Is anyone else sick of the hypocrisy?

[PetShopBoy88]

Since hypocrisy means taking actions that are contrary to one's words, the thread title thread me off. I tend to agree that the "War on Drugs" is largely a waste of law enforcement resources, but unless there's evidence that the legislators who advocate keeping certain drugs illegal are actually using them, then the word hypocrisy is not applicable.

Lol. I was thinking that, too, but I thought I was the only one, so decided to keep my mouth shut.

 

[Zephyr]

Oh, and before someone brings it up, you couldn't sell the drugs you bought illegally. I suppose you could, with cannabis and other such drugs, but definately not with heroin, cocaine, methamphetamines, etc. You would be issued one container for the drug, and you would have to bring that container back every time to get a refill. It would be serialized/bar coded/otherwise ID'd. Perhaps there would even be a satellite tracking device, for the unlikely event that you lost the container.

One small issue with this. Who's to say that someone wouldn't just empty the stuff into another container for sale and return the original for refills?

I still think it's a good idea.

 

[Druidus]

Since hypocrisy means taking actions that are contrary to one's words, the thread title thread me off. I tend to agree that the "War on Drugs" is largely a waste of law enforcement resources, but unless there's evidence that the legislators who advocate keeping certain drugs illegal are actually using them, then the word hypocrisy is not applicable.

'Fraid not. When a politician says "drugs are bad" and goes off to have a smoke or a drink, that is hypocrisy. Drugs are drugs, and both alcohol and nicotine are drugs. As well, several politicians have admitted to using illegal drugs in the past, and I'm certain that many more have.

One small issue with this. Who's to say that someone wouldn't just empty the stuff into another container for sale and return the original for refills?

Whoops, forgot to add one thing...

The canister they are sold in is also the dosing utensil. For instance, you would get your needle for heroin injection attached to the canister, and if any tampering (to get the heroin our) was evident, your certification for that drug would be revoked, at least temporarily.

The only way one could sell their drug would be by selling a dose and giving it right there. Most drug users would prefer not to dose up around their dealer, especially if it was a black market situation.

The canisters themselves would be highly protected from reverse engineering. If you didn't have the tools the pharmacies had, you couldn't get inside the canister, meaning you couldn't remove your psychoactive for resale.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

When you can walk to your local pharmacy and get some LSD for a good price, why would you want to go to the black market? The black market would die out.

Not only going to the black market, it would make chemically produced drugs much safer to purchase and use. I like the idea of being able to go a CVS at the start of a day off, buy some acid that I know won't be screwed up, and will likly give a good trip in the right environment, and has a less chance of killing me because it was correctly. I then take the acid to a place I can enjoy it, and enjoy. I like that idea much better than the idea of buying it off a third party, who got it from gang filled streets where people care more about the money than the if the client lives through the trip.

I don't really like the idea of having to get a liscense to buy drugs, but if it would enable those who are responsible to use the drugs without fear of the law, then I'm all for it. I still buy ephedrine once in awhile, and all sales of that in Indiana are tracked. It's a hassle, but at least I can still buy it and use it.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

'Fraid not. When a politician says "drugs are bad" and goes off to have a smoke or a drink, that is hypocrisy. Drugs are drugs, and both alcohol and nicotine are drugs. As well, several politicians have admitted to using illegal drugs in the past, and I'm certain that many more have....

When they say 'drugs are bad', they are refering to drugs that are currently illegal, so the fact that they partake of legal substances does not rise to the level of hypocrisy.

True, some politicians have admitted to using illegal drugs, but unless you have evidence that they did so WHILE they were in office, once again, the term hypocrisy does not apply.

If I tell a young child not to touch the hot stove because I did so as a child and burned my hand, that makes me a teacher, not a hypocrite.

Hypocrisy is a strong word, and I hate to see you cheapen your argument by misusing it. I realize you have a strong opinion on the subject, but I hope you realize that you are not going to win people over by sticking labels on them because they currently do not agree with you..

