Drugs and narcotics

The place to hang out and talk about totally anything general.

What is your opinion of drugs?

I've had quite a few experiences
10
24%
Tried once or a few times.
11
26%
I'd give it a shot.
1
2%
Never liked it.
12
29%
Drugs are the spawn of SATAN. I don't even drink caffeine!
7
17%
I'm an addict
1
2%
 
Total votes: 42
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Tue May 27, 2008 1:44 am

rus|Mike wrote:Jesuis. Do you realise that legalisation of all grugs (and therefore allowing their advertisment etc) will increase the number of addicts in dozens of times?!

Legalization does not mean that. Perhaps decriminalization would be a better word? In the US, it is illegal to advertise hard liquor on television and radio. Same thing for cigarettes. And I think that your situation of a kid looking at heroine advertisement and immediately saying to himself "ah! heroine! the answer to all of my problems" is idiotic, at best. Making something legal does not mean making it attractive, or advertising it, or encouraging people to do it.

-----

Even if taxed, drugs would be cheaper. They would cause less harm to addicts, because there would be some assurance that the drugs would not be tainted. They would cause less harm to society, because addicts could seek help without as much stigma. There would also be less harm to society, in that organized crime syndicates would have one less product to sell (witness the collapse of the mafia in the US following the end of prohibition).

rus|Mike wrote:Historical example: China was for quite some time (I forgot the dates) facing the problem of complete destruction because of loads of people smoking opium. It was like a plague: there were simply not enough people for the country to function and for the population to reproduce. As far as I remember, the goverment started massively executing all those who sold drugs. Only that helped.

Have another look at the example of China. The British Empire encouraged the abuse of opium in order to keep the natives passive. This is a case where the government actively encouraged people to abuse drugs, which is not what I am talking about. Then the Boxer Rebellion occurred, and many British collaborators were killed, including those that sold the opium.

In the US, many Chinese (and others) used opium at the end of the 19th century. It caused no more problems than alcohol.

Xocrates wrote:Less of a good citizen, yes, since he obviously broke the law (in most places anyway).

  1. What if pot were legal? Would he be less of a good citizen then?
  2. So, anyone who breaks the law is a bad citizen (or less of a good citizen)? What about blacks during the civil rights movement in the US who broke the law by organizing sit ins at "white only" establishments? Were they "less good citizens"?

I would argue that if a law is unjust, then those that break that law are being good citizens, especially if they are breaking those laws as a form of protest. In the case of illegal drugs, where I think that the laws are ambiguous in terms of how just they really are, I am not going to make the argument that stoners are "better" citizens for breaking the law, but I also don't think that they are "lesser" citizens for the same.

xander
User avatar
rus|Mike
level5
level5
Posts: 2750
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 5:52 pm
Location: Russia, St. Petersburg

Postby rus|Mike » Tue May 27, 2008 1:54 am

And I think that your situation of a kid looking at heroine advertisement and immediately saying to himself "ah! heroine! the answer to all of my problems" is idiotic, at best. Making something legal does not mean making it attractive, or advertising it, or encouraging people to do it.

The thing is, that many difficult life situations can drive one into addiction in case drugs are sold everywhere (and it wil be so in case they are legalised). My example is the most simple I could think of. Ofcoirce it's not a real-life situation.
Making something legal does not mean making it attractive, or advertising it, or encouraging people to do it.

It does. For example, I want to try heroine. But I simply don't know where to get it/who to ask. The prohibition will keep me from using it. Now in case it's sold everywhere I want it = I have it.
They would cause less harm to addicts, because there would be some assurance that the drugs would not be tainted.

Ah, I see. From bad heroine people die and from good, clean heroine they die. Here's the difference, I see.
addicts could seek help without as much stigma.

SEEK HELP?! Why they need help if they have heroine?? 99% of those whp are trying to cure themselves from addiction are those who've got nothing more to sell. How many will seek help? 0.01%? 0.02??
It caused no more problems than alcohol.

GRRRAAAARGH!! The fact that drugs are better\equal than something doesn't make them good! A guy killed 5 people. I killed only 3. I'm better than him but I'm no good!
User avatar
sfericz
level5
level5
Posts: 1336
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:25 am
Location: USA
Contact:

Postby sfericz » Tue May 27, 2008 1:56 am

And there are plenty of 'light drug' users that have made better contributions to the community than a drunk redneck who beats his wife, or the completely sober guy who delays the betterment of civilizations because 'one' says its bad.

My main point with this, and its why I've posted a lot about it, is that every person should have the chance to be known and understood first, before the surroundings, habits, or even looks makes your mind up on who the person is.
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Tue May 27, 2008 2:09 am

rus|Mike, you are so caught up in seeing the world in black and white -- and assuming that all drugs are always bad and that all laws banning drugs are always good -- that you have completely failed to get the point. Alcoholics Anonymous, and other similar groups, have provided help and support for many alcoholics in the US. Alcoholics are free to go to AA meetings, without having to worry about getting picked up by the cops. The same is not true of Narcotics Anonymous meetings. While such organizations do exist, people who might otherwise go to them are afraid to do so, because they have done something that is illegal, and they don't want to go to jail. So, rather than getting help, they take more drugs.

In the case heroine, you are much less likely to die if you buy it legally, from a well regulated supplier. Most deaths associated with heroine are caused by (1) overdose, which occurs when you don't know how large the dose you are receiving is and (2) impurities in the heroine. The problem with impurities can be almost entirely eliminated with proper decriminalization and regulation. The problem with overdosing can be limited, and, as an added bonus, if a guy ODs at party, his friends might be more likely to get him to a hospital, as they don't have to worry about being arrested for doing the drug in the first place.

Drug abuse is a symptom of a problem (or many problems -- depression, poverty, &c.). We can either choose to address the symptoms, by prohibiting the drugs, or we can attempt to address the diseases themselves (poor education, depression, poverty, &c.). In general, treating diseases works a lot better than treating symptoms.

xander
User avatar
rus|Mike
level5
level5
Posts: 2750
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 5:52 pm
Location: Russia, St. Petersburg

Postby rus|Mike » Tue May 27, 2008 2:25 am

Most deaths associated with heroine are caused by (1) overdose, which occurs when you don't know how large the dose you are receiving is

I'm afraid you know not the subject. Most death from overdose happen when you don't know how much you need. There's no constant quantity you need, it always changes. Too bad I can't translate the special terms.
In the case heroine, you are much less likely to die if you buy it legally

For heroine addicts the probability of death is 100% if they don't stop. Quality of a drug changes nothing. Sooner or later they all die. Those, living over 5 years after strting regular usage are considered lucky. Probably heroine of a good quality will give you ~6 more month of life. Is that much better??

Drug abuse is a symptom of a problem (or many problems -- depression, poverty, &c.). We can either choose to address the symptoms, by prohibiting the drugs, or we can attempt to address the diseases themselves (poor education, depression, poverty, &c.). In general, treating diseases works a lot better than treating symptoms.

Pffft, that reminds me one guy that suggested to start providing beetter education rather than executing people for extra-heavy crimes. Education is good. Nobody prohibits you to make it better. But for the time being while it's still bad, it's better to bad narcotics. And ~100 years later when 'poverty' is removed and bad education is unknown of we'll consider revision the decision.

Are you seriously suggesting starting 'curing' poverty until it disappears, not taking any more measures and hope humanity will survive that long?
User avatar
snwcrsh
level2
level2
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 6:00 pm

Postby snwcrsh » Tue May 27, 2008 2:34 am

Uhm. I shouldn't read this. And I didn't.

I shoudln't post either but i do:

Drugs. Hah.

Heroin
Cocaine
THC
Nicotine
Internet
Computer
TV
Sleep
Food
Sex
Air

.. please sort this stuff. what is a drug and what not?
User avatar
rus|Mike
level5
level5
Posts: 2750
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 5:52 pm
Location: Russia, St. Petersburg

Postby rus|Mike » Tue May 27, 2008 2:41 am

All are drugs! Achtung!!!!!

:lol: :wink:
User avatar
KingAl
level5
level5
Posts: 4138
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:42 am

Postby KingAl » Tue May 27, 2008 3:11 am

xander wrote:And I think that your situation of a kid looking at heroine advertisement and immediately saying to himself "ah! heroine! the answer to all of my problems" is idiotic, at best.


Too much heroine never harmed anyone, what with their caped crime-fighting antics. Heroin, on the other hand... :P

And snwcrsh, we are of course referring to narcotics and other chemical substances introduced into the body solely for their enjoyable neurological effects as opposed to generically 'things which people enjoy'.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here: this is the War Room!
Ultimate Uplink Guide
Latest Patch
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Tue May 27, 2008 4:12 am

rus|Mike wrote:
Most deaths associated with heroine are caused by (1) overdose, which occurs when you don't know how large the dose you are receiving is

I'm afraid you know not the subject. Most death from overdose happen when you don't know how much you need. There's no constant quantity you need, it always changes. Too bad I can't translate the special terms.

Your body builds up a tolerance, so you need more over time. However, because the black market is not well regulated, the exact strength of the does that you receive might not always be the same. If you are getting your supply from a consistent supplier, you are probably fine. When that supplier is arrested, or you go to another supplier, or you get back on the drug after some time off (and your resistance is lower), then you are likely to OD. It is much harder to OD when you know your dosage, and if you do OD, you are more likely to get help if your friends aren't afraid of dropping you off at the hospital.

rus|Mike wrote:For heroine addicts the probability of death is 100% if they don't stop.

Assuming that I agreed with this statement, all the more reason to decriminalize the drug. If someone is not turned into a criminal simply for taking a drug, they are more likely to seek help.

I am going to ignore your argument about the death penalty, because it is a complete non sequitor.

xander
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Tue May 27, 2008 9:08 am

xander wrote:What if pot were legal? Would he be less of a good citizen then?


Do you even bother to read what I write? I said he was because he broke the law, he he hadn't broke the law then he wasn't.


xander wrote:So, anyone who breaks the law is a bad citizen (or less of a good citizen)? What about blacks during the civil rights movement in the US who broke the law by organizing sit ins at "white only" establishments? Were they "less good citizens"?


Strictly speaking yes. That does not mean they did not so the right thing. However right now we are just discussing semantics so lets just stop here ok?
Rkiver
level5
level5
Posts: 6405
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 10:39 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Postby Rkiver » Tue May 27, 2008 9:36 am

I follow the Bill Hicks mentality.

If people want to take drugs in the privacy of their own home, and as long as it does not adversly affect others, it's fine.

If we are going to ban drugs, we should ban all of them. Alcohol, tobacco, caffeine included. That being said I do not agree with heroin and the like, but that is just a personal dislike of it.
Uplink help: Read the FAQ
User avatar
vanarbulax
level4
level4
Posts: 653
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 8:51 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby vanarbulax » Tue May 27, 2008 9:44 am

I have to say there really isn't a poll option which I thing suits me. I don't do drugs, not even caffeine partially because I don't like to be dependent on something and partially because I figure if something is worth doing out of the influence of anything it's not worth doing. I maybe be being naive but that really annoys me about people who get drunk just for the hell of getting drunk or using any other drugs for that matter. The idea that it makes things more interesting and fun maybe be true in the short term but from a sober standpoint most of the things are just stupid. It seems to be sacrificing something which brings long term happiness for something which brings short term happiness. I also figure that life can change so much and so quickly that you really don't need anything else to alter your psychological state especially for something which can have unpredictable results. I'm never going to smoke and most likely won't drink or very little if at all.

That being said I do think that some of the drug regulations are a bit arbitrary (everybody would be up in arms about alcohol if it was just introduced currently) and that legalizing some drugs (nothing like heroin, probably cannabis and ecstasy though) and putting strict government regulations on them would make the world a better place. For the most part since it would cut down on the amount of people supporting other serious crimes through buying drugs from illegal retailers. It would also stop a large amount of ODs if people were just informed and the drugs were all at one standard so they are much more predictable and untainted with other harmful substances. As xander already pointed out they could be massively taxed as well while still being cheaper than what is currently the illegal price and these funds could be put towards health and information much like with tobacco.

The most important things is that people are informed about what they're taking and how it affects them after that it's really their look-out in my opinion. One thing which really bugs me is when people try to over dramatize the facts about drugs or even worse just refused to give any information ("just say no" anyone?). The example I often use is the series of ad campaigns in Canada which used shock tactics (which I often think have doubtful results) but what was worse is they made each drug equally as scary so that cannabis seemed just as bad as speed or heroin. Now the problem here is that no matter what a small portion of the population is at least going to try a drug like cannabis. If it doesn't turn out to be as horrible as what they been told or if they actual have a good time then they will probably lose their trust in those who warn them about the risks thinking that it's all just for scare (which some of it might well be). This person now either doesn't care about the long term effects or doesn't believe them and now only has pro-drug people to trust. They might decide since cannabis wasn't life altering or horrible they might move onto something harder again ignoring all warning since what they have been told previously is inaccurate.

In my opinion prohibition and things like "just say no" are just like abstinence only sex teaching. While it might work in a perfect world, it doesn't leave people with informed choices and coping mechanisms either if they end up in a situation where they are given drugs or offered or forced sex or if the person actively seeks it out for some reason or another. Now I'm not saying that drugs are like sex or that sex is even in the same league with risk, complexity and controversy but instead I'm saying that it's best to let people make their own decision as long as it doesn't harm others and they have information and strategies to do things in ways least likely to cause harm to themselves.
User avatar
Phrage
level3
level3
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 8:45 pm
Location: With a nuclear warhead aimed at Washington from my super secret Nuclear Bunker at 22 Pimpleton Ave
Contact:

Postby Phrage » Tue May 27, 2008 11:17 am

Rkiver wrote:If we are going to ban drugs, we should ban all of them. Alcohol, tobacco, caffeine included. That being said I do not agree with heroin and the like, but that is just a personal dislike of it.

Yeh and ban paracetamol! Ban morphine!
Tobacco is bad, alcohol is bad. However caffeine keeps our civilization going, well it keeps me going at least.
^^Another amazing comment/statement/question/answer/joke/insult/compliment^^
(delete as appropriate)
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Tue May 27, 2008 3:20 pm

I was going to read the four pages of posting here, but I was up too late, 3 am, and I'm just not in the mood. So... I'll just give my history.

No illegal drugs ever, don't drink beer or wine, tried a cigarette once (as disgusting as they smell). However, I do love hard liquor (social drinker) and I'd be addicted to cigars if I was single. :wink:
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast...
Droodster
level0
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 3:23 pm

Postby Droodster » Tue May 27, 2008 3:32 pm

rus|Mike

You are generalizing. To even compare heroin, thc and alkohol is just plain stupid.
just because both heroin and thc are classed as "narkotiks" doesnt make them the same.

After reading your posts i can only come to the conclusion that you are one of those kids that
base your opinions on what you have heard from your parents and possibly from the anti-drug
lessons you get in school.

Return to “Introversion Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests