This is what the war on drugs looks like

2

Comments

  • WaveCameCrashin
    WaveCameCrashin Posts: 2,929
    I apologize in advance if the link does not work. But this is from the late GREAT MILTON FRIEDMON on why drugs should be legalized...


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLsCC0LZxkY
  • pandora
    pandora Posts: 21,855
    in my opinion....
    the only drug that should be legalized is weed, it should have been done
    well over a decade ago
    so...
    lets get on with it already
  • chadwick
    chadwick up my ass Posts: 21,157
    we can't legalize marijuana cigarettes because the very large hump that is bunk ass america doesn't believe in freedoms and the use of a weed flowering plant as well as its cousin the hemp plant that would generate insane amounts of products such as clothing and rope

    "marijuana users and gays will burn in hell. praise the lord." - bunk ass americans
    for poetry through the ceiling. ISBN: 1 4241 8840 7

    "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
  • mikepegg44
    mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    chadwick wrote:
    we can't legalize marijuana cigarettes because the very large hump that is bunk ass america doesn't believe in freedoms and the use of a weed flowering plant as well as its cousin the hemp plant that would generate insane amounts of products such as clothing and rope

    "marijuana users and gays will burn in hell. praise the lord." - bunk ass americans



    and that is a hell I can see myself in...I bet it would be fun as hell...throw in the porn community and 80's rock starts and you got yourself one hell of a party
    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
  • Kel Varnsen
    Kel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    mookeywrench wrote:
    DriftingByTheStorm wrote:
    Maybe the United States needs to consider some sort of emergency executive order decriminalizing marijuana, and have obama form an immediate taskforce for the implementation of a federally regulated sales & distribution system for it?

    Or would violence then ensue between the gangs and legitimate growers \ distributors \ retailers, etc. ?

    Decriminalize marijuana and the cartel's will just change their main product


    so legalize it all.

    The only way legalizing everything is if crack and heroin are given away to addicts for free by government agencies. Because for one thing, no way does any legitimate company start selling a product that if used correctly can result in instant death. If they did the first time a junkie OD's his family sues the company and they go broke. So with that taken into consideration if people wanted to buy crack or heroin they would still need to buy it from some shady guy on the corner, who could charge whatever he wanted for it and the addicts would still be stealing shit to get the money to pay for it. I would be ok with giving shit away for free but I think a lot of people would have problems (especially sick people) with the fact that they have to pay for their medication to stay alive, while some guy who wants to get high can get government funded crack.
  • Sludge Factory
    Sludge Factory Posts: 976
    Kel Varnsen wrote:

    The only way legalizing everything is if crack and heroin are given away to addicts for free by government agencies. Because for one thing, no way does any legitimate company start selling a product that if used correctly can result in instant death. If they did the first time a junkie OD's his family sues the company and they go broke. So with that taken into consideration if people wanted to buy crack or heroin they would still need to buy it from some shady guy on the corner, who could charge whatever he wanted for it and the addicts would still be stealing shit to get the money to pay for it. I would be ok with giving shit away for free but I think a lot of people would have problems (especially sick people) with the fact that they have to pay for their medication to stay alive, while some guy who wants to get high can get government funded crack.

    Do people currently successfully sue alcohol companies when someone od's on that?
  • Kel Varnsen
    Kel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    Sludge Factory wrote:
    Kel Varnsen wrote:

    The only way legalizing everything is if crack and heroin are given away to addicts for free by government agencies. Because for one thing, no way does any legitimate company start selling a product that if used correctly can result in instant death. If they did the first time a junkie OD's his family sues the company and they go broke. So with that taken into consideration if people wanted to buy crack or heroin they would still need to buy it from some shady guy on the corner, who could charge whatever he wanted for it and the addicts would still be stealing shit to get the money to pay for it. I would be ok with giving shit away for free but I think a lot of people would have problems (especially sick people) with the fact that they have to pay for their medication to stay alive, while some guy who wants to get high can get government funded crack.

    Do people currently successfully sue alcohol companies when someone od's on that?