 

[gnomon]

Essentially, the hypocrisy stems from the fact that alcohol is a drug no safer and originally no more acceptable than any of the other drugs. To prosecute someone for growing, transporting or using marijuana while not doing so to those who brew, transport or use alcohol is hypocrisy. It doesn't involve the personal actions of individual congressman but the basic principle that the government has deemed certain substances to be illegal based on their perceived threat to society when alcohol is already known as a greater threat than many of the illicit substances.

However, if you take the actual foundation for the drug laws than there is no hypocrisy. The passage of the Harrison Narcotics Act, the Marijuana Stamp Act, and further drug laws had little to do with the actual protection of our people and especially our children. Most of it was racist propaganda and gross misuse of politics to further capital gain. Yet, today new laws are pushed based on the premise that the use of mind-altering substances harms society and specifically the children. Alcohol is known to be one of the most effective and dangerous mind-altering substances in our society yet it remains legal and loosely regulated. It's a double standard.

Any individual in our society who prosecutes another for the use of an illicit substance while they themselves have ever been drunk or even drank enough to get tipsy is, by definition, a hypocrite. Or better yet, basically anyone who drinks and supports the drug war is a hypocrite.

But that is really not the issue. The crime and corruption created by this puritanical war on drugs is the real problem.

 

[Druidus]

When they say 'drugs are bad', they are refering to drugs that are currently illegal, so the fact that they partake of legal substances does not rise to the level of hypocrisy.

What they are referring to is moot. They do not recognize alcohol as a dangerous drug, and they choose to isolate it from the rest as "ok" for reasons I have yet to see. The only reason I can put forth is that they enjoy it, so that makes it ok. This, in my mind, is clear evidence of hypocrisy. They tell us, those who enjoy the use of currently illegal psychoactives, that we shouldn't be using the drugs we do (the drugs that make us happy, give us spiritual experiences, open our minds, and allow us to explore our psyche) and yet no word is spoken when they endulge in the drugs they enjoy; merely because they are "legal". This is hypocrisy, to me, my friend. Perhaps a better word might have been bigotry, however, seeing as how they refuse to see any evidence to the contrary of their beliefs on this matter (it's absurd, because almost all of the evidence is against them).

People who say they "don't need drugs" and go off to drink or smoke, they are hypocrites, pure and simple. It may be harsh, but I see it as true. Even if they are referring to illegal drugs, there can be no distinction. The drugs they are using, alcohol and tobacco, are far more dangerous than MDMA, LSD, psilocybin, cannabis, or almost any other kind of illegal drug. Therefore, I see no reason why what they are referring to matters. It's just semantics.

 

[Ryan2065]

I do agree that current drug laws are not working in the United States, but I do not agree that all drugs should be legal. I agree that weed and LSD are not so bad when used in the right circumstances, but I do not agree that drugs such as the "date rape" drugs should be legal.

The drug that best shows, in my opinion, why *all* drugs should not be legal is heroin. Heroin is a drug you can build a tolerance for. This simply means the more you use heroin, the more heroin you actually need to reach the effects you want to get. People who use heroin can experience withdrawl symptoms within 6 hours after their last hit. This means as they keep on using it they want greater amounts of the drug more and more often. Drugs that act this way can lead to someone turning to crime in order to pay for the drugs they are addicted to.

http://www.economist.com/research/backgrounders/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2709203

Now that the police routinely test offenders for drugs, they are noticing that certain chemicals seem to be associated with certain types of crime. One Home Office study of 3,000 arrestees found that those pulled in for burglary and shoplifting were more likely to test positive for heroin than anyone else. Muggers and purse-snatchers, though, were most likely to be cocaine or crack users.
Given the effects of the drugs, such patterns are not surprising. As Steve Hassall, a detective chief inspector at Greater Manchester Police, puts it, a crack addict in need of a fix will be “climbing the walls” and hardly capable of planning a break-in. This has strong implications for criminal activity. As powder and crack cocaine overtake heroin as drugs of choice, burglary inevitably declines while street crime does not.

 

[Druidus]

I do agree that current drug laws are not working in the United States, but I do not agree that all drugs should be legal. I agree that weed and LSD are not so bad when used in the right circumstances, but I do not agree that drugs such as the "date rape" drugs should be legal.

