DRUGS

[Rev. Powell]

Drugs are drugs. "Oxycontin" is basically heroin, don't sell yourself that is anything better than.

Oh, DEFFINATLY, dude! I have no arguement with you there. I agree completely! Anything that even RESEMBLES heroin I won't even be in the same ROOM as.

Then I hope you never have to have an operation, then, or get kidney stones or back problems or a severe toothache.  Every prescription painkiller resembles heroin.   

In fact, heroin should never have been made strictly illegal (Schedule I).  It is not as strong as fentanyl (Schedule II), which can be legally prescribed for chronic pain.

I honestly think demonizing certain drugs over others is the wrong way to look at things.  What matters most is the way the drug is being used (or abused), not the drug itself. 

 

[Flick James]

Drugs are drugs. "Oxycontin" is basically heroin, don't sell yourself that is anything better than.

Oh, DEFFINATLY, dude! I have no arguement with you there. I agree completely! Anything that even RESEMBLES heroin I won't even be in the same ROOM as.

Then I hope you never have to have an operation, then, or get kidney stones or back problems or a severe toothache.  Every prescription painkiller resembles heroin.   

In fact, heroin should never have been made strictly illegal (Schedule I).  It is not as strong as fentanyl (Schedule II), which can be legally prescribed for chronic pain.

I honestly think demonizing certain drugs over others is the wrong way to look at things.  What matters most is the way the drug is being used (or abused), not the drug itself. 

 

Thank you, Rev. It never ceases to amaze me how refreshing the sound of the voice of reason can be.

[Vik]

Has anyone actually ever don shrooms? The effect seems amazingly awesome. I've been reading up about it.

In fact, heroin should never have been made strictly illegal (Schedule I).  It is not as strong as fentanyl (Schedule II), which can be legally prescribed for chronic pain.
 

I'm actually pro the legalization for all drugs. For these reasons:

-Prohibition doesn't work.
-It overpopulates prisons and creates criminals that aren't really criminals because
-in my opinion, every human over the age of 18 can decide for himself what he does to his/her own body. The people doing or wanting to do drugs, or anybody else is not the product of the government, and should be free to do what they want to do if it doesn't harm others. Drugs can only harm oneself, and if I want to hurt myself, I think I should be allowed to.
-There would be an assurance of what you're buying is actually what you want to buy, I'm certain that there's a lot of filthy stuff in street drugs that shouldn't be in it.

[alandhopewell]

     During the 70's, I tried acid, speed, not really my bag. I smoked pot for years, would still do it if it were legal.

     Never tried (or even seen) crack, ice, ecstasy, any of that stuff. I have a forty every once in a while, but I'd rather have a joint.

      Smoked cigarettes, a pack a day, for twenty-five years; the Lord took away the habit, without so much as a craving.

[Flick James]

Has anyone actually ever don shrooms? The effect seems amazingly awesome. I've been reading up about it.

In fact, heroin should never have been made strictly illegal (Schedule I).  It is not as strong as fentanyl (Schedule II), which can be legally prescribed for chronic pain.
 

I'm actually pro the legalization for all drugs. For these reasons:

-Prohibition doesn't work.
-It overpopulates prisons and creates criminals that aren't really criminals because
-in my opinion, every human over the age of 18 can decide for himself what he does to his/her own body. The people doing or wanting to do drugs, or anybody else is not the product of the government, and should be free to do what they want to do if it doesn't harm others. Drugs can only harm oneself, and if I want to hurt myself, I think I should be allowed to.
-There would be an assurance of what you're buying is actually what you want to buy, I'm certain that there's a lot of filthy stuff in street drugs that shouldn't be in it.

I agree fundamentally. The problem is that the prison industry has become a big business. The last thing prison owners want is for there to be less inmates. They are probably the biggest opponents of decriminalization. They definitely want to keep them prisons filled.

[Jim H]

Then I hope you never have to have an operation, then, or get kidney stones or back problems or a severe toothache.  Every prescription painkiller resembles heroin.

Ah yes.  I had a kidney stone a while ago.  Morphine is your best friend when that happens.  It may alter your perspective when you're basically begging for heroin (the two drugs are practically the same).

[HappyGilmore]

Drugs are drugs. "Oxycontin" is basically heroin, don't sell yourself that is anything better than.

Oh, DEFFINATLY, dude! I have no arguement with you there. I agree completely! Anything that even RESEMBLES heroin I won't even be in the same ROOM as.

Then I hope you never have to have an operation, then, or get kidney stones or back problems or a severe toothache.  Every prescription painkiller resembles heroin.   

In fact, heroin should never have been made strictly illegal (Schedule I).  It is not as strong as fentanyl (Schedule II), which can be legally prescribed for chronic pain.

I honestly think demonizing certain drugs over others is the wrong way to look at things.  What matters most is the way the drug is being used (or abused), not the drug itself. 