    Of course not, but it is almost impossible to die of alcohol poisoning after a couple of drinks which is what most people would call reasonable use (although people have sued bars for serving intoxicated people who end up dying from drinking too much). I don't think it is unheard of to die after using heroin a couple of times. Especially since it is easy to slap a label on a bottle of rum that says please use in moderation, but what exactly is moderation for heroin use (would they have dosage recommendations on the package)? And even if the lawsuits wouldn't be successful, how many companies would want to gamble to find out since getting sued still costs money even if you don't lose?
  • Sludge Factory
    Sludge Factory Posts: 976
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    Sludge Factory wrote:
    Kel Varnsen wrote:

    The only way legalizing everything is if crack and heroin are given away to addicts for free by government agencies. Because for one thing, no way does any legitimate company start selling a product that if used correctly can result in instant death. If they did the first time a junkie OD's his family sues the company and they go broke. So with that taken into consideration if people wanted to buy crack or heroin they would still need to buy it from some shady guy on the corner, who could charge whatever he wanted for it and the addicts would still be stealing shit to get the money to pay for it. I would be ok with giving shit away for free but I think a lot of people would have problems (especially sick people) with the fact that they have to pay for their medication to stay alive, while some guy who wants to get high can get government funded crack.

    Do people currently successfully sue alcohol companies when someone od's on that?

    Of course not, but it is almost impossible to die of alcohol poisoning after a couple of drinks which is what most people would call reasonable use (although people have sued bars for serving intoxicated people who end up dying from drinking too much). I don't think it is unheard of to die after using heroin a couple of times. Especially since it is easy to slap a label on a bottle of rum that says please use in moderation, but what exactly is moderation for heroin use (would they have dosage recommendations on the package)? And even if the lawsuits wouldn't be successful, how many companies would want to gamble to find out since getting sued still costs money even if you don't lose?

    It doesn't matter what you "think" would happen. Everything you are preaching about here is mere conjecture on your part. It is entirely possible that someone could come up with a business plan that would offer the product with appropriate use guidelines and still be profitable regardless of whether or not litigation could potentially become pending. In response to me, you mention people have sued bars for serving intoxicated people who end up dying from drinking too much. I ask you, have bars gone extinct or do they still exist?

    I find it interesting enough to know that before heroin was banned it was used as an alternative to morphine in the medical industry. Keeping in mind that it was banned due to recreational use, not medicinal use.
  • pandora
    pandora Posts: 21,855
    Sludge Factory wrote:
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    Sludge Factory wrote:
    Do people currently successfully sue alcohol companies when someone od's on that?

    Of course not, but it is almost impossible to die of alcohol poisoning after a couple of drinks which is what most people would call reasonable use (although people have sued bars for serving intoxicated people who end up dying from drinking too much). I don't think it is unheard of to die after using heroin a couple of times. Especially since it is easy to slap a label on a bottle of rum that says please use in moderation, but what exactly is moderation for heroin use (would they have dosage recommendations on the package)? And even if the lawsuits wouldn't be successful, how many companies would want to gamble to find out since getting sued still costs money even if you don't lose?

    It doesn't matter what you "think" would happen. Everything you are preaching about here is mere conjecture on your part. It is entirely possible that someone could come up with a business plan that would offer the product with appropriate use guidelines and still be profitable regardless of whether or not litigation could potentially become pending. In response to me, you mention people have sued bars for serving intoxicated people who end up dying from drinking too much. I ask you, have bars gone extinct or do they still exist?

    I find it interesting enough to know that before heroin was banned it was used as an alternative to morphine in the medical industry. Keeping in mind that it was banned due to recreational use, not medicinal use.
    It is preaching to give an opposite opinion :? your use of the word here makes your tone sound
    arrogant and dismissive to the other poster.

    Sorry but gotta love it ... "a business plan" to make these drugs profitable :fp: ...
    yeah, thats just what we need, another parasite corporation who cares nothing for
    the health and safety of people :twisted:
  • Drowned Out
    Drowned Out Posts: 6,056
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    Sludge Factory wrote:
    Kel Varnsen wrote:

    The only way legalizing everything is if crack and heroin are given away to addicts for free by government agencies. Because for one thing, no way does any legitimate company start selling a product that if used correctly can result in instant death. If they did the first time a junkie OD's his family sues the company and they go broke. So with that taken into consideration if people wanted to buy crack or heroin they would still need to buy it from some shady guy on the corner, who could charge whatever he wanted for it and the addicts would still be stealing shit to get the money to pay for it. I would be ok with giving shit away for free but I think a lot of people would have problems (especially sick people) with the fact that they have to pay for their medication to stay alive, while some guy who wants to get high can get government funded crack.

