Quote :

"The goal of a drug dealer is to get you addicted to the drug so that you have no choice but to give him money, right?"

The goal of a drug dealer is to make money, sure. But choice is always a factor.

There's always the option of (1) getting another drug dealer or (2) quitting.

10/10/2005 3:38:27 PM

yeah, why doesnt everyone just quit?

10/10/2005 3:42:11 PM

You know those aren't really options. Any dealer of hard drugs knows when someone changes dealers, it doesn't always turn out well. There isn't liberitarian candyland free market competition in the street phamechutical industry.

And number 2 certianly isn't a option to pretty much any dope user. The best you can hope for is a life of methadone.

10/10/2005 3:47:55 PM

Quote :

"Alcohol reduces mental impairment."

Awesome, now I can just drink my way to a genius IQ and not have to be born with it.

10/10/2005 3:51:07 PM

Quote :

"Any dealer of hard drugs knows when someone changes dealers, it doesn't always turn out well."

Who said it always has to turn out well?

10/10/2005 4:04:24 PM

The option of changing dealers and getting your skull smashed on a curb isn't much of an option now is it.

10/10/2005 4:15:25 PM

It's also not a foregone conclusion.

10/10/2005 4:19:28 PM

Quote :

"There's always the option of (1) getting another drug dealer"

Because, what, there's other drug dealers that don't want to make money, and whose drugs are somehow safer, cleaner, healthier? Don't be stupid, we all know you're smarter than this.

Quote :

"or (2) quitting."

When you are addicted, this option does not exist.

10/10/2005 5:13:19 PM

The point is you aren't really free to choose, and we all know how well the free market works without that.

10/10/2005 5:25:04 PM

Addiction is primarily psychological, and there are psychological prerequisites to its development. Few happy, healthy people will succumb to addiction, even when exposed to addictive patterns of use through the course of medical treatment. So, the whole "there is no choice" angle is complete and total bullshit. There is no choice for certain individuals that have the prerequisite disenfranchisement from society, true, but there is nothing you can do for these individuals by prohibiting the substance. Their life is pretty fucking shitty for them to feel they have nothing to do but dull their memory and blur the passage of time. In fact, society prohibiting them substances that allow them to seclude themselves in a personal apathy, when it is doubtless in part socioeconomic factors beyond the individual's control that have put them in that escapist mindset, is kind of like the cruel and unusual punishment following a conviction without trial or wrong-doing.

Statistics show that the population of users has not decreased in response to prohibition (or increased penalties). Again in the Netherlands decriminalization of marijuana was followed by a (not necessarily causally related) DEREASE in its use. Prohibition is not achieving its objectives. It is however creating a black market that is gutting the economies and democracies of arguably half of this continent, imprisoning individuals free of wrong-doing to society for possession and distribution, putting the same individuals in the way of harm on account of the unknowns involved in a black market, funding organized crime and lol terror, so on so forth.

BUT NEVERMIND ALL OF THAT, WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN

[Edited on October 14, 2005 at 5:05 AM. Reason : *]

10/14/2005 5:01:38 AM

oh, and that's right, some surveys of high school students report higher availability of marijuana than alcohol.

PROHIBITION: PLEASE, WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN

[Edited on October 14, 2005 at 5:16 AM. Reason : *]

10/14/2005 5:14:13 AM

^^

</thread>

10/14/2005 9:33:12 AM

1) Kris and I, at least, have been explicitly leaving marijuana out of our arguments, so anything you had to say about that was a waste of your energy and scarce brain power.

2)

Quote :

"Addiction is primarily psychological"

Evidence?

3)

Quote :

"Few happy, healthy people will succumb to addiction"

No, happy, healthy people either have no reason to start using drugs to begin with, or they have the kind of money and support networks necessary to help combat addiction. That they are happy has less to do with it than the reasons for their happiness.

10/14/2005 11:13:48 AM

i want to see some conclusive studies showing that heroin addiction is mostly "just in your mind."

i also dont think you can randomly compared other countries to the US for a variety of reasons, cultural differences and size among them.

10/14/2005 11:14:54 AM

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: Because, what, there's other drug dealers that don't want to make money, and whose drugs are somehow safer, cleaner, healthier?"

What the fuck are you talking about?

What about "The goal of a drug dealer is to make money, sure" is unclear?

My argument is that dealing drugs is not tantamount to stealing from drug users--it's providing them with a good for a means of exchange.

Would you argue that cigarette-makers are robbing cigarette smokers, too?

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: When you are addicted, this option does not exist."

Tell that to all those former nicotine addicts who've somehow managed to quit smoking despite the availability of cigarettes.

10/14/2005 12:49:15 PM

good for them, it takes a lot of people YEARS to quit smoking. my position has always been...sure we have bad stuff, but why add more? just so we can say we're more free or that we like drugs? be happy with what you got you greedy lil hellions.

10/14/2005 12:52:58 PM

Quote :

"just so we can say we're more free or that we like drugs?"

how about...to lower your taxes?

10/14/2005 12:59:55 PM

or so that, ya know, we dont have the highest incarceration rate in the world.

and other silly little stuff like that.

[Edited on October 14, 2005 at 1:07 PM. Reason : ]

10/14/2005 1:06:53 PM

A better solution would be to drop the punishment for possesion or use from a year or more in jail to a hefty fine. It's still illegal but the overwealming destruction wrought upon society would be reduced.

10/14/2005 2:48:01 PM

i agree with loneshark personally, but i dont think we should cry drug abusers a river either. using the thread starters own logic...you know that shits illegal but you CHOOSE to do it anyway.

10/14/2005 5:20:33 PM

Kinda like speeding...

10/14/2005 5:21:19 PM

im all for a crackdown on that too, but lets not compare driving fast to shooting heroin.

10/14/2005 5:51:27 PM

The comparison was tongue in cheek.

And LoneSnark's point was included in my original comment.

Fewer incarcerations => Lower prison costs.

10/14/2005 6:09:00 PM

the question is...do you really think your taxes would be any lower if we indeed legalized drugs? my guess is no.

10/14/2005 7:02:49 PM

What makes you say that?

Bush lowers income taxes for practically no good reason at all as it is. And you think that lowered income taxes offsetting the effect of the implementation of an excise tax on drugs is farfetched?

[Edited on October 14, 2005 at 8:20 PM. Reason : ...]

10/14/2005 8:19:03 PM

^ I have zero faith that the average tax rate will decrease over time.





[Edited on October 14, 2005 at 9:24 PM. Reason : ]

10/14/2005 9:20:32 PM

That'd be a failure on the part of apathetic fucks like yourself to hold the government accountable for lowering taxes in light of lowered expenditures.

Fuck off.

10/14/2005 9:59:10 PM

It has nothing to do with apathy. Sure, legalizing drugs or reducing penalties for use would reduce the number of people in jail and lower the associated costs. But I think it's much more likely that the various prison systems will say:

"We have extra money this year, so we're going to spend it on [insert random prison project]"

and not

"We have extra money this year so we're going to return it to the state/federal government"
followed by the state/federal government saying:
"We have extra money this year so we're going to send everyone a refund on their taxes."

Everyone, regardless of political orientation, has some pet project that they'd like to see any extra money spent on. Which means that total government expenditures probably won't go down--the money will just be spent elsewhere.

10/15/2005 11:12:14 AM

Quote :

"Would you argue that cigarette-makers are robbing cigarette smokers, too?"

No, but then again, I wouldn't be stupid enough to argue that cigarettes are on par with crack in heroin in terms of...well, anything.

[Edited on October 15, 2005 at 12:17 PM. Reason : e]

10/15/2005 12:17:20 PM

Quote :

"The goal of a drug dealer is to get you addicted to the drug so that you have no choice but to give him money, right? That's just good for business, and it's also just as good as if he was holding a gun to your head."

that's god damn stupid, grumpy. the goal of a pot dealer or mushroom dealer or alcohol salesman is NOT to get you addicted, since his wares aren't addictive.

jesus christ

unless the dealer specifically has malicious intent, which most probably don't and are just trying to make money (but yes, some are malicious), he's simply providing a public service. Not only that, but he's risking his livelihood by doing so, since he could be locked up for doing it.

[Edited on October 15, 2005 at 1:03 PM. Reason : .]

10/15/2005 1:01:17 PM

^^ Except addictive potential.

[Edited on October 15, 2005 at 1:08 PM. Reason : >.<]

10/15/2005 1:02:55 PM

Why are there all these posts about how dealers operate in the current environment of illegality?

Does anyone honestly think that a legal drug market would bear any resemblance at all to the current black market?

10/15/2005 3:11:32 PM

^^ and that they are deadly on an even more massive scale

Quote :

"Tobacco accounts for far more deaths in America than result from the combined total of alcohol, illicit drugs, firearms, car accidents, microbial agents, toxic agents, and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) (4)."

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0978/is_1_25/ai_54097342

oh, and as far as addictiveness

Quote :

"From the New York Times August 2, 1994 By Philip J. Hilts, Is Nicotine Addictive? It Depends on Whose Criteria You Use. Experts say the definition of addiction is evolving. WASHINGTON - When heavily dependent users of cocaine are asked to compare the urge to take cocaine with the urge to smoke cigarettes, about 45 percent say the urge to smoke is as strong or stronger than that for cocaine. Among heroin' addicts, about 3 percent rank the urge to smoke as equal to or stronger than the urge to take heroin. Among those addicted to alcohol, about 50 percent say the urge to smoke is at least as strong as the urge to drink. "

...

Quote :

"Dr. Jack E. Henningfield of the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Dr. Neal L. Benowitz of the University of California at San Francisco ranked six substances based on five problem areas. •Withdrawal: Presence and severity of characteristic withdrawal symptoms. •Reinforcement: A measure of the substance's ability, in human and animal tests, to get users to take it again and again, and in preference to other substances. •Tolerance: How much of the substance is needed to satisfy increasing cravings for it, and the level of stable need that is eventually reached. •Dependence: How difficult it is for the user to quit, the relapse rate, the percentage of people who eventually become dependent, the rating users give their own need for the substance and the degree to which the substance will be used in the face of evidence that it causes harm. •Intoxication: Though not usually counted as a measure of addiction in itself, the level of intoxication is associated with addiction and increases the personal and socIal damage a substance may do."

http://www.marijuananews.com/marijuananews/cowan/relative_addictiveness_of_drugs_.htm
yes, the url is from marijuananews.com, but it's an article from the NYT.

Quote :

" No, but then again, I wouldn't be stupid enough to argue that cigarettes are on par with crack in heroin in terms of...well, anything. "

no, but you are stupid enough to not research something before you assume it's true!
that HAS to sting a bit, eh grumpy?

[Edited on October 15, 2005 at 4:34 PM. Reason : ,]

10/15/2005 4:27:23 PM

addiction isnt my main concern with drugs when they only produce a "very mild high" as the study states.

10/15/2005 7:45:21 PM

added since i cant edit:if you discount that (the addiction rank) both coke and heroin are rated worse in every other category, so i dont see your point towards grumpy. since this is only a ranking scale we cannot say how much worse each is, because it isnt all that in depth from this chart/article.

i realize thats based on the second data. their inconsistancy comparing some drugs makes me kinda iffy on the topic in general.

[Edited on October 15, 2005 at 8:35 PM. Reason : .]

10/15/2005 8:33:06 PM

grumpy insinuated that to compare nicotine to heroine and crack is stupid. It turns out that mortality rates and addiction potential of cigarettes are worse than heroine and cocaine. Crack isn't listed, but it's made from cocaine.

10/15/2005 8:53:40 PM

well to be fair then it said that the shit in cigarettes is what is so deadly, not the nicotene. so perhaps the shit in crack would be worth a look into. thats just being picky though.

your point is noted, but i think addiction potential is only partially relevant to the argument as i've said before. plus he whipped out that chart like a smoking gun, when it really doesnt prove much at all.

the death toll (bolded) quote could also be taken as misleading because of the availability of tobacco compared to other items (not to mention i hate when any study includes random things like AIDS and microbial agents into their comparisons).

[Edited on October 15, 2005 at 9:01 PM. Reason : eh]

10/15/2005 9:01:07 PM

Quote :

"added since i cant edit:if you discount that (the addiction rank) both coke and heroin are rated worse in every other category, "

But theyre not as bad as alcohol in terms of intoxication or withdrawel, (Intoxication, chance of becoming addicted, and difficulty to withdrawel are the things we should probably worry about in terms of their effects on society)

I personally dont think that any of this really matters. I dont care how addictive or intoxicating a drug is, it is never right to make it illegal. A drug can never be serious enough and/or popular enough to be worth the violence, incarceration rates and everything else associated with this idiotic war on drugs in America.

[Edited on October 15, 2005 at 9:06 PM. Reason : ]

10/15/2005 9:02:32 PM

i think the high reinforcement with high tolerance, coupled with dependence factor, is a major cause for concern (even if they were cheap and readily avaiable).

people will chose to do a substance, in lieu of even food/water the study says, that they are addicted to and will constantly need more of to satiate their desires. how does that not lead to a problem. we may end up with no prison sentences but you are gonna either have to have forced rehab (we know how well that works) or...i dont even know.

again, i see no reason to add more problems to the mix. ex. drunk driving has really become quite the hot topic in the past decade or so, why add high driving to the mix.



^ you see alcohol is intoxicating, which i say is bad, but they say it isnt overly addictive or reinforced so it could be a lot worse. cigs are addictive, but not intoxicating. the combination of all those things is what is a MAJOR problem as i said above, but i just wanted to respond specifically to you

[Edited on October 15, 2005 at 9:18 PM. Reason : .]

10/15/2005 9:16:49 PM

Quote :

"the goal of a pot dealer or mushroom dealer or alcohol salesman is NOT to get you addicted, since his wares aren't addictive."

How many times does it have to be pointed out that I have explicity left marijuana out of what I'm talkiung about here?

Quote :

"and that they are deadly on an even more massive scale"

I never said differently. Maybe this is because tobacco is legal and shouldn't be -- like I said, I've toyed with the idea.

Quote :

"addiction potential of cigarettes are worse than heroine and cocaine. Crack isn't listed, but it's made from cocaine."

How can you possibly reach that conclusion from the research you showed us?

97% of heroin addicts rank the urge to use heroin as being stronger than the urge to smoke, according to what you've shown me.

The second study, as far as I can tell, is a crock. Even it didn't appear to be a crock, you made the "dependence" category out to be the "addictiveness" one, which, given that virtually all of the others are major factors in addiction, seems a ludicrous misrepresentation of the facts.

By the way, if you think crack is interchangeable with cocaine, you have been knocked down several notches in my "goddamn hippie drug experts" list.

10/15/2005 10:08:41 PM

Quote :

"By the way, if you think crack is interchangeable with cocaine, you have been knocked down several notches in my "goddamn hippie drug experts" list"

Dumbass, Crack is just smokeable cocaine. Hell, this is even what the DEA says.

10/15/2005 11:23:02 PM

As much as I advocate personal choice, here's my problem with the above, and no i'm not for banning alcohol- the difficulty and impact of enforcing any sort of legalization of harder drugs. I specifically state now that I am leaving pot entirely out of the subject, and I'm leaving MDMA out as well. Pot becuase it's not completely applicable to the below section, and MDMA for various reasons but becuase honestly I think theraputic research with it had serious potential, and it's a odd thing anyways. I'm referring to herion,crack,cocaine,etc.

Assuming we legalized it, and assuming that it wasn't a problem that kids were getting their hands on it (big if statement)- the cost of trying to regulate that kind of an industry and the policy man power involved to do it, i dont think would be worth it. I mean we have enough trouble as it is trying to enforce alcohol laws - even drinking and driving ones. There are a lot of folks out there who drive even though they've done it drunk and gotten caught. Now imagine the same system for folks on much more mind-altering things.

I see that leading to either a. Serious problems for the wellbeing of a lot of members of society - drunks cause a lot of problems as is and that's a milder class of thing we're talking than cocaine. (Again, i'm not saying ban alcohol, but running around drunk vs. running around high as a kite on any number of things? There's a real difference in the likely behavior of the person).

or b. the need for a ton of infrastructure and regulation on the industry and the need for a ton of infrastruture and regulation on laws similar to the no drunk driving/public intoxicatedness etc laws. And that would lead to even more red tape, beuracracy (I cant spell, i'm sorry), tax payer dollars needed and the like.

And as far as LSD goes as someone earlier went on the they banned it for the hippies rant, someone correct me if i'm wrong but i *thought* that it permanantly stayed in your system and the whole "flashback" thing might be a really good health reason to *keep* it banned, regardless of what started the ban. (isn't that one of the ones that x number of times and you're considered verifiably insane? or is that something else and I've gotten all confused).

Apologies for the last paragraph and any errors within it, I'm not familiar with *everything*.

Oh, and the reason I say Alcohol is milder than crack/cocaine, etc. Being around a drunk vs. being around someone on that crap. C'mon now. I dont care what that table up there says.

[Edited on October 15, 2005 at 11:37 PM. Reason : .]

10/15/2005 11:36:15 PM

Compared to other "hard drugs", LSD is quite non-toxic. There are no known physical implications. Flashbacks, however, are a psycological after-effect common to all hallucinogens (they're not what they sound like btw).

Taking LSD can fuck with your mind. Its not something fragile young minds should be exposed to. Im ok with it being illegal for that reason.

10/16/2005 1:32:52 AM

MDMA is dangerous

10/16/2005 1:56:30 AM

Quote :

"Dumbass, Crack is just smokeable cocaine."

I'm not talking about what they're physically made of, I'm talking about the impact of their use.

10/16/2005 12:42:10 PM

Quote :

"Taking LSD can fuck with your mind."

Isn't that why people take it in the first place?

10/16/2005 1:47:43 PM

Im talking about long-term mental trauma here, not uber-tripping.

10/16/2005 3:54:06 PM

So what long term trauma are you talking about?

10/16/2005 4:25:45 PM

Quote :

"legalization of Drug"

10/16/2005 4:28:17 PM

Quote :

"Dumbass, Crack is just smokeable cocaine. Hell, this is even what the DEA says."

Smoked freebased cocaine has a much different effect than normal coke. It give a much more powerful and shorter high, and subsequentially has a much higher addiction potential.

10/16/2005 4:50:30 PM