The "date rape" drug is a common myth. GHB was banned because it was a "date rape" drug, when most people don't use it that way. Alcohol is more of a date rape drug than GHB, or other types. Most people who use the common date rape drugs use them recreationally.

And if the "date rape" drugs are kept in dose containers, you couldn't really use them for "date raping". What date would let you shoot them up with a random drug container?

The drug that best shows, in my opinion, why *all* drugs should not be legal is heroin.

I disagree.

Heroin is a drug you can build a tolerance for. This simply means the more you use heroin, the more heroin you actually need to reach the effects you want to get.

Firrinn. But almost ALL drugs have tolerance issues. Including cannabis. Even alcohol and tobacco have tolerance issues. This is no reason to illegalize a drug.

Instead, use moderation should be the issue at hand. With dose moderation , tolerance can be minimized. With something like cannabis, tolerance is not too much of an issue, but with cocaine and heroin, yes, it is. Therefore, spacing doses properly insures a minimum of tolerance.

People who use heroin can experience withdrawl symptoms within 6 hours after their last hit.

Firrinn. But this doesn't make it bad. If they can deal with the crash, they should be allowed the high. Heroin is bad stuff, I agree, it's not something I'd get into. Overall, opium is a much safer and more enjoyable route to go.

This means as they keep on using it they want greater amounts of the drug more and more often.

This is not necessarily true. If they moderate their use, greater doses more often does not become an issue.

Drugs that act this way can lead to someone turning to crime in order to pay for the drugs they are addicted to.

Only if there is not a constant and cheap supply, as there would be in the model of non-prohibition I support. Heroin is rather cheap to produce.

The problem comes when moderation is not applied (the courses required for certification would ensure that moderation was taught) and black markets increase prices and lower amounts.

Now that the police routinely test offenders for drugs, they are noticing that certain chemicals seem to be associated with certain types of crime. One Home Office study of 3,000 arrestees found that those pulled in for burglary and shoplifting were more likely to test positive for heroin than anyone else. Muggers and purse-snatchers, though, were most likely to be cocaine or crack users.
Given the effects of the drugs, such patterns are not surprising. As Steve Hassall, a detective chief inspector at Greater Manchester Police, puts it, a crack addict in need of a fix will be “climbing the walls” and hardly capable of planning a break-in. This has strong implications for criminal activity. As powder and crack cocaine overtake heroin as drugs of choice, burglary inevitably declines while street crime does not.

The premise of this argument is illogical. If drug users had access to cheaper and more constant sources of their drug of choice, drug related crimes would no longer exist; at least not in any significant manner. As it stands, because of black market profit margins, those who do become addicted (a minority, not the majority) inevitably must turn to crime. In the model I support, such things would never need to occur.

Lowered crime rate and profit for the government equals good all around.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

but I do not agree that drugs such as the "date rape" drugs should be legal.

Alcohol is a very good "date rape" drug. "Candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker." "Beuty is in the eye of the beer holder." "Beer - Helping the ugly have sex since [whatever year it says]." Just a couple phrases that, allthough intended to be jokes, point out that alcohol is a great way to convience someone to have sex.
Alcohol is one the worst, if not the worst, drugs on the market if abused, but it is legal. Cannabis, which is much safer than many daily activities, is legal.

I very strongly agree that tracking sells and limiting doses will fix alot of problems.

 

[michel]

Personally, I'm sick of it. Government officials say that "drugs" are bad. That prohibition is for our own good. That "drugs" cause crime.

But we all know this is bullcrap. They likely have a liquor cabinet stocked with alcoholic liquids, and alcohol is a very addictive and dangerous drug. In fact, while no one has ever died from cannabis, and only one person has ever verifiably overdosed on psychedelic mushrooms, insane numbers of people die from alcohol related problems every year!

And most drugs are not dangerous at all. Cannabis certainly isn't. Sure, there are some dangers, especially if you drive (though cannabis is never as bad combined with driving as alcohol is, it is as bad as some prescription medecines), but this can be effectively zero through proper safety. It may even have health benefits. Indeed, smoking cannabis was shown to have a potential reduction effect with lung cancer in a study of 60,000 people. People who smoked cannabis had less incidences of lung cancer than those who did not. This is possibly due to the fact that cannabis smoke focuses on large bronchial passages (tobacco smoke goes for the smaller ones), may cause pre-cancerous cells to prematurely commit cellular suicide, as well as being a dilative agent, meaning it may assist in the cleansing of lung passages.

But this is not what I want this debate to be about (don't worry, there will be many more psychoactive related debates started by me ).

I am here to discuss prohibition. Prohibition of alcohol was a complete and utter failure. Why should prohibition of other psychoactives be any different?

There are a number of reasons why prohibition is ridiculous, immoral, pointless, and a complete farce.

First of all, many people use illegal psychoactives as sacraments. I use cannabis in a spiritual manner (I am also quite open about it; and I know that it is only illegal to possess cannabis, not to admit to past usage), for instance. It is a part of me and my spirituality. To remove this part of me is cruel and immoral, a slap in the face to religious tolerance. I've never killed a man. I've never harmed anyone except in defense of myself. Why should I be punished for choosing to inhale smoke?

Prohibition has been proven to be ineffective. Drug use has risen all around, except for opiates since the start of the War on Drugs. The War on Drugs is having nearly no effect on drug trafficking. The only thing it does is increase the profit margin, therefore ensuring the continued success of the black market.

It is a base right to be able to alter my consciousness. No one should be allowed to take this away from me, unless I am harming others. I am not, and the majority of drug users can say this too.

Does anyone know who Al Capone is? Thousands of Al Capones exist today, because of drug prohibition. In any black market, unsanctioned by government powers and therefore not protected by government powers, violence is the only means by which disputes can be solved. If governments sanction the trade of psychoactive drugs that are currently illegal, and regulate the sale of these chemicals/plants/fungi, violence and crime would no longer be a significant force in the underground drug market. Why? Because it would no longer exist, without the staggering profit margins that black markets create.

The U.S. wastes 30 billion dollars per year on drug prohibition (and this number is increasing). This money could easily be used in any number of other possible areas. To use it in a means proven to be ineffective is immoral. And this figure of 30 billion dollars doesn't even factor in the cost of jailing close on half a million prohibition violators.

Ending prohibition reduces the use of "hard" drugs, as has been shown in countries like the Netherlands.

There are numerous other valid arguments against prohibition, but I am far too tired to detail them right now. Instead, I'd like to hear your thoughts. And if anyone can tell me why prohibition is good, I am ready. But I doubt your reasons will be valid.

One more thing... I use many types of psychoactives, and have for some time now. Do I seem particularly unintelligent? Violent? Unstable?

You and I have crossed swords on this subject a few times, Dru, and I don't suppose either of us will back down.

I quite agree with you about alcohol, but two wrongs don't make a right.

I use many types of psychoactives, and have for some time now. Do I seem particularly unintelligent? Violent? Unstable?

No, but you are still a young man.

 

[PetShopBoy88]

You and I have crossed swords on this subject a few times, Dru, and I don't suppose either of us will back down.

I quite agree with you about alcohol, but two wrongs don't make a right.

Druidus is not your body. He's not your son. You have no right to even indirectly (through legistlation) tell him what he can and cannot do with his body.

 

[Ryan2065]

The "date rape" drug is a common myth. GHB was banned because it was a "date rape" drug, when most people don't use it that way. Alcohol is more of a date rape drug than GHB, or other types. Most people who use the common date rape drugs use them recreationally.

And if the "date rape" drugs are kept in dose containers, you couldn't really use them for "date raping". What date would let you shoot them up with a random drug container?

While most people do not use it that way this does not mean that it cannot be used in this way. When you say alchol is more of a date rape drug are you saying alchol is used more than GHB or are you saying alchol is more effective than GHB in date rapes?

If GHB was legal then it would be much easier to get (obviously). So sexual preditors would be able to get this drug, and it would then be much easier for a rape to occur and much easier for a rapist to get away with said rape.

Firrinn. But almost ALL drugs have tolerance issues. Including cannabis. Even alcohol and tobacco have tolerance issues. This is no reason to illegalize a drug.

Instead, use moderation should be the issue at hand. With dose moderation , tolerance can be minimized. With something like cannabis, tolerance is not too much of an issue, but with cocaine and heroin, yes, it is. Therefore, spacing doses properly insures a minimum of tolerance.

The point was to combine the two arguments I made... If someone needs a fix every six hours, and in order for that "fix" to be effective he/she needs more and more of this drug or withdrawl starts to set in then after awhile they will need quite alot of the heroin.

Only if there is not a constant and cheap supply, as there would be in the model of non-prohibition I support. Heroin is rather cheap to produce.

The problem comes when moderation is not applied (the courses required for certification would ensure that moderation was taught) and black markets increase prices and lower amounts.

Really? So you are saying the demand for heroin would be so high drug companies would jump at the opportunity to make this stuff to supply all those heroin addicts to make a ton of money (while keeping the cost down enough for a heroin addict to get a fix at least every day, more than likely two times a day). Are there really that many heroin addicts that would make the drug company want to make heroin to get a profit? I am quite sure the price would be much higher than you imagine simply due to the supply/demand situation. Remember, it costs less than 25 cents to create a music cd (just looking at the cd creation side) yet they sell for 12+ dollars...

The premise of this argument is illogical. If drug users had access to cheaper and more constant sources of their drug of choice, drug related crimes would no longer exist; at least not in any significant manner. As it stands, because of black market profit margins, those who do become addicted (a minority, not the majority) inevitably must turn to crime. In the model I support, such things would never need to occur.

Lowered crime rate and profit for the government equals good all around.

Your counter argument is more illogical than my argument. For one you are suggesting that all the drugs are going to be so much cheaper than they currently are when more than likely they would be similar in cost (a little cheaper though I imagine). The cost to produce these things is certantly low but drug companies would more than likely need to deal with boycotting and the like if they created some of the harder drugs and normal drugs. Then there is the demand of these harder drugs, which of course isn't particularly very high compared to other things the drug company could be doing. The cost would not be the cost of producing or anywhere near.

Then your second point of argument is that the drug addicts would be able to have enough money to get these drugs. My argument for crime takes someone who needs to get a fix, ie they are pretty addicted. Take a heroin addict for example... Someone who is addicted to this substance needs a fix of heroin quite often. How exactly would they hold a decent job if they keep needing fixes of heroin? Someone who needs to get drunk every 6 hours wouldn't be able to hold a good job in this day and age so I wouldn't imagine someone who is on heroin would be able to hold a good job (Not saying he couldn't get a job). So someone who does not have a good job and is highly addicted to a drug they need to take quite often is going to need to have cash inflow to keep this supply going. Its not a stretch to see a few of these people turning to crime to get their fixes.

While I do agree there would be a lower crime rate, the crime rate would still be there. This lower crime rate could very easily be achieved by just making cannabis legal rather than every drug you could think of.

You seem to believe the cost of drugs would go way down if they are legalized even if there is almost no demand for these drugs... That is not the way the market works.

 

[Ryan2065]

Alcohol is a very good "date rape" drug. "Candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker." "Beuty is in the eye of the beer holder." "Beer - Helping the ugly have sex since [whatever year it says]." Just a couple phrases that, allthough intended to be jokes, point out that alcohol is a great way to convience someone to have sex.
Alcohol is one the worst, if not the worst, drugs on the market if abused, but it is legal. Cannabis, which is much safer than many daily activities, is legal.

I very strongly agree that tracking sells and limiting doses will fix alot of problems.

Alright...
1) Alcohol being a date rape drug is defently not a good argument... Alcohol is used for many other things besides date rape, and compared to the effects of GHB, alcohol doesn't even come close to being as good of a date rape drug.

2) So nicknames is a good way to debate now is it? Alcohol has its "date rape" nicknames... GHB is called the date rape drug... I think my "nick name" is better than yours

3) Huh, alcohol can be consider the worst drug to abuse? How many drugs do you know of? Do you think someone is more likely to accidently overdose on GHB or alcohol?

4) A plug for cannabis at the end of your date rape argument? I have already said that cannabis is not bad at all and should be legal... I have seen many people use the argument: "Cannabis isn't so bad so all drugs should be legal!" and that to me is the worst argument anyone can have if they want any new drugs legal.

 

[exgirlfriend]

I think this country could make a lot more money by legalizing pot and some other drugs than it is to keep it illegal. I feel the same way about prostiution. Why not have the government regulate this sort of thing and get the drug dealers and pimps off the street?

I think it would be a smart thing to do. Now, I don't really agree with coccaine, heroin and meth, but if someone else wants to use it, I say go right ahead.

Sorry if I don't make sense. It sounds good in my head.

 

[Druidus]

Druidus is not your body. He's not your son. You have no right to even indirectly (through legistlation) tell him what he can and cannot do with his body.

Firrinn, but Michel and I go way back and I have a lot of respect for his opinion.

While most people do not use it that way this does not mean that it cannot be used in this way.

The same is applicable to alcohol.

When you say alchol is more of a date rape drug are you saying alchol is used more than GHB or are you saying alchol is more effective than GHB in date rapes?

Both. It's more socially acceptable, females or males might not know they've been raped, and it's cheap. Far cheaper than GHB. It also causes much more damage then GHB to the body and mind.

If GHB was legal then it would be much easier to get (obviously).

Not in dose containers. What person would let their date administer them a GHB from a dose-container (clearly engraved as GHB).

So sexual preditors would be able to get this drug, and it would then be much easier for a rape to occur and much easier for a rapist to get away with said rape.

Ha! Overall, it would be as easy. You underestimate alcohol's effectiveness.

The point was to combine the two arguments I made... If someone needs a fix every six hours, and in order for that "fix" to be effective he/she needs more and more of this drug or withdrawl starts to set in then after awhile they will need quite alot of the heroin.

I know several people who use heroin. None of them are addicts. They space their doses because they educated themselves on heroin before using it. Courses required for certification would make sure people understand that.

And most people don't get withdrawl in five to six hours. Only the severe addicts. Most people by far are not severe addicts.

I would go so far to say that alcohol is as bad or worse than heroin. At least heroin doesn't damage your body and mind.

Really? So you are saying the demand for heroin would be so high drug companies would jump at the opportunity to make this stuff to supply all those heroin addicts to make a ton of money (while keeping the cost down enough for a heroin addict to get a fix at least every day, more than likely two times a day).

Again, most people who use heroin do not need a dose a day. It is usally a weekly thing, maybe even monthly. Heroin is already produced by pharmaceutical companies. It is a valid pharmaceutical, and is used in the treatment of severe pain. There is already demand for it. More demand would not hurt.

Are there really that many heroin addicts that would make the drug company want to make heroin to get a profit?

Yes.

I am quite sure the price would be much higher than you imagine simply due to the supply/demand situation. Remember, it costs less than 25 cents to create a music cd (just looking at the cd creation side) yet they sell for 12+ dollars...

Back when heroin was legal, it cost around four bucks to get what costs eighty today. It's extremely easy to make, much easier than you assume.

Your counter argument is more illogical than my argument. For one you are suggesting that all the drugs are going to be so much cheaper than they currently are when more than likely they would be similar in cost (a little cheaper though I imagine).

Even accounting for inflation, all illegal drugs were much cheaper than they are today when legal. Black markets have to deal with much more danger than sanctioned markets, so the profit margin has to be MUCH higher.

The cost to produce these things is certantly low but drug companies would more than likely need to deal with boycotting and the like if they created some of the harder drugs and normal drugs.

I doubt it. Even if they had to deal with boycotting, so what? Every pharmaceutical company would want to get in on this. Are people going to boycott medecine?

Then there is the demand of these harder drugs, which of course isn't particularly very high compared to other things the drug company could be doing. The cost would not be the cost of producing or anywhere near.

Regardless of demand, it is still extremely cheap to produce most hard drugs.

Then your second point of argument is that the drug addicts would be able to have enough money to get these drugs. My argument for crime takes someone who needs to get a fix, ie they are pretty addicted.

You underestimate the ease with which drugs can be produced again. The drugs would be very cheap to make, and prices would therefore be just as cheap.