    Do people currently successfully sue alcohol companies when someone od's on that?

    Of course not, but it is almost impossible to die of alcohol poisoning after a couple of drinks which is what most people would call reasonable use (although people have sued bars for serving intoxicated people who end up dying from drinking too much). I don't think it is unheard of to die after using heroin a couple of times. Especially since it is easy to slap a label on a bottle of rum that says please use in moderation, but what exactly is moderation for heroin use (would they have dosage recommendations on the package)? And even if the lawsuits wouldn't be successful, how many companies would want to gamble to find out since getting sued still costs money even if you don't lose?
    You can overdose on just about any drug the first time if you don't know what you're consuming. Heroin, coke, meth, are no different. That's kinda the whole point of legalizing hard drugs - harm reduction. Making sure people know what they're getting is a huge step in this. Heroin deaths spike when really GOOD heroin makes it to the street - people assume they can use the same amount they always use, but it turns out to be less cut than their usual supply, and the purity catches them by surprise.
    I'm not a doctor, but I don't think I'm going out on a ledge to say that drug deaths are almost always due to overdose, or heart problems. If production is regulated and quality controlled, you can easily give a 'recommended dosage', with the usual disclaimers about side effects (ie: not recommended for people with heart conditions etc). No different than any other pharmaceutical.
  • Drowned Out
    Drowned Out Posts: 6,056
    edited May 2012
    pandora wrote:

    Sorry but gotta love it ... "a business plan" to make these drugs profitable :fp: ...
    yeah, thats just what we need, another parasite corporation who cares nothing for
    the health and safety of people :twisted:
    As opposed to parasite dealers and organized crime - the people you think deserve a shotgun to the chest?
    Or were you just planning to wave your magic wand and make drugs go away?
    There is ZERO concern for health and safety in the war on drugs. Zero. Its detrimental to those goals.

    btw - I think it's unethical for any drug to be a profitable industry to begin with. The whole industry is unethical, period. But whadoIknow? I'm just a commy hippy.
    Post edited by Drowned Out on
  • Kel Varnsen
    Kel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    Drowned Out wrote:
    Kel Varnsen wrote:

    Of course not, but it is almost impossible to die of alcohol poisoning after a couple of drinks which is what most people would call reasonable use (although people have sued bars for serving intoxicated people who end up dying from drinking too much). I don't think it is unheard of to die after using heroin a couple of times. Especially since it is easy to slap a label on a bottle of rum that says please use in moderation, but what exactly is moderation for heroin use (would they have dosage recommendations on the package)? And even if the lawsuits wouldn't be successful, how many companies would want to gamble to find out since getting sued still costs money even if you don't lose?
    You can overdose on just about any drug the first time if you don't know what you're consuming. Heroin, coke, meth, are no different. That's kinda the whole point of legalizing hard drugs - harm reduction. Making sure people know what they're getting is a huge step in this. Heroin deaths spike when really GOOD heroin makes it to the street - people assume they can use the same amount they always use, but it turns out to be less cut than their usual supply, and the purity catches them by surprise.
    I'm not a doctor, but I don't think I'm going out on a ledge to say that drug deaths are almost always due to overdose, or heart problems. If production is regulated and quality controlled, you can easily give a 'recommended dosage', with the usual disclaimers about side effects (ie: not recommended for people with heart conditions etc). No different than any other pharmaceutical.

    Except most other drugs that are that deadly are given with a prescription. Unless a government agency is giving people free exams and then giving prescriptions for free heroin, how is a junkie with no fixed address and no income going to get it together enough to go to a doctor, get checked out then get a prescription for a dose of heroin, then go to the pharmacy and purchase it? Plus how many pharmacys are going to stock heroin? I mean oxycontin is perfectly legal yet a lot of pharmacys at least where I live have big signs saying that it is not kept in the store and only available by special order. Hell even cold meds like sudafed are usually under lock and key.
  • Drowned Out
    Drowned Out Posts: 6,056
    Kel Varnsen wrote:

