Is anyone else sick of the hypocrisy?

[Druidus]

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.

This doesn't work at all. Then they'll just operate away from the sight of the authorities, selling it as high as always.

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.

Sorry, but that's not what happens most often. Most don't get that addicted. Where is this money going? Crime. Where would it be going if legalized under the model I support? The government and pharmaceutical companies.

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

That method is clearly impossible to work; it would produce no measurable change in the situation we see today. The black market would still exist for drugs, and be as black as ever.

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.

No, no, go ahead and respond, I just don't want your response to defend me if it's someone like Michel. I mean no offense.

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.

Heroin itself is surprisingly non-toxic. Less toxic than alcohol. It is not damaging to the mind or the body. Withdrawls can cause damage, but, again, only those who become addicted have to deal with the damaging withdrawls. Those who casually use it, say, once or twice a month, they never worry about withdrawl, because it doesn't happen. They get a "crash" which isn't fun, but isn't withdrawl either.

I will show you the evidence that heroin itself is not damaging if you must see it.

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

Much like I would never quote from an organization that only cites "research" in it's favour, I would ask you to do the same. Quoting from the DEA is a joke. Nothing they say can be trusted. Their lies and misinformations have been revealed so often that they are regarded as humourous.

Chronic users may develop collapsed veins, infection of the heart lining and valves, abscesses, cellulites, and liver disease.

Notice the "chronic" bit. And the "may" bit. None of this has been shown to causation, there is merely a potential link. Virtually every one of those would be removed if heroin was smoked (which also lowers the risk of addiction and tolerance issues).

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...

There is no alternative to the medicinal industry. And yes, I understand pharmaceutical patents. What was your point?

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...

There are more users than you assume. It's not a whole new sector. When will you realize that, as I have said, heroin is ALREADY produced by the pharmaceutical industry. It's a VALID medecine for pain relief for some. All the pharmaceutical companies would have to do is step up production a bit, which would bring in more income at very little expense (it's cheap to produce heroin).

Huh? Where do you get your information?

I don't colour it by only providing effects for higher doses as Wikipedia is showing. Those same effects are present in higher doses of alcohol. What's your point?

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

Cannabis makes sexual arousal higher to. What's your point? Alcohol removes inhibitions and also causes increased sexual activity. Are you ignoring this for a reason?

Alcohol overdoses are roughly equal to GHB overdoses.

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.

More people overdose on alcohol (as a drug in its own right) every year than on any other drug. Period.

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!"

No, only the idiots do that. Most people look at drugs beyond cannabis and automatically condemn them, without researching them as deeply as I have. When you get beyond the DEA and other extremely biased sources, you find impartial research papers. These clearly show that our current position on most every drug needs to be realigned with reality.

Did you not read this from the DEA source you quoted:

Sudden withdrawal by heavily dependent users who are in poor health is occasionally fatal, although heroin withdrawal is considered less dangerous than alcohol or barbiturate withdrawal.

Why did you ignore that? Alcohol withdrawl is more dangerous than heroin withdrawl, right there from a source you must trust to have quoted.

 

[Druidus]

From Erowid.org:

GHB (gamma-hydroxy butyrate) is an intoxicataing chemical with medical, recreational, and potentially entheogenic uses. GHB affects the release of dopamine in the brain, usually causing effects ranging from relaxation to sleep at low doses. Overall, the effect characterization is extremely similar to alcohol, with the duration slightly longer, the hangover effects (for most people) slightly less, and the unpleasant and dangerous overdose effect of possibly causing temporarily unrousable sleep (coma) at doses just over those that some people enjoy ingesting.

The effects of GHB are heavily affected by one's body weight, interactions with other chemicals, and one's individual reaction. Some people find GHB to be useful for treating insomnia, others use it as part of the process of breaking alcohol addiction, some find it a pleasant alcohol replacement. Many people who try GHB don't like it somewhat drowsy, slightly dizzy, alcohol-like character.

These are the health problems for GHB:


http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/ghb/ghb_health.shtml


I readily admit that it is dangerous, just as alcohol is. But the education required to achieve a certification for it would remove most, if not all, of the danger.


Sexual assualt:


http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/sex/sex_assault1.shtml

Rape and sexual assault are problems every society needs to learn to deal with. Sexual assaults involving the use of a psychoactive substance have their own issues and problems. Alcohol is by far the most common substance involved in sexual assaults. However, any substance which impairs the ability of a person to adequately respond to a situation or defend themself if the need arises, could be used in the same way. Other substances sometimes associated with substance related sexual assaults include Rohypnol, GHB, Ketamine, and Mickies (sometimes used as a general word to describe any substances added to a drink to knock a person out...also used to describe chloral hydrate).

Even if the government has to pay to increase heroin production, that's what should be done. It would reduce crime, overdoses, sickness, contaminants, and many other problems. It's better than keeping it the way it is now.

 

[Ryan2065]

Heroin itself is surprisingly non-toxic. Less toxic than alcohol. It is not damaging to the mind or the body. Withdrawls can cause damage, but, again, only those who become addicted have to deal with the damaging withdrawls. Those who casually use it, say, once or twice a month, they never worry about withdrawl, because it doesn't happen. They get a "crash" which isn't fun, but isn't withdrawl either.

I will show you the evidence that heroin itself is not damaging if you must see it.

You asserted it was less damaging than alcohol... That is what I was debating.

Much like I would never quote from an organization that only cites "research" in it's favour, I would ask you to do the same. Quoting from the DEA is a joke. Nothing they say can be trusted. Their lies and misinformations have been revealed so often that they are regarded as humourous.

Just because it only cites research in its favor does not mean the research is invalid and should not be trusted... If you must though..
http://www.rapid-detox.org/chronic-heroin-use.htm

Medical consequences of chronic heroin injection use include scarred and/or collapsed veins, bacterial infections of the blood vessels and heart valves, abscesses (boils) and other soft-tissue infections, and liver or kidney disease.

Hrm... but their source is the DEA also... lets see what else I can find...
http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/opi013.htm

Medical consequences of chronic needle use include scarred and/or collapsed veins, bacterial infections of the blood vessels and heart valves, abscesses (boils) and other soft-tissue infections.

This site says its the use of the needle that causes these conditions... Still would be a cause of heroin though...

There is no alternative to the medicinal industry. And yes, I understand pharmaceutical patents. What was your point?

You are under the impression that every single pharmaceutical company in the world is going to start making drugs? Are you also asserting that competing pharmaceutical companies will not advertise that their competitors for a certain drug produce drugs that many people feel are morally wrong? They would lose alot of money if a competing pharmaceutical company put on their label for everyone to see "We do not support the creation of illegal drugs like our competitors"

I don't colour it by only providing effects for higher doses as Wikipedia is showing. Those same effects are present in higher doses of alcohol. What's your point?

I thought this debate centered on the higher dose factors? Sure if someone can handle an addictive drug they won't cause a problem... If someone cannot handle the addictive drug (which you cannot actually tell just by looking at the person) then there is a very big potential problem.

Cannabis makes sexual arousal higher to. What's your point? Alcohol removes inhibitions and also causes increased sexual activity. Are you ignoring this for a reason?

Alcohol overdoses are roughly equal to GHB overdoses.

You asserted that alcohol was a BETTER date rape drug than GHB and I pointed out that GHB actually affects someone sexually when alcohol only removes someones inhibitions (and not all of them). Also the question was what type of overdose is easier to get, not which one is worse... I am saying it is way easier to overdose on GHB than alcohol...

More people overdose on alcohol (as a drug in its own right) every year than on any other drug. Period.

Wow... isn't that special... To assert that it is EASIER to overdose on alcohol rather than GHB you need to show percentages rather than raw numbers.

Why did you ignore that? Alcohol withdrawl is more dangerous than heroin withdrawl, right there from a source you must trust to have quoted.

Er, and the point of this? From my understanding a heroin user is more likely to go through heroin withdrawl than an alcohol user... Again, using percentages and what not...

I readily admit that it is dangerous, just as alcohol is. But the education required to achieve a certification for it would remove most, if not all, of the danger.

See, your system is not very plausable in the real world... As it happens now there aren't "training sessions" for potentially dangerous drugs that people get... I got a perscription for a drug from my doctor and I almost left the office without knowing what it was for... I had to go back and ask because he didn't even tell me that.

I don't quite get the argument that alcohol is more dangerous than heroin because more people are hurt by alcohol... I myself would say that a atomic bomb is more dangerous than a hand gun even though in 2005 more people died from hand gun related injuries than atomic bomb related injuries.

More people use alcohol than heroin by far so of course there are going to be more incidents of alcohol abuse than heroin abuse...

Even if the government has to pay to increase heroin production, that's what should be done. It would reduce crime, overdoses, sickness, contaminants, and many other problems. It's better than keeping it the way it is now.

If the government has to pay to produce heroin to keep the prices cheap so a heroin addict wont turn to crime then they are just putting a patch on the problem...

 

[doppelganger]

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

I think we should legalize most recreational drugs, regulate them for "safety" and purity (at least to the extent that we do for tobacco and alcohol) tax the heck out of them, and take the revenues and the savings on prisons and law enforcement and put it into programs to encourage small business development in poverty stricken communities, educational opportunities for people from low income backgrounds and drug rehab.

Seems like it would make more sense to fight what drugs are really about.

 

[Druidus]

You asserted it was less damaging than alcohol... That is what I was debating.

Alcohol is, by far, more damaging than heroin. In fact, if I had to choose one of those drugs to illegalize, it would be alcohol. It is more damaging personally, to society, and to family than heroin ever will be.

Just because it only cites research in its favor does not mean the research is invalid and should not be trusted... If you must though..

Of course. But when scientists are payed by political organizations, you cannot accept their work without a tad more rigidity involved in the interpretation and examination.

This site says its the use of the needle that causes these conditions... Still would be a cause of heroin though...

No, that would be a cause of a needle. You could just as easily say that epi-pens are dangerous.

You are under the impression that every single pharmaceutical company in the world is going to start making drugs? Are you also asserting that competing pharmaceutical companies will not advertise that their competitors for a certain drug produce drugs that many people feel are morally wrong? They would lose alot of money if a competing pharmaceutical company put on their label for everyone to see "We do not support the creation of illegal drugs like our competitors"

I am asserting that, in the end, money will win out. I don't like it, but that's how it is. Pharmaceutical companies might not immediately begin catering to a recreational market, but those who did would be a lot richer for it.

I thought this debate centered on the higher dose factors? Sure if someone can handle an addictive drug they won't cause a problem... If someone cannot handle the addictive drug (which you cannot actually tell just by looking at the person) then there is a very big potential problem.

Indeed it is. And yet it's fine for alcohol to be given out to any random Joe, so long as he's over 16/18/19/21 years of age. Alcohol is one of the most addicting and dangerous drugs out there.

The system I support deals with addiction problems. First, the courses minimize the number of people who do eventually get addicted, and those who do get addicted are contacted (sales are regulated and we know who buys what) and offered help.

You asserted that alcohol was a BETTER date rape drug than GHB and I pointed out that GHB actually affects someone sexually when alcohol only removes someones inhibitions (and not all of them). Also the question was what type of overdose is easier to get, not which one is worse... I am saying it is way easier to overdose on GHB than alcohol...

Alcohol is as good as GHB when used against someone not prepared for date rape. If GHB is used on someone who already worries about alcohol date rape, than GHB is better. Otherwise, no, they are roughly equal. Reports of increased sexuality on GHB are still, as yet, anecdotal; and may merely be related to the same loss of inhibition caused by alcohol (some people claim alcohol increases their sexuality too).

It is far easier now to overdose on alcohol than GHB, unless the GHB was found on the street and you don't know its potency. In the pharmaceutical system, it would be easier to overdose on alcohol in any given situation, because GHB would be regulated in potency.

Wow... isn't that special... To assert that it is EASIER to overdose on alcohol rather than GHB you need to show percentages rather than raw numbers.

No, all I need is logic. You drink alcohol over the course of a night. You take GHB as a one off for the night. If you know the potency of the GHB (ie: it was pharmaceutically supplied) you can quite easily measure your dose and you don't have to worry about redosing while even a little bit intoxicated. With alcohol, you have to keep track of your drinks if you don't want to OD, a task that becomes increasingly more difficult as time passes. Eventually, you may even forget you were even supposed to worry about that. You become more and more intoxicated, until, eventually, you OD. Doesn't happen to everyone, sure, but it is VERY common. Light overdoses may only involve vomiting; meaning you have probably OD'd at some point in your life, if you drink.

After OD'ing on any drug, you are much less likely to do it again. You learn your lesson. If we taught the lesson before the overdose, we could circumvent all overdoses, for the most part.

Er, and the point of this? From my understanding a heroin user is more likely to go through heroin withdrawl than an alcohol user... Again, using percentages and what not...

Do you know what a hangover is? In large part, it is caused by alcohol withdrawl. That's why having one drink can often remove a hangover; you redose yourself. Therefore, amongst alcohol drinkers, withdrawl is a very common occurence. Yes, it is a weak withdrawl, but it is still a great deal more serious than a heroin crash; the equivalent for heroin users.

Severe alcohol addiction is extremely quick to develop, extremely easy to develop, and extremely dangerous to the body and mind.

The truth is, all addiction isn't good for a person, regardless of the drug involved. Alcohol is as dangerous or more dangerous than heroin, even in the highest of doses (perhaps even especially in the highest of doses).

See, your system is not very plausable in the real world... As it happens now there aren't "training sessions" for potentially dangerous drugs that people get... I got a perscription for a drug from my doctor and I almost left the office without knowing what it was for... I had to go back and ask because he didn't even tell me that.

Because something doesn't exist now it is implausible? To say such a thing is to spit on the entire system of scientific enquiry we have developed as a global civilization. Everything new has little or no precedent. It is new because it hasn't been done before. That doesn't make it implausible.

I don't quite get the argument that alcohol is more dangerous than heroin because more people are hurt by alcohol... I myself would say that a atomic bomb is more dangerous than a hand gun even though in 2005 more people died from hand gun related injuries than atomic bomb related injuries.

More people use alcohol than heroin by far so of course there are going to be more incidents of alcohol abuse than heroin abuse...

That is not my argument, though it may have come across as such. If you looked at a random sample of ten thousand heroin users, and ten thousand alcohol users, I firmly believe that there would be more problems with the alcohol users than the heroin users. Alcohol is just so easy to get and abuse. Perhaps, in the clearest of views, when an individual is educated about all dangers, heroin might be a tad more dangerous, but I doubt it.

If the government has to pay to produce heroin to keep the prices cheap so a heroin addict wont turn to crime then they are just putting a patch on the problem...

We've got to face facts. We might never be able to perfect society and stop the problems for good. Perhaps the best we can do is put a patch on the problem. If it lessens the damage something causes to society, then the patch is better than nothing.

 

[Random]

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

NO. I'm in favour of legalization of cannabis but I'd like to see a world without cigarettes. I'm partial to the odd beer myself, so alchohol in moderation is okay. This is the crux of the issue: drugs may not be necessarily harmful in and of themselves, but how many people can be trusted to use them responsibly?

 

[PureX]

It's my body. I hsould have the right to do whatever I want to it, to put whatever I want in it.

Not necessarily. "Your body" (and mind) has an effect on the people around it, and as such you have a responsibility for that effect. And they in turn have a right to protect themselves from the negative effects of your body (and mind) on drugs.

 

[doppelganger]

Not necessarily. "Your body" (and mind) has an effect on the people around it, and as such you have a responsibility for that effect. And they in turn have a right to protect themselves from the negative effects of your body (and mind) on drugs.

Doesn't this seem like the sort of reasoning that could undermine the protection we offer to free speech and freedom of religion though?

 

[PureX]

Doesn't this seem like the sort of reasoning that could undermine the protection we offer to free speech and freedom of religion though?

There is no such thing as absolute freedom. Nature has seen to that. Everything exists in a balance of forces and states.

I am an individual, yet I am also a member of a collective. And as such I have to find the best balance between my freedom as an individual and my responsibility to the collective. I must also be aware that these relationships are dynamic, and so the optimum balance will be constantly changing.

Ideals are like lighthouses, they're a good landmark to steer our ships by, but they become disastrous if we try to steer directly at them. As Laurie Anderson says, "Freedom is a funny thing, most people don't really want it".

 

[Druidus]

NO. I'm in favour of legalization of cannabis but I'd like to see a world without cigarettes. I'm partial to the odd beer myself, so alchohol in moderation is okay. This is the crux of the issue: drugs may not be necessarily harmful in and of themselves, but how many people can be trusted to use them responsibly?

I don't think cigarrettes as we know them should be legal. It's a disgusting attack on the human body, sanctioned by government and corporations. But I believe that tobacco should be legal, in its pure form.

Not necessarily. "Your body" (and mind) has an effect on the people around it, and as such you have a responsibility for that effect. And they in turn have a right to protect themselves from the negative effects of your body (and mind) on drugs.

I bear the responsibility for any actions I take. The drugs I use have nothing to do with my actions; my actions are ME, not whatever chemicals I introduce to my body.

These negative effects you speak of; can you elabourate on them? Personally, I haven't really experienced them.

If my drug use harms no one (and it doesn't), then I should not be penalized or criminalized for it.

They can protect themselves however they want, so long as they do not interfere with my intrinsic right to alter my mind and body in any way I wish. I won't hurt them; all I ask is that they leave me be.

When will people see that I've done no wrong? I've killed no man or woman. I've raped no one. I've not attacked another being. Why am I now a criminal? Why am I now villified? Why am I, as a person, no longer societally equal to others?

Prohibition has criminalized millions of innocents. It is immoral and inethical.

 

[PureX]

I bear the responsibility for any actions I take. The drugs I use have nothing to do with my actions; my actions are ME, not whatever chemicals I introduce to my body.

You would have to be aware of and understand the true effects of the chemicals that you take into yourself before you could possibly claim to take responsibility for them. And I don't believe this is fully possible.

These negative effects you speak of; can you elaborate on them? Personally, I haven't really experienced them.

That's just it. One of the most powerful negative effects of mind/mood-altering chemicals is that they render us incapable of recognizing them as a threat, even when they are. Ask any alcoholic or drug addict if they are an alcoholic or drug addict and they will with all sincerity tell you that they are not. One of the most powerful effects of chemical addiction is the inability to recognize itself for what it is.

Add to this the fact that we have no way of recognizing, currently, who is likely to become addicted to mind/mood-altering chemicals, and that enhances the degree of risk involved in using such substances.

If my drug use harms no one (and it doesn't), then I should not be penalized or criminalized for it.

But there isn't really any way of knowing this until you take the drug and the harm is done (or not). Why should the rest of us be obliged to let you take that risk, when, if you're wrong, we will have to suffer some of the consequences? And what gives you the right to ask this of us?

They can protect themselves however they want, so long as they do not interfere with my intrinsic right to alter my mind and body in any way I wish. I won't hurt them; all I ask is that they leave me be.

But you don't know if you'll hurt them or not, which is why you don't have an "intrinsic right" to alter your mind and body any way you wish.

First of all, you are not completely in control of the effects many of these chemicals have on you. Once you've taken a drug, it will run it's course regardless of whether you approve it's effects or not. And secondly, you have no way of knowing ahead of time, or during, if their effect is benign or not. I know that you think you know. But as we have seen, so do those who are obviously negatively effected by their drug use. If I ask a non-addict and an addict if they're in control of their drug use, or if their drug use is effecting them negatively, or causing them to present a danger to others, they will both say "no". And in fact they'll both believe it, so that even they won't know if they are lying or not.

When will people see that I've done no wrong? I've killed no man or woman. I've raped no one. I've not attacked another being.

Yet.

But each time you use mind/mood-altering chemicals, there is a risk that it could happen. And it's a risk that even you are incapable of accurately assessing. Why should we be obliged to take that risk with you?

Why am I now a criminal?

At the moment, you would be a criminal for taking illegal drugs because your fellow citizens do not wish to accept the risk involved in allowing you (or anyone) to use such drugs for fun.

Prohibition has criminalized millions of innocents. It is immoral and unethical.

Well, all you have to do is convince your fellow citizens that they should be willing to take the risk involved in legalizing drug use and your "vilification" will be over.

 

[Ryan2065]

I am asserting that, in the end, money will win out. I don't like it, but that's how it is. Pharmaceutical companies might not immediately begin catering to a recreational market, but those who did would be a lot richer for it.

Image has alot to do with sales these days... If a pharmaceutical company is known to create drugs for others, those that think it is morally wrong (which is a huge amount of the population... espically older people who use more currently legal drugs than others) can concevieably "boycott" the companies that make these drugs... In many cases there are a few different alternatives for the type of pill you are going to take.

No, all I need is logic. You drink alcohol over the course of a night. You take GHB as a one off for the night. If you know the potency of the GHB (ie: it was pharmaceutically supplied) you can quite easily measure your dose and you don't have to worry about redosing while even a little bit intoxicated. With alcohol, you have to keep track of your drinks if you don't want to OD, a task that becomes increasingly more difficult as time passes. Eventually, you may even forget you were even supposed to worry about that. You become more and more intoxicated, until, eventually, you OD. Doesn't happen to everyone, sure, but it is VERY common. Light overdoses may only involve vomiting; meaning you have probably OD'd at some point in your life, if you drink.

After OD'ing on any drug, you are much less likely to do it again. You learn your lesson. If we taught the lesson before the overdose, we could circumvent all overdoses, for the most part.

Hrm... not hard to overdose on GHB if you are responsible compared to a unresponsible drinker? This isn't an equal comparision. Also GHB is very easy to overdose becasue the difference between an amount equal to an overdose and a good dose is so small.
http://www.deal.org/content/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=703&Itemid=827

GHB can be a liquid, pill, or powder and is easily slipped into a drink. While GHB users at parties and clubs may enjoy the alcohol-like effects of the drug, it is incredibly easy to overdose on, often with deadly consequences.

http://www.thecenter.ucla.edu/drugmid.html

[FONT=Verdana, Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]It is also dangerous because of the narrow margin between the amount needed to produce intoxication and the amount that will cause harmful effects, making it very easy to overdose.[/FONT]

http://www.uwgb.edu/counselinghealth/sexual_assault/rape_drugs.asp

First, it takes a very small amount (e.g., a few drops, a capful) to have a big effect. It is easy to overdose.

Enough sources on that?

Now, lets compare what is the safer drug... Alcohol deaths from alcohol poisioning...
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CXH/is_1_27/ai_112937520

The annual average number of deaths for which alcohol poisoning was listed as an underlying cause was 317, with an age-adjusted death rate of 0.11 per 100,000 population. An average of 1,076 additional deaths included alcohol poisoning as a contributing cause, bringing the total number of deaths with any mention of alcohol poisoning to 1,393 per year (0.49 per 100,000 population).

http://www.aafp.org/afp/20040601/2619.html

In 2000, with 60 deaths reported from overdose and concern over its use as a "date rape" drug, GHB was reclassified as a schedule I controlled substance.3

I think statistically speaking with the number of alcohol drinkers around compared to the number of GHB users around, GHB users have a higher death rate than alcohol users from overdoses.

Alcohol is as good as GHB when used against someone not prepared for date rape. If GHB is used on someone who already worries about alcohol date rape, than GHB is better.

So GHB is equal to Alcohol even though if someone is watching out for date rape GHB is the drug to use? If I say two things are equal in every respect, except in one respect (a major thing) one is better than the other... are they still equal or is one better?

After OD'ing on any drug, you are much less likely to do it again. You learn your lesson. If we taught the lesson before the overdose, we could circumvent all overdoses, for the most part.

Overdosing on GHB resulsts in death more often than overdosing on alcohol.

Do you know what a hangover is? In large part, it is caused by alcohol withdrawl. That's why having one drink can often remove a hangover; you redose yourself. Therefore, amongst alcohol drinkers, withdrawl is a very common occurence. Yes, it is a weak withdrawl, but it is still a great deal more serious than a heroin crash; the equivalent for heroin users.

A hangover is a withdrawl? Some of the symptoms of alcohol withdrawal overlap with hangovers, but they are not always the same.
http://biology.about.com/library/weekly/aa010104a.htm

[FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica][SIZE=-1]Overlap exists between hangover and the symptoms of mild alcohol withdrawal (AW), leading to the assertion that hangover is a manifestation of mild withdrawal. Hangovers, however, may occur after a single bout of drinking, whereas withdrawal occurs usually after multiple, repeated bouts. Other differences between hangover and AW include a shorter period of impairment (i.e., hours for hangover versus several days for withdrawal) and a lack of hallucinations and seizures in hangover. People experiencing a hangover feel ill and impaired. Although a hangover may impair task performance and thereby increase the risk of injury, equivocal data exist on whether hangover actually impairs complex mental tasks. [/SIZE][/FONT]

Because something doesn't exist now it is implausible? To say such a thing is to spit on the entire system of scientific enquiry we have developed as a global civilization. Everything new has little or no precedent. It is new because it hasn't been done before. That doesn't make it implausible.

To say something is implausable when no system current exists is not "spitting on the entire system of scientific enquiry". Do you not realize how long and involved the process would be to develop a system full with adequate training sessions, procedures, and to decide the dose acceptable for each drug? Do you not realize how much time and money would have to go into this for this to happen the way you want it to?

Just because it CAN happen doesn't mean it is plausable.

 

[doppelganger]

There is no such thing as absolute freedom. Nature has seen to that. Everything exists in a balance of forces and states.

I wouldn't claim otherwise. I was just noting that a substantially similar argument to yours about drug use affecting others could be made about religious "faith" as having a harmful effect on society and should be likewise banned.

I am an individual, yet I am also a member of a collective. And as such I have to find the best balance between my freedom as an individual and my responsibility to the collective. I must also be aware that these relationships are dynamic, and so the optimum balance will be constantly changing.

Indeed. So we could collectively decide that the "war on drugs" is a waste of time and approach this matter in an entirely different way, right? There is no objective "wrongness" to such a decision. It's largely just a matter of changing perceptions, which is what his thread is about, right?

As Laurie Anderson says, "Freedom is a funny thing, most people don't really want it".

I beg to differ with Laurie. Everybody wants it for themselves. They just don't want it for others.

 

[PureX]

I wouldn't claim otherwise. I was just noting that a substantially similar argument to yours about drug use affecting others could be made about religious "faith" as having a harmful effect on society and should be likewise banned.

Well, ideologies don't alter physical perceptions, or reaction times. We aren't likely to kill people while operating fast, heavy machines because of our religious ideologies. And even if we do become addicted to an ideology, it's free. We don't have to commit crimes to pay to "believe". I think religion is a poor analogy to drug use. Though I will concede that both are addictive.

Indeed. So we could collectively decide that the "war on drugs" is a waste of time and approach this matter in an entirely different way, right? There is no objective "wrongness" to such a decision. It's largely just a matter of changing perceptions, which is what his thread is about, right?

Of course. If society decides that the risk posed by recreational drug use is acceptable, then it will legalize such behaviors. The only reason it's illegal, now, is that most people believe that it should be.

I beg to differ with Laurie. Everybody wants it for themselves. They just don't want it for others.

That's true, too. But I believe that Laurie Anderson makes a valid point. A lot of people prefer to be told what to do and think, rather than to have to work it out for themselves. If we really could somehow magically open up the cell doors of the prisons so many of us have come to live in, most of us would just pull the door back shut, again. We'd be too frightened to actually leave our cell.

We call these people "conservatives". *smile*

 

[doppelganger]

Well, ideologies don't alter physical perceptions, or reaction times. We aren't likely to kill people while operating fast, heavy machines because of our religious ideologies.

So the issue is operating a vehicle while intoxicated rather than drugs. Is that right?

And even if we do become addicted to an ideology, it's free. We don't have to commit crimes to pay to "believe".

Some do, though, don't they?

We call these people "conservatives". *smile*

 

[kreeden]

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.

Actually Druidus , I went through all of that back in the sixties .... Yea , I was younger then , then you are today , but that was the political issue of the day , back then .

Drugs are drugs . And there are dangers with any of them , even something as common as caffiene . I would even include sugar , although it isn't normally considered a drug .

As for your poll , yes . But hypocrisy works both ways . Saying that there is NOTHING dangerous about drugs belittles the battles that thousand of addicts are fighting daily .

Now I'm not agaisnt the use of drugs persay , but I do believe that we should be honest , on both sides of the issue . So I say that if a person is going to get stoned , and I have been known to at times , then be honest about it . The dangers , the why , everything . Be honest , and take responsibility .

Of course , that is just my opinion .

 

[PureX]

So the issue is operating a vehicle while intoxicated rather than drugs. Is that right?

No, it's about altering physiology, and the effects of doing so. Religion doesn't alter our physiology, and so is not a particularly good analogy to drug use.

Some do, though, don't they?

It's very rare.

 

[doppelganger]

No, it's about altering physiology, and the effects of doing so. Religion doesn't alter our physiology, and so is not a particularly good analogy to drug use.

In the logic of your argument isn't that a distinction without a difference? My understanding of your point is that my drug use might harm others so restricting me from using it is appropriate.

This is why I asked about whether this was about drug use itself or things like crime and driving while intoxicated.

Also, studies show that religious practices can change physiology.

It's very rare.

Unless, of course, it is perceived as not rare.

 

[yuvgotmel]

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?

....

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.

I believe that Thomas Paine would agree with you. Here's a quote:

&#8220;But toleration may be viewed in a much stronger light. Man worships not himself, but his Maker: and the liberty of conscience which he claims, is not for the service of himself, but of his God. &#8230;​

Toleration therefore, places itself not between man and man, nor between church and church, nor between one denomination of religion and another, but between God and man; between the being who worships, and the being who is worshipped; and by the same act of assumed authority by which it tolerates man to pay his worship, it presumptuously and blasphemously sets up itself to tolerate the Almighty to receive it.​

Were a bill brought into Parliament, entitled, "An act to tolerate or grant liberty to the Almighty to receive the worship of a Jew or a Turk," or "to prohibit the Almighty from receiving it," all men would startle, and call it blasphemy. There would be an uproar. The presumption of toleration in religious matters would then, present itself unmasked; but the presumption is not the less because the name of "Man" only appears to those laws, for the associated idea of the worshipper and the worshipped cannot be separated.&#8221;​

...the Americans have allowed the government to control their very own bodies. Given to them by birth, a person's body is a personal temple to "God" in however manner that is perceived. At any rate, acting as a personal temple, the human body should never have regulations placed on it as to what plants and herbs can or cannot be taken in.

There are inherited freedoms that allows man to partake of this Earth in a manner that is fitting to each individual. How dare any government make rules that would set itself as a go-between to the Almighty within (or in the heavens, etc.)!

In the same manner that government established laws to prevent the human body for seeking what it desires to partake from on this Earth, government has had, for a long time, laws pertaining to consensual sex between adults. Again, how dare a government be so bold that it would think of itself as a miniature "god" to punish persons who act according to their own divine will!

 

[Reverend Rick]

I don't even approve of alcohol use. You will not buy any alcoholic beverages in my town. Recreational drug use has destroyed less lives than alcohol has. They are both bad for you. It is not just about your life when you get behind the wheel or come to work impaired. How are you going to take responsibility for killing an innocent family? How does one do this? Can you bring them back? No amount of money can replace them.

Taking drugs to be happy means you were not happy before you took them. Perhaps figuring out why you are unhappy would be better than getting stoned. This is a big beautiful planet, try checking it out instead of getting high. Have you ever been high on life?

I will say this. You have a right to destroy your life if you want to. What people do inside their own homes should be their business. When you take one step outside your home, it is not about you any more.