Take a heroin addict for example... Someone who is addicted to this substance needs a fix of heroin quite often.

Perhaps, but usually not. Most can handle several days without.

How exactly would they hold a decent job if they keep needing fixes of heroin? Someone who needs to get drunk every 6 hours wouldn't be able to hold a good job in this day and age so I wouldn't imagine someone who is on heroin would be able to hold a good job (Not saying he couldn't get a job).

Again, only the extremely severely addicted people need this, and they would be getting help for their addictions anyway, and a mandatory revokal of their certification after treatment.

While I do agree there would be a lower crime rate, the crime rate would still be there. This lower crime rate could very easily be achieved by just making cannabis legal rather than every drug you could think of.

No. This is not true. Legalized hard drugs would cause a much lowered crime rate than just cannabis legalization alone. But only with a system such as the one I quoted. Cannabis legalization would be just the start.

You seem to believe the cost of drugs would go way down if they are legalized even if there is almost no demand for these drugs... That is not the way the market works.

Almost no demand? There's a lot more demand for heroin and cocaine than you give it credit for.

1) Alcohol being a date rape drug is defently not a good argument... Alcohol is used for many other things besides date rape, and compared to the effects of GHB, alcohol doesn't even come close to being as good of a date rape drug.

GHB is used for many other things besides date rape, and no, compared to the effects of GHB, alcohol is a much safer route for date rape; GHB is just slightly quicker.

Huh, alcohol can be consider the worst drug to abuse? How many drugs do you know of? Do you think someone is more likely to accidently overdose on GHB or alcohol?

You know, I just had to laugh for a minute there... Alcohol causes the most lethal overdoses of any drug, anywhere, period. It is far easier to overdose on alcohol than for GHB. For any drug, really. Alcohol really is the most dangerous drug.

Cannabis isn't so bad so all drugs should be legal!" and that to me is the worst argument anyone can have if they want any new drugs legal.

I've never heard anybody profess that belief. Ever. Certainly, none of us are.

 

[bender118]

The only real way to stop the drug importation buisness is to not ban sales, but to stop sales above a certain value. A puond of <drug> may only be sold as high as $1. The drug runners won't make enough profit to contiune.

 

[bender118]

Firrinn, but Michel and I go way back and I have a lot of respect for his opinion.



The same is applicable to alcohol.



Both. It's more socially acceptable, females or males might not know they've been raped, and it's cheap. Far cheaper than GHB. It also causes much more damage then GHB to the body and mind.



Not in dose containers. What person would let their date administer them a GHB from a dose-container (clearly engraved as GHB).



Ha! Overall, it would be as easy. You underestimate alcohol's effectiveness.



I know several people who use heroin. None of them are addicts. They space their doses because they educated themselves on heroin before using it. Courses required for certification would make sure people understand that.

And most people don't get withdrawl in five to six hours. Only the severe addicts. Most people by far are not severe addicts.

I would go so far to say that alcohol is as bad or worse than heroin. At least heroin doesn't damage your body and mind.



Again, most people who use heroin do not need a dose a day. It is usally a weekly thing, maybe even monthly. Heroin is already produced by pharmaceutical companies. It is a valid pharmaceutical, and is used in the treatment of severe pain. There is already demand for it. More demand would not hurt.



Yes.



Back when heroin was legal, it cost around four bucks to get what costs eighty today. It's extremely easy to make, much easier than you assume.



Even accounting for inflation, all illegal drugs were much cheaper than they are today when legal. Black markets have to deal with much more danger than sanctioned markets, so the profit margin has to be MUCH higher.



I doubt it. Even if they had to deal with boycotting, so what? Every pharmaceutical company would want to get in on this. Are people going to boycott medecine?


Regardless of demand, it is still extremely cheap to produce most hard drugs.



You underestimate the ease with which drugs can be produced again. The drugs would be very cheap to make, and prices would therefore be just as cheap.



Perhaps, but usually not. Most can handle several days without.



Again, only the extremely severely addicted people need this, and they would be getting help for their addictions anyway, and a mandatory revokal of their certification after treatment.



No. This is not true. Legalized hard drugs would cause a much lowered crime rate than just cannabis legalization alone. But only with a system such as the one I quoted. Cannabis legalization would be just the start.


Almost no demand? There's a lot more demand for heroin and cocaine than you give it credit for.



GHB is used for many other things besides date rape, and no, compared to the effects of GHB, alcohol is a much safer route for date rape; GHB is just slightly quicker.



You know, I just had to laugh for a minute there... Alcohol causes the most lethal overdoses of any drug, anywhere, period. It is far easier to overdose on alcohol than for GHB. For any drug, really. Alcohol really is the most dangerous drug.



I've never heard anybody profess that belief. Ever. Certainly, none of us are.

Youa re looking at only 1 side of the issue, The direct effect of <drug> on a person/ Those drugs are sold for a ton of money (enough to start an entire crime ring) and so how should i pay for it? I dont have any money... Oh look, theres an old lady who just withdrew her social security check... I know ill mug her and use hte money to get more drugs.
That is the logic used by a large enough percentage of drug users that they should be banned. Prohibiting the drugs obviously doesnt work, so we need a better method, like putting a limit on a drug's price

 

[PetShopBoy88]

Firrinn, but Michel and I go way back and I have a lot of respect for his opinion.

Which means, what? That if Michael posts something in a thread that you started, I'm not allowed to respond to it? Or that because you respect it, I must also? Sorry, I didn't know those "customs" of the forums.

Prohibiting the drugs obviously doesnt work, so we need a better method, like putting a limit on a drug's price

Which will probably work as well as other price caps have in the past.

 

[Ryan2065]

I know several people who use heroin. None of them are addicts. They space their doses because they educated themselves on heroin before using it. Courses required for certification would make sure people understand that.

And most people don't get withdrawl in five to six hours. Only the severe addicts. Most people by far are not severe addicts.

I would go so far to say that alcohol is as bad or worse than heroin. At least heroin doesn't damage your body and mind.

Heroin does not damage your body and mind? Are you saying lasting effects or quick effects? Heroin withdrawl does in fact mess with your body and being on heroin does mess with your mind.

http://www.dea.gov/concern/heroin.html

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Chronic users may develop collapsed veins, infection of the heart lining and valves, abscesses, cellulites, and liver disease. [/SIZE][/FONT]

I doubt it. Even if they had to deal with boycotting, so what? Every pharmaceutical company would want to get in on this. Are people going to boycott medecine?

When there are alternatives to the medicine sure they will. Patents only last so long on medicine and once the patent is up any drug company can make that certain drug...

Almost no demand? There's a lot more demand for heroin and cocaine than you give it credit for.

You seem to believe there is enough demand for companies to create new sectors in order to make the hard stuff... As you have been trying to point out apparently most heroin users only need a fix once a week... And since there are millions upon millions of heroin users in this country this would create a great demand! Oh... Yea... there aren't exactly that many users...

GHB is used for many other things besides date rape, and no, compared to the effects of GHB, alcohol is a much safer route for date rape; GHB is just slightly quicker.

Huh? Where do you get your information?
Side effects of GHB:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghb#Recreational

At low doses, GHB can cause a state of euphoria, increased libido[5], increased sociality and intoxication. This kind of use is particularly common at rave parties.

Side effects of alcohol:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_alcohol_on_the_body#Intoxication

In small amounts, ethanol causes a mild euphoria and removes inhibitions, and in large doses it causes drunkenness, generally at a blood ethanol content of about 0.1%.

Seeing as GHB makes you want to get laid I would think GHB would be the better date rape drug...

You know, I just had to laugh for a minute there... Alcohol causes the most lethal overdoses of any drug, anywhere, period. It is far easier to overdose on alcohol than for GHB. For any drug, really. Alcohol really is the most dangerous drug.

Are you saying more people overdose on alcohol each year or if you drink alcohol you are more likely to overdose compared to if you did heroin or a harder drug? There is a huge difference.

I've never heard anybody profess that belief. Ever. Certainly, none of us are.

I was pointing out that is how many peoples arguments go. Most people who argue for the legalization of all drugs show the facts of cannabis but then do not mention any other drug and then say "Hey, see, all drugs should be legal!"