    Except most other drugs that are that deadly are given with a prescription. Unless a government agency is giving people free exams and then giving prescriptions for free heroin, how is a junkie with no fixed address and no income going to get it together enough to go to a doctor, get checked out then get a prescription for a dose of heroin, then go to the pharmacy and purchase it? Plus how many pharmacys are going to stock heroin? I mean oxycontin is perfectly legal yet a lot of pharmacys at least where I live have big signs saying that it is not kept in the store and only available by special order. Hell even cold meds like sudafed are usually under lock and key.
    I have no problem with prescriptions being given for it. As for being 'checked out'....I don't think that's necessary. We don't give physicals before prescribing other dangerous drugs. And I'm guessing 99% of these people are going to use regardless of the result of the physical.
    As for getting it together enough to get a prescription, then go get it....you want to see a motivated junky? Catch him when he's trying to score. I don't think they'd have a problem with that aspect.
    As for stocking it - do the same as oxy's - special order. Or have special clinics set up with armed guards or whatever. I don't think it would be that difficult to administer. Also, keeping records of who is using would allow targeted, user-specific education campaigns, interventions, treatment incentives, whatever.....yes, it would cost a lot of money to help these addicts.....but so does fighting the war, and incarcerating people.
    I dunno....I'm just some guy with an interest in the topic. I'm sure there are healthcare professionals who would have an opinion of the best way to reduce the harm caused by these drugs. I think it's important to look into them, begin a dialogue, put a plan in motion, instead of just saying 'it can't be done'.
  • Jason P
    Jason P Posts: 19,305
    Drowned Out wrote:
    btw - I think it's unethical for any drug to be a profitable industry to begin with. The whole industry is unethical, period. But whadoIknow? I'm just a commy hippy.
    Without profit as motivation, most drugs would not exist today.

    I was on a construction project building a $1.6B pharmaceutical manufacturing plant for a drug that was going to help fight non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Over ten years of research and money had been put into creating this drug. A few months before the plant was completed, they had several patients die in stage 3 testing prior to approval. Just like that, a few billion dollars and hundreds of thousands of hours researching and building ... gone ... like Keyser Soze.

    The company had to merge with another biotech company to have any chance of survival. The plant was sold at discount. Had the drug been successful and approved, they would be rich and saving lives. Instead, a lot of good people lost their jobs and dreams.

    No one is going to take a risk like that without having a reward possible. And without that, the medical research field would stall.
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • mikepegg44
    mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    Kel Varnsen wrote:

    The only way legalizing everything is if crack and heroin are given away to addicts for free by government agencies. Because for one thing, no way does any legitimate company start selling a product that if used correctly can result in instant death. If they did the first time a junkie OD's his family sues the company and they go broke. So with that taken into consideration if people wanted to buy crack or heroin they would still need to buy it from some shady guy on the corner, who could charge whatever he wanted for it and the addicts would still be stealing shit to get the money to pay for it. I would be ok with giving shit away for free but I think a lot of people would have problems (especially sick people) with the fact that they have to pay for their medication to stay alive, while some guy who wants to get high can get government funded crack.

    that is a strange leap you make. I don't take your supposition as a necessary fact. All industry comes with the possibility of litigation. It is the cost of doing business unfortunately. Litigation sure hasn't made the cigarette companies stop selling smokes.

    So no, legalizing heroin, crack, whatever else you may have would not make it so drugs would be bought on street corners. In fact, the exact opposite would happen. It would stop that from happening. Where there is money to be made, a company will attempt to make it.

    pandora wrote:

    Sorry but gotta love it ... "a business plan" to make these drugs profitable :fp: ...
    yeah, thats just what we need, another parasite corporation who cares nothing for
    the health and safety of people :twisted:

    uh, I don't need a corporation, greedy or not, looking after my health and safety. that is my job. If I am not willing to do it, that isn't someone else's fault, it is my own.

    I know it won't change your mind, but what DO was talking about couldn't be more true. The cartels don't give a shit about anyone as long as their drugs are being purchased. Why give them the power? why not take taxes from a legitimate business and fund drug awareness programs that are real and not propaganda (D.A.R.E)?

    There are so many reasons for me to believe that legalizing drugs would do more good than harm around the world, if you don't that is ok, but I would implore you to look at the current situation and ask what the benefits truly are and if they outweigh the negatives.
    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
  • pandora
    pandora Posts: 21,855
    I'll continue to go with fighting crime, all crime, then ever saying ok to it.
    I still have high moral expectations for society and people individually, silly me.
    This is the society I want for the children, right from wrong, not do what you want
    to your own body, foolishly some think that hurts no one, when indeed it hurts everyone.

