The War on Drugs is lost

Drowned Out

Juberoo wrote:

its as stupid as saying we should have compassion and pay for government fat farm assistance to people who have massive heart attacks and are grotesquely obsese from eating fast food all the time. Would you pay for that out of your hard earned tax dollars? I think not.

That comparison only makes sense if we were locking people up for their eating habits. Maybe that's the solution to that problem too?

Drowned Out

Juberoo wrote:

yep
it isn't a medical condition that requires compassion...they did it to themselves....it could have been avoided.

But it wasn't avoided, right? Why are people so insistent on taking such a hard line approach? People make mistakes, how do we deal with that? You are avoiding the benefits of treatment in all of your posts. Do you not agree that people are more likely to live a productive life, and a more positive influence on society if we treat them instead of locking them up? And that your hard-earned tax dollars would better spent on hospitals than jails?

Juberoo

Drowned Out wrote:

But it wasn't avoided, right? Why are people so insistent on taking such a hard line approach? People make mistakes, how do we deal with that? You are avoiding the benefits of treatment in all of your posts. Do you not agree that people are more likely to live a productive life, and a more positive influence on society if we treat them instead of locking them up? And that your hard-earned tax dollars would better spent on hospitals than jails?

True, in theory. However, what is to say these people aren't going to get out of treatment and return right back to the drugs? The same is said for alcoholics. The argument is.."don't incarcerate for drunk driving...give them treatment"...but how many times do we see them get out of rehab just to return to alcohol. It doesn't work that easily.

Alcohol is a perfect example of people not being able to regulate their use. I bet if you surveyed just this board alone....a good 80%(if not more) of them will have gotten drunk at least once this holiday weekend. And then survey them to see how many drove afterwards with the mentality "oh I can handle my liquor". Its an arrogance issue. The not me syndrome.

No one starts drugs or alcohol expecting to get hooked. It just happens. It's the nature of the substance.

Now I'm not saying that every person will get addicted. But the statistics show that many do. That is the problem. There aren't enough responsible casual users out there to justify legalizing it.

Even if pot was legalized ( I will conceed that although it is a gateway category substance/as is tobacco and alcohol....it is equally as harmless as alcohol when used in moderation ) it would open the door for other battles about the plethora of other drugs available. The argument would be "well if pot is legal why isn't X or why isn't Y"." So then the issue never ends. Before you know it, you have kids ordering joy pills at the local ice cream shop.

It simply cannot lead to anything good accross the board.

Juberoo

Drowned Out wrote:

That comparison only makes sense if we were locking people up for their eating habits. Maybe that's the solution to that problem too?

poor eating habits don't put other people at risk, but would you complain if the government told McD's that they couldn't sell toxic food anymore? They have already regulated trans fats. Why aren't you fighting for your right to indulge in that?

jamtemplechains

umm, yeah...someone smoking a joint in the privacy of their own home doesn't put anyone else at risk either. although i'm sure you'll come up with some REALLY half-ass reason that it does. i'm breahtlessly awaiting to hear it.

keeponrockin

How much does it cost the system to put someone in prison for a year?

How much does it cost for a year of rehab? (I honestly don't know)

If rehab is less, it makes more business sense to do it that way. People can then become productive members of society.

I don't like the 'they did it to themselves' arguement. Yes, people fuck up. If they want treatment, shouldn't you treat them with compassion. Pick them up instead of throwing them away. If someone YOU knew Juberoo (sp) was caught on a possession crime, would you rather they be given treatment to make themselves better or jail?

Collin

Juberoo wrote:

Why should those of us against drug use have to pay taxes for government funded "treatment systems"?

I'm really no expert or anything, but that just not how it works.
Why should those against the war on drugs have to pay taxes for it?
Why should those against the war in Iraq have to pay for it?

Why pay at all?

Juberoo wrote:

Now I'm not saying that every person will get addicted. But the statistics show that many do. That is the problem.

What statistics? The majority of users are not addicted. Are you saying that out of every 10 people you know who drink alcohol at least 5 are addicted?

Juberoo wrote:

Before you know it, you have kids ordering joy pills at the local ice cream shop.

Like kids ordering beer and cigarettes in a bar :rolleyes:

There are plenty of people who use drugs responsibly, people do it every day without getting addicted.

spiral out

Drowned Out wrote:

After I walked away I realized that I may have taken your post the wrong way. I thought you meant that government was using the debate over the war on drugs in itself as a smokescreen...if I'm reading this correctly now, I think you're saying that they are intentionally doing the WRONG thing, in order to keep the public disinformed and keep their black-ops funding alive...which I'd agree with.

At the time that I read your post, I was thinking about all the people that deride others for actually caring about the issue, when there are (admitedly) bigger ones to worry about (one poster in particular that went from drug-warrior to taking this stance). Just because there are bigger problems doesn't mean this one isn't worthy was what I was trying to say...but apparently I didn't need to tell you that

Yep you and i are on the same page.

Drowned Out

Juberoo wrote:

True, in theory. However, what is to say these people aren't going to get out of treatment and return right back to the drugs? The same is said for alcoholics. The argument is.."don't incarcerate for drunk driving...give them treatment"...but how many times do we see them get out of rehab just to return to alcohol. It doesn't work that easily.

Alcohol is a perfect example of people not being able to regulate their use. I bet if you surveyed just this board alone....a good 80%(if not more) of them will have gotten drunk at least once this holiday weekend. And then survey them to see how many drove afterwards with the mentality "oh I can handle my liquor". Its an arrogance issue. The not me syndrome. .

Drunk driving and personal use of drugs are totally different animals. And why do you care if people get drunk or stoned without harming anyone?

Juberoo wrote:

No one starts drugs or alcohol expecting to get hooked. It just happens. It's the nature of the substance. .

Exactly...but people make mistakes...but like you say...fuck them, their fault.

Juberoo wrote:

Now I'm not saying that every person will get addicted. But the statistics show that many do. That is the problem. There aren't enough responsible casual users out there to justify legalizing it. .

Take away everything that is potentially hazardous, is this what you're saying? Because people can't be responsible for their actions? Try looking up the number of casual users...you could also probably add a large percentage because it's stigmatized to the point that people lie about using it.

Juberoo wrote:

Even if pot was legalized ( I will conceed that although it is a gateway category substance/as is tobacco and alcohol....it is equally as harmless as alcohol when used in moderation ) it would open the door for other battles about the plethora of other drugs available. The argument would be "well if pot is legal why isn't X or why isn't Y"." So then the issue never ends. Before you know it, you have kids ordering joy pills at the local ice cream shop. .

So what if it opens the door to more discussion? This is a good thing...what we're doing now is not working...discussion can't hurt. Take them as they come and make decisions based on what the public wants...but give them both sides of the story and let them make an informed decision. The government keeps us in the dark about the alternatives, and the possible outcomes.

Juberoo wrote:

poor eating habits don't put other people at risk, but would you complain if the government told McD's that they couldn't sell toxic food anymore? They have already regulated trans fats. Why aren't you fighting for your right to indulge in that?.

No I wouldn't agree with the gov't regulating McD's. But, since we're going to get hypothetical.... if they were to regulate McD's and the public was against this move enough to demand trans-fats...and McD's continued to serve them...would it be right to go after McD's for standing up for what their customers want? How about arresting as many of their patrons as possible?

I don't fight for my right to trans-fats because it has absolutely no beneficial qualities....I can't say the same for many recreational drugs.

Juberoo

Drowned Out wrote:

Drunk driving and personal use of drugs are totally different animals. And why do you care if people get drunk or stoned without harming anyone?


Exactly...but people make mistakes...but like you say...fuck them, their fault.

Take away everything that is potentially hazardous, is this what you're saying? Because people can't be responsible for their actions? Try looking up the number of casual users...you could also probably add a large percentage because it's stigmatized to the point that people lie about using it.

So what if it opens the door to more discussion? This is a good thing...what we're doing now is not working...discussion can't hurt. Take them as they come and make decisions based on what the public wants...but give them both sides of the story and let them make an informed decision. The government keeps us in the dark about the alternatives, and the possible outcomes.

No I wouldn't agree with the gov't regulating McD's. But, since we're going to get hypothetical.... if they were to regulate McD's and the public was against this move enough to demand trans-fats...and McD's continued to serve them...would it be right to go after McD's for standing up for what their customers want? How about arresting as many of their patrons as possible?

I don't fight for my right to trans-fats because it has absolutely no beneficial qualities....I can't say the same for many recreational drugs.

Oh PLEASE do tell us what beneficial qualities recreational drug use has. I'm all ears!

Drowned Out

Juberoo wrote:

Oh PLEASE do tell us what beneficial qualities recreational drug use has. I'm all ears!

I beg to differ...you're not all ears if that was all you read in my last post.
Maybe beneficial isn't the right word. But the word "recreational" is self explanatory.

jamtemplechains

Juberoo wrote:

Oh PLEASE do tell us what beneficial qualities recreational drug use has. I'm all ears!

recreational drug use has about as much benefit as drinking a case of beer, eating a double cheeseburger, or sitting around jerking off to porn all day. there is no benefit. but to each their own desires, and if those desires have no negative impact on anyone outside of a person's household, then nobody else should give a good goddamn what a person's doing because it's none of their fucking business. that's...pretty much all there is to it.
as per usual, i'm inexplicably eager to laugh at the inevitably ensuing response...
now if you don't mind, i'm going to sip on this beer, nibble on this dollar menu treasure, and smoke the fuck out of this bowl

Boston MA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g_3pKBNUzs

Check out the video of a band up for two Mass Cann/NORML awards.
Legalize It!

Drowned Out

jamtemplechains wrote:

recreational drug use has about as much benefit as drinking a case of beer, eating a double cheeseburger, or sitting around jerking off to porn all day. there is no benefit. but to each their own desires, and if those desires have no negative impact on anyone outside of a person's household, then nobody else should give a good goddamn what a person's doing because it's none of their fucking business. that's...pretty much all there is to it.
as per usual, i'm inexplicably eager to laugh at the inevitably ensuing response...
now if you don't mind, i'm going to sip on this beer, nibble on this dollar menu treasure, and smoke the fuck out of this bowl

I agree with everything you said except the first two sentences. There are a lot of benefits to recreational drugs. I'm avoiding the "recreational" benefits because it gives too much ammo to my opponents in these debates...it is all personal opinion to do with spirituality, art, nature, oneness, relaxation/stress relief and all kinds of other 'hippie' ideals that would be pounced upon without any scientific facts or links to back them up.

However, even the harshest rec drugs still have medicinal benefits...perhaps not the ideal drug for treatment, but maybe as an alternative that should be available to people that can't afford or don't have access to pharma care? Check this post:http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=4753532&postcount=32

edit: I am not condoning drug use by talking about it's benefits, am I? I know people will think that...I realize rec drugs are usually unhealthy, even dangerous, but they are not entirely pointless or useless IMO.

DriftingByTheStorm

Drowned Out wrote:

edit: I am not condoning drug use by talking about it's benefits, am I? I know people will think that...I realize rec drugs are usually unhealthy, even dangerous, but they are not entirely pointless or useless IMO.

marijuana: glacauma, chronic pain relief, appetite stimulant, naseau supressant

cocaine: topical\local anisthetic, vasoconstrictor, relief of sore throat, used to combat altitute sickness\headache, relief of indigestion, gastritis, relief from fatigue & nervousness

mdma (extacy): originaly used as a tool for psychiatry -- used to treat PTSD, rape related trauma, anxiety, treatment of mental disorders in which patients exhibit a lack of trust, can combat the emotional distress of terminal cancer patients, relationship therapy, general psychotherapy use where therapists are incapable of penetrating the resistence of mental barricades placed up by deeply traumatized patients

BAD DRUGS.
DRUGS ARE BAD.
DRUG USERS ARE SCUM.

BAD PEOPLE.
BAD BAD BAD!

Drowned Out

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

marijuana: glacauma, chronic pain relief, appetite stimulant, naseau supressant

just for starters

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

cocaine: topical\local anisthetic, vasoconstrictor, relief of sore throat, used to combat altitute sickness\headache, relief of indigestion, gastritis, relief from fatigue & nervousness

as I said, maybe not the best drug for many of these problems...but I wonder if it's production was regulated, how easily it could be made and cheaply it could be sold in comparison to other drugs.

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

mdma (extacy): originaly used as a tool for psychiatry -- used to treat PTSD, rape related trauma, anxiety, treatment of mental disorders in which patients exhibit a lack of trust, can combat the emotional distress of terminal cancer patients, relationship therapy, general psychotherapy use where therapists are incapable of penetrating the resistence of mental barricades placed up by deeply traumatized patients

LSD was being researched as a therapeutic tool as well, until it was made illegal, that is. The University of Saskatchewan made huge strides with it's use in the early 60's:

According to one study conducted in 1962, 65 per cent of the alcoholics in the experiment stopped drinking for at least a year-and-a-half (the duration of the study) after taking one dose of LSD. The controlled trial also concluded that less than 25 per cent of alcoholics quit drinking for the same period after receiving group therapy, and less than 12 per cent quit in response to traditional psychotherapy techniques commonly used at that time......http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=7951