 

I'm not sure what the dentist gave me, but a couple years back, I had all four wisdom teeth out.  Let's just say, for a couple weeks I was happy.

Possibly too happy.  Since then I've since done every drug out there and frankly, I don't like the direction I'm going.

[HappyGilmore]

You may or may not hear much from me in the next few weeks.  Long story, but things may happen.

[Zapranoth]

-in my opinion, every human over the age of 18 can decide for himself what he does to his/her own body. The people doing or wanting to do drugs, or anybody else is not the product of the government, and should be free to do what they want to do if it doesn't harm others. Drugs can only harm oneself, and if I want to hurt myself, I think I should be allowed to.

Sounds reasonable, hey.  You can do all the drugs you want, if you just don't drive...   oh, that's right!  Your judgement was impaired and you forgot not to drive when you killed my brother by vehicular manslaughter!  But.. you should have the right to choose to be impaired and to forget that you ought not to drive, I suppose.  It's a free country after all.

And when you're all strung out and stealing aluminum siding off of houses and swiping manhole covers (have seen both of those things done around here), well, I shouldn't worry about the cost of that crime.  And you should get to choose to degrade yourself to a state of needing to steal tens of thousands from your parents to have drug-fueled weekends to avoid being strung out.  I mean, what good are parents without second mortgages?  Tough love isn't love, nope, not in our book.  it's a free country.

And that guy I took care of when I was a resident -- the guy who had been skin popping and his entire rear end was one solid interconnected series of abscesses and fistula... that guy, who needed weeks in the hospital, IV antibiotics, lots of surgery and a loooong nursing home stay... well, I'm sure he paid for that out of pocket, I can't imagine anyone else bore the cost of that.   I'm positive, looking back, that he had 200 grand socked away in a medical savings account, and if he didn't, well, I'm sure he was going to work a high-paying job for several years to pay off his obligation.  Well, maybe the hospital or the insurance companies did, now that I think about it.  But that's them, that doesn't affect me.  Or you. 

I don't agree with you here, because there is a societal cost.  You can try to pretend that there isn't, but there is.  I could go on at greatly more length than I already unnecessarily have.  And my opinion is that for large-scale self-destructive choices like this (not the more arguable ones) -- choices that have NO upside and only large and mind-bogglingly obvious downsides -- for these kinds of choices, if you truly did live in a vacuum I'd agree with you.   But I think that if you really thought about it for a moment, you'd realize that this is not how it really is.

[Newt]

^ Hear hear!   

[Vik]

-in my opinion, every human over the age of 18 can decide for himself what he does to his/her own body. The people doing or wanting to do drugs, or anybody else is not the product of the government, and should be free to do what they want to do if it doesn't harm others. Drugs can only harm oneself, and if I want to hurt myself, I think I should be allowed to.

Sounds reasonable, hey.  You can do all the drugs you want, if you just don't drive...   oh, that's right!  Your judgement was impaired and you forgot not to drive when you killed my brother by vehicular manslaughter!  But.. you should have the right to choose to be impaired and to forget that you ought not to drive, I suppose.  It's a free country after all.

And when you're all strung out and stealing aluminum siding off of houses and swiping manhole covers (have seen both of those things done around here), well, I shouldn't worry about the cost of that crime.  And you should get to choose to degrade yourself to a state of needing to steal tens of thousands from your parents to have drug-fueled weekends to avoid being strung out.  I mean, what good are parents without second mortgages?  Tough love isn't love, nope, not in our book.  it's a free country.

And that guy I took care of when I was a resident -- the guy who had been skin popping and his entire rear end was one solid interconnected series of abscesses and fistula... that guy, who needed weeks in the hospital, IV antibiotics, lots of surgery and a loooong nursing home stay... well, I'm sure he paid for that out of pocket, I can't imagine anyone else bore the cost of that.   I'm positive, looking back, that he had 200 grand socked away in a medical savings account, and if he didn't, well, I'm sure he was going to work a high-paying job for several years to pay off his obligation.  Well, maybe the hospital or the insurance companies did, now that I think about it.  But that's them, that doesn't affect me.  Or you. 

I don't agree with you here, because there is a societal cost.  You can try to pretend that there isn't, but there is.  I could go on at greatly more length than I already unnecessarily have.  And my opinion is that for large-scale self-destructive choices like this (not the more arguable ones) -- choices that have NO upside and only large and mind-bogglingly obvious downsides -- for these kinds of choices, if you truly did live in a vacuum I'd agree with you.   But I think that if you really thought about it for a moment, you'd realize that this is not how it really is.

Many the drugs even render its user unable to even get in a car. You act as if all drugs make one go on a crazy rampage, which is not the case. You want to illegalize alcohol just because there's the possibility someone could get in his car and might have an accident? It's a reason, but a weak one. What they should have installed in a car is some kind of breathing test to see if the driver's fit for the job, which would be a solution to that whole problem. And I do believe that that's being worked on.
I never said thievery was okay, of course not. And legalizing drugs would cheapen them greatly, so that certain scenario about putting the poor parents in debt wouldn't be that bad at all.
It's their choice. Illegalizing all things that don't have upsides is nonsensical. You act as if legalizing drugs is the equivallent of legalizing murder and thievery, which it isn't. Really, most of things you mentioned are overly dramatic pseudo-arguments.

But all that doesn't even matter, because you forgot the most vital thing I've said: Prohibition doesn't at all work. All of those downsides will still be there, but they will be helped, even, to an extent. And the legalization of drugs would have ample other good effects on society.

(EDIT: Also, the fact that drugs are illegal is life-ruining as well. Peeps doing only recreational drugs, not hurting anyone in any way, get the label of criminal, get sent to jail, even if they did nothing wrong, looking at it logically.)

[JaseSF]

There's stll the question of considerable medical expenses to pay for all those who will inevitably OD and those who will be inadequate in society to function at any job.

[Vik]

There's stll the question of considerable medical expenses to pay for all those who will inevitably OD and those who will be inadequate in society to function at any job.

Not really, because again, prohibition doesn't work. This would be a valid concern if you thought everyone would start doing drugs if it were made illegal, which simply wouldn't be the case. The large proportion of people wanting to do drugs are doing it, but the majority of people have no interest in doing heroine, et al.

[Flick James]

-in my opinion, every human over the age of 18 can decide for himself what he does to his/her own body. The people doing or wanting to do drugs, or anybody else is not the product of the government, and should be free to do what they want to do if it doesn't harm others. Drugs can only harm oneself, and if I want to hurt myself, I think I should be allowed to.

Sounds reasonable, hey.  You can do all the drugs you want, if you just don't drive...   oh, that's right!  Your judgement was impaired and you forgot not to drive when you killed my brother by vehicular manslaughter!  But.. you should have the right to choose to be impaired and to forget that you ought not to drive, I suppose.  It's a free country after all.

And when you're all strung out and stealing aluminum siding off of houses and swiping manhole covers (have seen both of those things done around here), well, I shouldn't worry about the cost of that crime.  And you should get to choose to degrade yourself to a state of needing to steal tens of thousands from your parents to have drug-fueled weekends to avoid being strung out.  I mean, what good are parents without second mortgages?  Tough love isn't love, nope, not in our book.  it's a free country.

And that guy I took care of when I was a resident -- the guy who had been skin popping and his entire rear end was one solid interconnected series of abscesses and fistula... that guy, who needed weeks in the hospital, IV antibiotics, lots of surgery and a loooong nursing home stay... well, I'm sure he paid for that out of pocket, I can't imagine anyone else bore the cost of that.   I'm positive, looking back, that he had 200 grand socked away in a medical savings account, and if he didn't, well, I'm sure he was going to work a high-paying job for several years to pay off his obligation.  Well, maybe the hospital or the insurance companies did, now that I think about it.  But that's them, that doesn't affect me.  Or you. 

I don't agree with you here, because there is a societal cost.  You can try to pretend that there isn't, but there is.  I could go on at greatly more length than I already unnecessarily have.  And my opinion is that for large-scale self-destructive choices like this (not the more arguable ones) -- choices that have NO upside and only large and mind-bogglingly obvious downsides -- for these kinds of choices, if you truly did live in a vacuum I'd agree with you.   But I think that if you really thought about it for a moment, you'd realize that this is not how it really is.

Nothing you posted was inaccurate. Not at all. However, does that mean there is not cost to drug prohibition? There most certainly is. The people have to pay for the enforcement of those crimes, for the corrupt law enforcement agencies that deliberately allow guns to be sold over the border to drug lords, the cost of border patrol, the cost of the prison system that is like a business that very much wants the prisons to be filled with people. None of that carries a cost with it?

Drug decriminalization and drug prohibition both cost a ton. Let's be honest here. And for anyone to say that either one "works" is just plain ignorant. They can't even keep illegal drugs out of a place that is supposed to be tightly controlled like a prison, for f***'s sake. And decriminalization has it's costs as well.I favor personal responsibility for one's actions, always have, always will. I'm for a better approach than what we have now, so if you have one, I'm all ears. Is the decriminalization approach in Portugal perfect? Of course not, but it made things better and resulted in decreases in drug use, and it's a hell of a lot better than this corrupt system we have in place here. Until I hear a better approach, I'm in favor of decriminalization.

[JaseSF]

It's interesting the straight edge band Good Clean Fun did this song about the "War on drugs"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bl-VAh5lKcE
	Small | Large

Still I really wonder if the cost might no be too high but then again, maybe it already is...