    I happen to think big pharmie and insurance are organized crime
    we certainly don't need another legalized corporation to feed on society
    just so they can get more rich and powerful and buy the lawmakers.

    Just say no to drugs... including the stuff the doc pushes.

    Going back to legalizing pot...
    this far left "lets legalize all drugs" is hindering getting pot legal now
    because it is exactly what law makers are afraid of, give an inch take a mile.

    My opinion remains the same as does the other side, we agree to disagree,

    but I wish they would give the 'all drugs' a rest at least until we get pot legalized. :fp:
  • peacefrompaul
    peacefrompaul Posts: 25,293
    pandora wrote:
    I'll continue to go with fighting crime, all crime, then ever saying ok to it.
    I still have high moral expectations for society and people individually, silly me.
    This is the society I want for the children, right from wrong, not do what you want
    to your own body, foolishly some think that hurts no one, when indeed it hurts everyone.

    I happen to think big pharmie and insurance are organized crime
    we certainly don't need another legalized corporation to feed on society
    just so they can get more rich and powerful and buy the lawmakers.

    Just say no to drugs... including the stuff the doc pushes.

    Going back to legalizing pot...
    this far left "lets legalize all drugs" is hindering getting pot legal now
    because it is exactly what law makers are afraid of, give an inch take a mile.

    My opinion remains the same as does the other side, we agree to disagree,

    but I wish they would give the 'all drugs' a rest at least until we get pot legalized. :fp:

    And that is really the thing. Corporations will continue to have this power as long as they are allowed to promote their special interests in the government. Until then, we will be looking at more of the same, a two party system upholding the interests of the corporations. Not the constitution, not the people that voted them into power, not who they are supposed to be listening to... us.
  • Sludge Factory
    Sludge Factory Posts: 976
    pandora wrote:

    It is preaching to give an opposite opinion :? your use of the word here makes your tone sound
    arrogant and dismissive to the other poster.

    Sorry but gotta love it ... "a business plan" to make these drugs profitable :fp: ...
    yeah, thats just what we need, another parasite corporation who cares nothing for
    the health and safety of people :twisted:

    An opposite opinion is fine, but when one is spouting their opinion to be construed as "fact" than it becomes more than just an "opposite opinion".

    Glad to see that even though your lies were countered in the meth thread, that you haven't given up your moral propagandist crusade on how everyone should subscribe to your beliefs ;)
  • Sludge Factory
    Sludge Factory Posts: 976
    Drowned Out wrote:
    pandora wrote:

    Sorry but gotta love it ... "a business plan" to make these drugs profitable :fp: ...
    yeah, thats just what we need, another parasite corporation who cares nothing for
    the health and safety of people :twisted:
    As opposed to parasite dealers and organized crime - the people you think deserve a shotgun to the chest?
    Or were you just planning to wave your magic wand and make drugs go away?
    There is ZERO concern for health and safety in the war on drugs. Zero. Its detrimental to those goals.

    btw - I think it's unethical for any drug to be a profitable industry to begin with. The whole industry is unethical, period. But whadoIknow? I'm just a commy hippy.

    Not to mention that it is a poor business plan to kill off your customers. It would be in a business' best interest to help educate their consumers on a product so as not to kill themselves and their potential future business. It is understandable that not all businesses may subscribe to that mentality, but that is what competition is for. It weeds out the poor business from the good ones.
  • pandora
    pandora Posts: 21,855
    Sludge Factory wrote:
    pandora wrote:

    It is preaching to give an opposite opinion :? your use of the word here makes your tone sound
    arrogant and dismissive to the other poster.

    Sorry but gotta love it ... "a business plan" to make these drugs profitable :fp: ...
    yeah, thats just what we need, another parasite corporation who cares nothing for
    the health and safety of people :twisted:

    An opposite opinion is fine, but when one is spouting their opinion to be construed as "fact" than it becomes more than just an "opposite opinion".

    Glad to see that even though your lies were countered in the meth thread, that you haven't given up your moral propagandist crusade on how everyone should subscribe to your beliefs ;)
    What lies? or do you call an opposite opinion now lies too?
    And "spouting" another derogatory comment...

    your tone disrespectful to those who do not agree with you

    that is against posting guidelines.

    And no I will not give up my morals sorry :lol:

    as I said we agree to disagree on legalizing all drugs but hopefully we can get pot legalized,
    well, unless the lawmakers make an about face...

    thanks uber liberals.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories