to save those who want it and give a safer path to use for those that want the drugs. It also takes away the incentive for many street gangs to exist, not to mention the cartels.
3. When the drug user begins to affect those around him, through property theft it becomes a problem and there are laws in place to punish that behavior. But you won't find me arguing that prostitution should be illegal either. If two grown adults want to engage in sex for money who am I to say they cannot. Treatment is a much better payment option than billions wasted fighting a war we cannot win. Overall I would say that costs to society would go down, whether it be through the release of non-violent drug offenders from prisons or through the resources of law enforcement re-allocated to more important things like solving property and violent crimes. I don't condone drug use, I don't think people should use them....but I am not the end all be all and my morality, as much as it works for me and I would like to think would work for everyone, should not be forced on someone else.
and for the latter example. I don't care if someone raises a cougar...I would venture to guess there are thousands of people in urban areas right now that are raising pets that could possibly pose a threat to their neighbors...I don't think it is in the governments best interest to fight continual what if scenarios...if you want to make crimes worse when drugs are involved go ahead...but the drugs should not be the crimes on their own. Same with exotic pets. I wouldn't want a cheetah next to me, but wouldn't it be in my best interest to know the cheetah was there and be able to make decisions based on knowledge rather than just have to assume everyone has a cheetah in their basement. We can come up with examples all day long about specific things that may pose a danger to others...If my cheetah kills, hurts, or terrorizes someone, that is when I should be held criminally liable. i would much rather live next to a person illegally owning a dangerous big cat than someone cooking meth in their garage.
I will pose one question back at you, if freedom and personal choice pose dangers to us and others, why do we have any? Why do I have the freedom to drink but not get high? why do I have the freedom to drive? why do I have the freedom to own a gun? You say why should we legalize drugs, I say why does it matter what I do as long as i am not affecting others?
We don't know what dangers would ACTUALLY happen if we legalized drugs, all we know is the dangers that ARE happening because they are illegal... i can't see more people dying as a result of legalized drugs...but we have to look further than just our street, our neighborhood...the effects of the war on drugs are felt internationally...
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I never said the war on drugs is a failure... I have siad it has been difficult. It has only been in recent years we have seen this fight occur at the point of production- Mexico and Columbia are making concerted efforts for example. Admittedly, it is depressing to watch what is happening in those countries, but this 'concerted effort' to fight drug lords in these countries is relatively new compared to the entrenched institution of illegal drug manufacturers. The jury is still out on this one.
There are definitely costs associated with fighting drugs, but the social cost is vastly less significant compared to treating addicted people.
I'm okay with legalizing prostitution (getting off topic though). There is no reason not to- this is at the core of freedom of choice. Nobody else involved. Two consenting adults in an arrangement that suits them best. No harm done to anyone.
I don't want cougars, cheetahs. or meth labs next to me. That's my point. Just like I don't want drunk drivers. When people make choices that have the potential to affect others- laws and regulations need to be in place to restrict these choices. Can we not agree on this? People are stupid. Left to their own resources... yikes.
Overlying everything... we are fighting evolution. The deranged, the pedophelic, the criminally insane... the better part of society tolerates their existence and because so... we need some form of law. We cannot truly exercise freedom of choice and responsible living because we preserve an element that is incapable of living alongside us, freely, without damaging us in some way. Once we decide enough is enough with our multiple felons and career criminals, society can begin to let its guard down.
I never said the war on drugs is a failure... I have siad it has been difficult. It has only been in recent years we have seen this fight occur at the point of production- Mexico and Columbia are making concerted efforts for example. Admittedly, it is depressing to watch what is happening in those countries, but this 'concerted effort' to fight drug lords in these countries is relatively new compared to the entrenched institution of illegal drug manufacturers. The jury is still out on this one.
There are definitely costs associated with fighting drugs, but the social cost is vastly less significant compared to treating addicted people.
I'm okay with legalizing prostitution (getting off topic though). There is no reason not to- this is at the core of freedom of choice. Nobody else involved. Two consenting adults in an arrangement that suits them best. No harm done to anyone.
I don't want cougars, cheetahs. or meth labs next to me. That's my point. Just like I don't want drunk drivers. When people make choices that have the potential to affect others- laws and regulations need to be in place to restrict these choices. Can we not agree on this? People are stupid. Left to their own resources... yikes.
Overlying everything... we are fighting evolution. The deranged, the pedophelic, the criminally insane... the better part of society tolerates their existence and because so... we need some form of law. We cannot truly exercise freedom of choice and responsible living because we preserve an element that is incapable of living alongside us, freely, without damaging us in some way. Once we decide enough is enough with our multiple felons and career criminals, society can begin to let its guard down.
I know you never said the war on drugs was a failure. I said it. it is. What measure could we take to call it a success? it has been decades. what do we have to show for it? people still getting high all over the place, people od'ing on unregulated hot shots, people getting hep C, HIV, and other diseases from using dirty needles, people able to get drugs just about anywhere any time...and thousands of non-violent drug offenders in prisons splitting up families that could have otherwise possibly been together...That is just a few examples of the failure of the war on drugs in the US alone. Now take into account what happens along the border, in other countries around the world...by what measure can we call our current policy even remotely successful? We shouldn't stick with something simply out of stubbornness and a false sense of moral superiority some have over those who would choose to shoot up...
I certainly agree with the need for laws. Laws are there to protect you from me and vice versa. I think there should and would still be DUI laws, why would that change?...I am fine with regulation, but prohibition isn't the path we should be on. laws don't restrict choices in a true sense, they may make them a little tougher by placing sanctions on an action. but the choice can still be made. They really should be in place to punish the choices that affect others. I guess it is just a different way of looking at the purpose of laws...should they be thought of as a deterrent first or a punishment that may deter?..
I firmly believe that more harm is caused world wide from the US drug war than it is saving people from. I am all for the regulation of the drug markets...but illegal just doesn't seem to be the right strategy... There are statistics from other nations that have tried decriminalization, and I think they show that good things can come out of it...and I am certain there will be negatives that come out as well.
There is no good solution...Mankind has always looked for ways to alter their consciousness, that will never cease... but I always lean towards personal freedom rather than restriction.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
a person is usually intelligent in some way...but people are stupid as hell
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
... That's how I feel about this world and its inhabitants. Nothing supernatural about that.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
its easy to say people are stupid and use your intelligence as a way of bullying
in my opinion ...smartest and brightest people do neither
smart people will try to educate
smart people will try to use terms other less mentally fortunate as themselves understand
of which I havent seen from either one of you.
Inconclusion... you cant figure it our because your so smart.
People do dumb things- including myself. We never actually excluded ourselves if you had bothered to read the posts. You didn't though. You made inferences from skimming the last brief one. Consequently, you took things out of context. Ironic, huh? You know, that you suggested we were being arrogant and judgemental... and then you made your judgements without even bothering to understand the context from which things were said?
Here in Canada our Prime Minister seems to want to take a step backwards...very sad.
Whats most disturbing is that many of today's politicians grew up in the 60's and later when so many people were doing pot...I would have thought they would have a different view and be pro legalization.
It's to bad...
but meanwhile here in Ontario we are legalizing sanctioned MMA for events for 10-19 year old...no risk of brain injury from that...governments are such hypocritical bullshitters.
"There are short-term and long-term primarily pulmonary problems associated with marijuana (and) excessive alcohol use is long-term correlated with GI (gastrointestinal) and neurologic problems."
Also debatable is whether the money generated by legalizing and regulating marijuana through taxes will outweigh the costs of creating government-run marijuana distribution centers. Tvert says the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol estimates that legalizing and regulating marijuana could generate $50 million a year in saved expenses and revenue.
"We've been pushing very hard in Colorado and people agree, it's not worth the law enforcement resources being used (to crack down on marijuana users) and it's not worth losing out on the tax dollars," he said.
Tvert said he was not aware of any criticism for the advertisement, noting that legalizing marijuana is "one of the biggest issues in our state legislature in the last few years."
"We live in a state that has made a lot of progress on the issue," he said. "It's not as controversial as many other issues."
That's partly because of the prevalence of medical marijuana dispensaries across the state. State-sanctioned marijuana dispensaries now outnumber Starbucks in Colorado and there are well over 100,000 people on the medical marijuana registry."
Says 9% of the population, I would think it would be way more than that.
I guess not counting the legal medical marijuana.
I agree, that was a surprising number. But then again, from my own experience, I would've thought the % of population using was higher. I suppose I'm maybe hanging around the wrong folks! lol
Says 9% of the population, I would think it would be way more than that.
I guess not counting the legal medical marijuana.
I agree, that was a surprising number. But then again, from my own experience, I would've thought the % of population using was higher. I suppose I'm maybe hanging around the wrong folks! lol
I often fall into that trap as well. It is so hard to imagine 300 million people. What amount that really is...we have our experiences and we use them to generalize, by saying things like most, all, a lot...when we say most we are actually talking about 150+ million people...kind of overwhelming when you think about it....
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
It's the way we decompress after work! Plus it really helps my back pain (among other things).
Speaking of pharmaceuticals and my back, it amazed me - still does - how quick that shit is prescribed. Yes, the muscle relaxers I use from time to time are now considered a controlled substance but a refill is completed within a day. They wanted to give me Vicodin too but I told them no...that shit is big-time bad. Tolerance for it is built up so fast it becomes addictive, not to mention the nasty side-effects. I hate it.
And yet, between Danny's health and my current issues, we have a virtual pharmacy within a kitchen cabinet.
Crazy - as is the fact that pot is lumped in with all the other stuff.
I still think all the shit should be legalized and let folks be responsible for their own (in)actions.
the people who don't want pot legalized some have agendas, probably money the root, some think it would send the wrong message, some don't understand or know it, some believe wacky bad propaganda about it
and some just don't care cause it does not effect their lives, it is a non issue.
Perhaps I have missed some.
The fact that a doctor can control it now may be the way it stays as far as legality.
And for some, especially non smokers, they are perfectly fine with that.
For those who want nothing to do with the docs or can't find the right one
they are up shit creek and gamble with the legal system, a gamble
that most citizens are not comfortable with.
It would be nice to see medical marijuana be more available to all who
need and want it.
In my opinion all drugs legal sends the wrong message in our society,
a caring society cares enough to watch out for each other.
And yes prescription drugs have taken over our society ...
big pharmie big bucks big trouble for us.
Got something the least bit annoying going on with you?
they got a pill for that! :wtf:
It's the way we decompress after work! Plus it really helps my back pain (among other things).
Speaking of pharmaceuticals and my back, it amazed me - still does - how quick that shit is prescribed. Yes, the muscle relaxers I use from time to time are now considered a controlled substance but a refill is completed within a day. They wanted to give me Vicodin too but I told them no...that shit is big-time bad. Tolerance for it is built up so fast it becomes addictive, not to mention the nasty side-effects. I hate it.And yet, between Danny's health and my current issues, we have a virtual pharmacy within a kitchen cabinet.
Crazy - as is the fact that pot is lumped in with all the other stuff.
I still think all the shit should be legalized and let folks be responsible for their own (in)actions.
i eat percocets & methadones like some people eat m&ms. i am so used to them that i don't feel a damn thing as far as the "buzz" or "high" goes. there is no "buzz" or "high" im used to them. however, i can quit methadone cold turkey and be perfectly fine, i have done it before on my own free will.
but i do suffer hugely with a lot of pain throughout my body, mostly knee pain. like dr. house in that house television program, i also took vicodins (in the beginning) and walk with the cane and am a surly old bastard but i think i am funny.
marijuana is the final answer to great overall health, not just for me but for 147 million people, yourself included. yes i did add you and your man into my math equation
i eat percocets & methadones like some people eat m&ms. i am so used to them that i don't feel a damn thing as far as the "buzz" or "high" goes. there is no "buzz" or "high" im used to them. however, i can quit methadone cold turkey and be perfectly fine, i have done it before on my own free will.
but i do suffer hugely with a lot of pain throughout my body, mostly knee pain. like dr. house in that house television program, i also took vicodins (in the beginning) and walk with the cane and am a surly old bastard but i think i am funny.
marijuana is the final answer to great overall health, not just for me but for 147 million people, yourself included. yes i did add you and your man into my math equation
I wouldn't call you a surly OLD bastard, and yes, you are funny
After Danny's first lung surgery, he was taking Vicodin, got sick of it (literally and figuratively) and quit cold-turkey. The withdrawal (coupled with a record heatwave and our AC being out) sent him back to the hospital.
I'm glad you can manage your meds and not the other way around! And thanks for our inclusion in your equation
i eat percocets & methadones like some people eat m&ms. i am so used to them that i don't feel a damn thing as far as the "buzz" or "high" goes. there is no "buzz" or "high" im used to them. however, i can quit methadone cold turkey and be perfectly fine, i have done it before on my own free will.
but i do suffer hugely with a lot of pain throughout my body, mostly knee pain. like dr. house in that house television program, i also took vicodins (in the beginning) and walk with the cane and am a surly old bastard but i think i am funny.
marijuana is the final answer to great overall health, not just for me but for 147 million people, yourself included. yes i did add you and your man into my math equation
I wouldn't call you a surly OLD bastard, and yes, you are funny
After Danny's first lung surgery, he was taking Vicodin, got sick of it (literally and figuratively) and quit cold-turkey. The withdrawal (coupled with a record heatwave and our AC being out) sent him back to the hospital.
I'm glad you can manage your meds and not the other way around! And thanks for our inclusion in your equation
but wait. i fuckered up
that number should read... 147,000,002
sorry to hear about Danny's health issues. i hope all is well and he gets and remains stronger everyday
Comments
I couldn't agree more Mike
Blitzkriegs were more effective because of meth. Bombers used to stay alert and awake for runs until they complained it made them too angry and agitated. They switched to Dexedrine (an amphetamine).
It's bad, no doubt. I still believe in the choice to use it or not.
It's nice to see you guys join the conversation after a weekend of overly dramatic posts that brought nothing worth reading to the conversation......well for the most part
I'm curious to know from the pro-legalization side a couple of things:
1. If it was possible to rid the world of the aforementioned 'hard' drugs, would the pro-legalization side concede that this would be a good thing? Or would this side suggest that the world needs these drugs? Despite having no medicinal value and used rather almost exclusively in recreational fashion, do these drugs actually have some value that is legitimate?
2. Given that it is likely the answer to the first question above is 'yes'... I'm wondering why we would make a move to legalize and accept these drugs into society's fold? The war on drugs has been difficult - because this is so... do we give this fight up? If we did, what becomes our next fight? Do we give that one up too when it gets difficult?
3. When an addict needs their drugs, theft, prostitution, and violence has shown to manifest itself so that the dependent can make it to their next fix- day to day. Further, medical costs for treatment and rehabilitation are shared by all. Can we really cite freedom of choice given the direct impact of the drug on the user as well as the indirect impact on the rest of society? In other words, can we actually condone such drug use knowing very well of the destructive qualities related to the usage?
To further illustrate what I am getting at (and using an example I have used before): if someone wanted to raise a cougar in an urban setting, should they have the same freedom? Despite the potential risk to themselves and others, consistency would demand that it be the person's freedom of choice to raise the cougar as a pet. Are rules and regulations that serve to maintain the safety and welfare of the larger masses not significant? Is it only freedom of choice when it serves a position's side to an argument (for this, 'yes'... but for that, 'no')?
This is more like it.
1. If the world could somehow rid itself of hard drugs I would be all for it. You are right about one thing, they are nothing but a detriment to society.
2. The reason that even though we answer yes to your first question and feel like we should make these drugs legal is based on multiple reasons. The first reason is that eradicating these drugs from our world is impossible. You admit that the war on drugs is a complete failure yet you'd like to keep fighting it. It simply is never going to work. The Reagan government ramped up the war on drugs in the early 80's thinking that throwing a whole bunch of money into enforcement would have some ability to eradicate drugs. It hasn't and it won't. We think that legalizing drugs would quite possibly slow down gangs and violence associated with drugs. Basically diminishing the majority of the black markets drugs.
Also we feel that far too much money is spent on the war on drugs and that money would be better served towards education and help for those who have become addicted.The billions that are spent on prisons, lawyers, and enforcement of these laws may go much further towards eradicating hard drugs if that money was spent on education and treatment programs to keep people away from these nasty drugs.
There are also some that simply feel the government doesn't have the right to tell us what we can and can't do to our bodies. I'm sort of on the fence on this point. Mainly because society isn't that intelligent and may sometime need a little regulation. But I haven't quite made up my mind on this. But it does bring me to your analogy.
As I said I do believe in some regulation in society for obvious reasons like this. But there is a reason your comparison doesn't work. When people are told they may not have a cougar in an urban setting they don't try to have a cougar as a pet anyway. They either find another hobby or live on a farm or maybe buy a zoo. But drugs will just never be like that. They are always going to be around in some capacity or another. There isn't a cougar epidemic as far as I can tell.
When something doesn't work, we need to try something different.The worst society to me is one that doesn't learn from it's mistakes. The war on drugs has been a mistake for a long time. I think it's time to try something new.
a good short perspective on why these things take hold....
blend into others share peace so much anger in this thread how many are high
think individual peace comes with drugs guess not
so why hide there why say yes legal or not why accept the hole you dig why so angry
trying to reach hell you found it already
1. I agree the world would be a better place without the "harder" drugs. But there are those that like them. Actually like the effects, thinks it helps them. My opinion should way nothing into their ability to use those drugs. The value is to the person who uses them, whether it be to numb the pain of their existence, or to "expand their mind" ... it doesn't matter why they want to use them, or the benefits they seek...it isn't up to me to tell someone else what they can put in their own body...
2. There is a difference between difficult and not working. WWII was difficult, but it was working. Vietnam was difficult and NOT WORKING...there is a difference. Why does there automatically have to be a next fight...a next war on social issues...it doesn't need to exist in any capacity. Legalizing the drugs, or decriminalizing them (two different things I know) would help rid the inherent advantages to the "pushers"...the fact that society says those are taboo is an automatic trigger to people...society allowing something to exist and condoning it are two different things. If we take people in and quit the back alley black market it may be more possible to save those who want it and give a safer path to use for those that want the drugs. It also takes away the incentive for many street gangs to exist, not to mention the cartels.
3. When the drug user begins to affect those around him, through property theft it becomes a problem and there are laws in place to punish that behavior. But you won't find me arguing that prostitution should be illegal either. If two grown adults want to engage in sex for money who am I to say they cannot. Treatment is a much better payment option than billions wasted fighting a war we cannot win. Overall I would say that costs to society would go down, whether it be through the release of non-violent drug offenders from prisons or through the resources of law enforcement re-allocated to more important things like solving property and violent crimes. I don't condone drug use, I don't think people should use them....but I am not the end all be all and my morality, as much as it works for me and I would like to think would work for everyone, should not be forced on someone else.
and for the latter example. I don't care if someone raises a cougar...I would venture to guess there are thousands of people in urban areas right now that are raising pets that could possibly pose a threat to their neighbors...I don't think it is in the governments best interest to fight continual what if scenarios...if you want to make crimes worse when drugs are involved go ahead...but the drugs should not be the crimes on their own. Same with exotic pets. I wouldn't want a cheetah next to me, but wouldn't it be in my best interest to know the cheetah was there and be able to make decisions based on knowledge rather than just have to assume everyone has a cheetah in their basement. We can come up with examples all day long about specific things that may pose a danger to others...If my cheetah kills, hurts, or terrorizes someone, that is when I should be held criminally liable. i would much rather live next to a person illegally owning a dangerous big cat than someone cooking meth in their garage.
I will pose one question back at you, if freedom and personal choice pose dangers to us and others, why do we have any? Why do I have the freedom to drink but not get high? why do I have the freedom to drive? why do I have the freedom to own a gun? You say why should we legalize drugs, I say why does it matter what I do as long as i am not affecting others?
We don't know what dangers would ACTUALLY happen if we legalized drugs, all we know is the dangers that ARE happening because they are illegal... i can't see more people dying as a result of legalized drugs...but we have to look further than just our street, our neighborhood...the effects of the war on drugs are felt internationally...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
There are definitely costs associated with fighting drugs, but the social cost is vastly less significant compared to treating addicted people.
I'm okay with legalizing prostitution (getting off topic though). There is no reason not to- this is at the core of freedom of choice. Nobody else involved. Two consenting adults in an arrangement that suits them best. No harm done to anyone.
I don't want cougars, cheetahs. or meth labs next to me. That's my point. Just like I don't want drunk drivers. When people make choices that have the potential to affect others- laws and regulations need to be in place to restrict these choices. Can we not agree on this? People are stupid. Left to their own resources... yikes.
Overlying everything... we are fighting evolution. The deranged, the pedophelic, the criminally insane... the better part of society tolerates their existence and because so... we need some form of law. We cannot truly exercise freedom of choice and responsible living because we preserve an element that is incapable of living alongside us, freely, without damaging us in some way. Once we decide enough is enough with our multiple felons and career criminals, society can begin to let its guard down.
I know you never said the war on drugs was a failure. I said it. it is. What measure could we take to call it a success? it has been decades. what do we have to show for it? people still getting high all over the place, people od'ing on unregulated hot shots, people getting hep C, HIV, and other diseases from using dirty needles, people able to get drugs just about anywhere any time...and thousands of non-violent drug offenders in prisons splitting up families that could have otherwise possibly been together...That is just a few examples of the failure of the war on drugs in the US alone. Now take into account what happens along the border, in other countries around the world...by what measure can we call our current policy even remotely successful? We shouldn't stick with something simply out of stubbornness and a false sense of moral superiority some have over those who would choose to shoot up...
I certainly agree with the need for laws. Laws are there to protect you from me and vice versa. I think there should and would still be DUI laws, why would that change?...I am fine with regulation, but prohibition isn't the path we should be on.
laws don't restrict choices in a true sense, they may make them a little tougher by placing sanctions on an action. but the choice can still be made. They really should be in place to punish the choices that affect others. I guess it is just a different way of looking at the purpose of laws...should they be thought of as a deterrent first or a punishment that may deter?..
I firmly believe that more harm is caused world wide from the US drug war than it is saving people from. I am all for the regulation of the drug markets...but illegal just doesn't seem to be the right strategy... There are statistics from other nations that have tried decriminalization, and I think they show that good things can come out of it...and I am certain there will be negatives that come out as well.
There is no good solution...Mankind has always looked for ways to alter their consciousness, that will never cease... but I always lean towards personal freedom rather than restriction.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
oh and yes.
a person is usually intelligent in some way...but people are stupid as hell
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
its easy to say people are stupid and use your intelligence as a way of bullying
in my opinion ...smartest and brightest people do neither
smart people will try to educate
smart people will try to use terms other less mentally fortunate as themselves understand
of which I havent seen from either one of you.
In conclusion... you can figure it our because your so smart.
you couldn't have missed the point of my comment more.
honestly. you couldn't have missed it more than you did which makes me think you did it on purpose.
I'd ask for an example of intelligent bullying but we know how that goes...
here is one for you
after a long winded post about all things human being bullshit you concluded by writing
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
People do dumb things- including myself. We never actually excluded ourselves if you had bothered to read the posts. You didn't though. You made inferences from skimming the last brief one. Consequently, you took things out of context. Ironic, huh? You know, that you suggested we were being arrogant and judgemental... and then you made your judgements without even bothering to understand the context from which things were said?
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/201202 ... es-120222/
Here in Canada our Prime Minister seems to want to take a step backwards...very sad.
Whats most disturbing is that many of today's politicians grew up in the 60's and later when so many people were doing pot...I would have thought they would have a different view and be pro legalization.
It's to bad...
but meanwhile here in Ontario we are legalizing sanctioned MMA for events for 10-19 year old...no risk of brain injury from that...governments are such hypocritical bullshitters.
http://www.windsorstar.com/news/kids+bo ... story.html
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
will step back and put a hold on cannabis ... good going
http://us.cnn.com/2012/05/17/health/col ... ?hpt=hp_c3
"There are short-term and long-term primarily pulmonary problems associated with marijuana (and) excessive alcohol use is long-term correlated with GI (gastrointestinal) and neurologic problems."
Also debatable is whether the money generated by legalizing and regulating marijuana through taxes will outweigh the costs of creating government-run marijuana distribution centers. Tvert says the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol estimates that legalizing and regulating marijuana could generate $50 million a year in saved expenses and revenue.
"We've been pushing very hard in Colorado and people agree, it's not worth the law enforcement resources being used (to crack down on marijuana users) and it's not worth losing out on the tax dollars," he said.
Tvert said he was not aware of any criticism for the advertisement, noting that legalizing marijuana is "one of the biggest issues in our state legislature in the last few years."
"We live in a state that has made a lot of progress on the issue," he said. "It's not as controversial as many other issues."
That's partly because of the prevalence of medical marijuana dispensaries across the state. State-sanctioned marijuana dispensaries now outnumber Starbucks in Colorado and there are well over 100,000 people on the medical marijuana registry."
READ more at the link at the top
the most surprising, it said 22 million people use illegal drugs.
The link from your article
http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/0 ... l-drugs-3/
Says 9% of the population, I would think it would be way more than that.
I guess not counting the legal medical marijuana.
I agree, that was a surprising number. But then again, from my own experience, I would've thought the % of population using was higher. I suppose I'm maybe hanging around the wrong folks! lol
I often fall into that trap as well. It is so hard to imagine 300 million people. What amount that really is...we have our experiences and we use them to generalize, by saying things like most, all, a lot...when we say most we are actually talking about 150+ million people...kind of overwhelming when you think about it....
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
marijuana smoking is equivalent to stroking one's ace. it aint no thing, man. yet million declare it to be the work of the devil.
these folks against weed might should be hit with a frozen solid bison shit patty as if a frisbee to the head like in the howard stern flick
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
Yeah, they're abused and can be very addictive too... They have some fun side effects too... Makes me sick
Or just have a few hits and learn to chill out!
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Speaking of pharmaceuticals and my back, it amazed me - still does - how quick that shit is prescribed. Yes, the muscle relaxers I use from time to time are now considered a controlled substance but a refill is completed within a day. They wanted to give me Vicodin too but I told them no...that shit is big-time bad. Tolerance for it is built up so fast it becomes addictive, not to mention the nasty side-effects. I hate it.
And yet, between Danny's health and my current issues, we have a virtual pharmacy within a kitchen cabinet.
Crazy - as is the fact that pot is lumped in with all the other stuff.
I still think all the shit should be legalized and let folks be responsible for their own (in)actions.
the people who don't want pot legalized some have agendas, probably money the root,
some think it would send the wrong message, some don't understand or know it,
some believe wacky bad propaganda about it
and some just don't care cause it does not effect their lives, it is a non issue.
Perhaps I have missed some.
The fact that a doctor can control it now may be the way it stays as far as legality.
And for some, especially non smokers, they are perfectly fine with that.
For those who want nothing to do with the docs or can't find the right one
they are up shit creek and gamble with the legal system, a gamble
that most citizens are not comfortable with.
It would be nice to see medical marijuana be more available to all who
need and want it.
In my opinion all drugs legal sends the wrong message in our society,
a caring society cares enough to watch out for each other.
And yes prescription drugs have taken over our society ...
big pharmie big bucks big trouble for us.
Got something the least bit annoying going on with you?
they got a pill for that! :wtf:
but i do suffer hugely with a lot of pain throughout my body, mostly knee pain. like dr. house in that house television program, i also took vicodins (in the beginning) and walk with the cane and am a surly old bastard but i think i am funny.
marijuana is the final answer to great overall health, not just for me but for 147 million people, yourself included. yes i did add you and your man into my math equation
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
After Danny's first lung surgery, he was taking Vicodin, got sick of it (literally and figuratively) and quit cold-turkey. The withdrawal (coupled with a record heatwave and our AC being out) sent him back to the hospital.
I'm glad you can manage your meds and not the other way around! And thanks for our inclusion in your equation
but wait. i fuckered up
that number should read... 147,000,002
sorry to hear about Danny's health issues. i hope all is well and he gets and remains stronger everyday
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce