Leaglize drugs - say what u want

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-23 14:33:05

I'll bet 5% of this COUNTRY would quit their jobs and become "hemp" farmers.

Sure, and everyone went and stopped buying beer, they made their own when it was made legal to do so...

...marijuana will be grown by certain businesses who perfect their own growing methods. People would still grow it, but not as much as you profess. It would become another industry, like the alcohol industry.

But hemp itself would be used for all sorts of things. Marijuana would be only a very very small subset.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-23 14:35:41

Make it free. Treat people that are ill from addiction as if they are ill.

Oooh! Good idea! Let's make the taxpayers grab the bill so that everyone can unnecisarilly get high! Don't treat the United States government like a big free medicine cabinet so that a small group of people can get stoned on my dime. I don't think so.

you gotta get a grip. youve got a real fixation on this stealing your vcr thing. more violent crime is caused by guns than pot, and thats with pot being a black market substance, which would magnify its attachment to crime.

My friend used to live in Miami, and she had her house broken into all the time by drug addicts, and they way you could tell was that they only took her VCR. Not enough to buy anything big; just one hit of heroine or cocaine. It's pretty sad.

And I should have gone and seen "Chasing Columbine"(?) that independent film about why Americans are so obscessed with guns. I can't explain why we have more gun deaths. I guess its because we are at heart a very rural backwoods people.

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-23 14:54:25

AltToWar said that, ?Heroin should be issued out to addicts in clinics in exchange for voluntary treatment.?

Hardly ?free.? If anything, it would be quite difficult for them to kick their addiction. But I agree on some level that it ought not be completely free. It should be able to pay for itself. A buck a hit or whatever would probably be more than enough.

Hard core drugs ought not be used. And the best way to get rid of them, is make it so that the black market can't compete with clinics. It's really that simple.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-23 15:00:24

So you're saying we use heroine to lure addicts into clinics, and give them free heroine while they're in therapy? What's the incentive to NOT to heroine, if you know that the government will just give you cheap stuff in exchange for "rehab"? That's bullshit.

Yes, we need to rehabilitate people because it saves us money in the long run, but don't entice people to do it.

The constitution is written on Hemp.

Then how about you roll it up and smoke a historically significant fatty?

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-23 15:07:58

Um, how else do you ween someone off something? Quitting cold turkey would only make them go back out and get high the first chance they got. Heroine is the worst drug to quit cold turkey. It's impossible. In fact, you can never stop being addicted to heroine. It's just that bad. A ?free hit? could have a very very small ammount of heroine. It wouldn't even cost anything on the scale of things. And you could only get it after having treatment, and having proved that you were an addict in the first place. There are many solutions to this problem, but the logic still stands, if the black market can't compete, it won't exist.

Um, hemp paper contains no THC, so smoking it would do nothing. And I think he's confused, the first and second draft of the Declaration of Independence were written on hemp. The final draft, the one which was signed by everyone, was written on animal skin parchment.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-23 15:13:15

I was trying to be funny with the doobie comment, but while we're on the issue, I thought you said that hemp contained THC. That was why I had the issue with growing hemp in the first place on the smoking thread.

And you do need to wean people off it, but why even encourage people to start?

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-23 15:18:47

Hemp does contain THC, but it's all but gone after it has gone through the processes making it into paper...

...and who says we're encouraging people to start? These clinics aren't out to make profit, they're there to help. AU's clinics have helped a lot of people. And reduced crime greatly. It would be a no brainer to insure that people who come there are addicts in the first place.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-23 15:26:07

Okay, so we give cheap heroine to addicts, in exchange for kicking the habit. If they're still addicted (which they all are) won't our work be wasted when they see heroine again, and decide to use it? I think heroine addicts should be taken out behind a building and shot. In the average person, what's there to save at that point?

My uncle is an army doctor, and while he was working in a civilian hospital in Seattle, he had to work the night shift. Every night, there would always be 10-15 teenagers, ready to die of an OD, and he had to be there to see what organs were salvageable. Pretty sad.

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-23 15:35:38

If they're still addicted (which they all are) won't our work be wasted when they see heroine again, and decide to use it?

The key is, that they won't see heroine again unless it's in a clinic where it's highly regulated. It's not legal around the board. You would still get arrested for possessing it (most likely getting a sentence at the very clinics we speak of).

I like how the government banned clinics from giving away free needles. That's right. Needles. Not drugs. Just needles. The clinics wanted to slow the spread of aids, and the government wouldn't let them. So addicts resorted to using old needles (addcions can screw with your rationalization).

I think heroine addicts should be taken out behind a building and shot.

I think stupid Skinhead American Nazi's should be taken out behind a building and shot. You can't have everything!

In the average person, what's there to save at that point?

A heroine user can be rehabilitated. The clinics can cut you off after awhile.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-23 15:39:15

A heroine user can be rehabilitated. The clinics can cut you off after awhile.

What happens when that urge comes back after a while, and they need their fix...BAD. Where will they go to get their drugs? Not back to the clinic. I'll give you three guesses.

I think stupid Skinhead American Nazi's should be taken out behind a building and shot. You can't have everything!

I love you too, Josh.

soph · 2002-12-23 15:42:42

so we should let anybody with a problem die?

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-23 15:45:12

Where will they go to get their drugs? Not back to the clinic. I'll give you three guesses.

If the clinic cuts them off completely, they would go to the black market, obviously. So clinics can't necessarily cut them off all the way.

Anyway, I think AU does it right, but I don't know how it's implemented exactly. I read their drug related crimes were down way much.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-23 15:49:20

I still love you Josh

Even though you don't know how the AU clinics work. I can look past that and see the person you really are: an overly thoughtful man who really likes to see addicts kick their habit, even though they've been in it 4 times already. Ah... he's such a dream boat!

AltToWar · 2002-12-23 15:57:08

Make it free. Treat people that are ill from addiction as if they are ill.
Oooh! Good idea! Let's make the taxpayers grab the bill so that everyone can unnecisarilly get high! Don't treat the United States government like a big free medicine cabinet so that a small group of people can get stoned on my dime. I don't think so.

you would rather continue to fight a war on drugs that spends more money than america spends on education?

A war that has not provided any results?

that makes sense. Much better to feed money into a black market and dump truckloads of money into a disfuctioning police effort then provide treatment.

AltToWar · 2002-12-23 15:58:13

The constitution is written on Hemp.
Then how about you roll it up and smoke a historically significant fatty?

Our unelected leaders are taking care of that already.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-23 17:40:01

Our unelected leaders are taking care of that already

Stop being such a sore loser. You're just pissed off because the system that has kept everyone happy for 230 years failed you. I don't care who you voted for, they system outlined in our constitution was carried out in the election, and I don't see why everybody has to be a whiney little bitch about it.

soph · 2002-12-23 19:37:59

because my vote should count just as much as somebody from colorado's. it wont, because my state will vote one way, and beyond that one vote, it doesnt matter.

the electoral system is crap. if it went the other way, the republicans, the ones who spent $200 million to prove our president had sex with an intern, would have shown the country what being whiney bitches really means.

you want to talk about whiney bitches? talk to the states who were upset that they didnt have as many people. boo-hoo. in a sports game, the team with the higher score at the end wins, not the team who won each quarter.

you speak boldly about the majority in other topics, yet you slither around it in this one. why should the majority of our country not be the measuring stick for our president? it should. its not fair that millions of people who voted for gore didnt get their votes counted.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-23 23:27:21

If we didn't weigh my vote against yours, my vote would be forgotten. There would be no reason for anyone campaigning for office to make promises to me because my state's vote and its neigbors are less in number than the city you live in, soph.

I would have no role in politics whatsoever, and my votes and thoughts and ideas would be augmented from the rest of the populace.

With the electoral college, my state's 8 electoral votes really count. Even though your state has 3x the people mine does, your electoral vote is only about 2.5x larger. It all balances out.

soph · 2002-12-24 06:42:26

uh. no it doesnt. your vote counts more than mine. everybodys vote should count the same. nont 3x to 2x. my state should have a proportionally larger vote. what, having less people makes your state better? more important? if more people live in new york, new york should have more say. and like ive said, candidates dont campaign to cities, they campaign to segments of the population as a whole: farmers, women, blacks, etc.

and they would almost have to go to the rural areas, because one candidate is bound to campaign there for that vote. if more people want a candidate, it shouldnt matter where those people are from. and thats just the opposite of what happened in the last election.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-24 16:53:59

Who says they campaign to us? Even with Montana's 5(?) electoral votes, I believe Bush Sr. was the only President to make a campaign stop there back in 1992, at least that I saw or heard about, I was a small child when it happened.

However, in New York you have candidates going there all the time. Without the electoral college, people from my state and many like mine would be easily outvoted by the CITIES in other states, and our voice would be drowned out. Your vote doesn't count less than mine, because you have 6 times the electoral votes that I do. Without it, there would be no incentive for candidates to campaign and make promises to me to get my vote.

It's times like this that I want to seceed from the Union. Perish the thought... long live the electoral college.

Come on, let's get back to legalizing drugs and stop trolling.

Auqakah · 2002-12-26 12:44:57

If we didn't weigh my vote against yours, my vote would be forgotten. There would be no reason for anyone campaigning for office to make promises to me because my state's vote and its neigbors are less in number than the city you live in, soph.
I would have no role in politics whatsoever, and my votes and thoughts and ideas would be augmented from the rest of the populace.
With the electoral college, my state's 8 electoral votes really count. Even though your state has 3x the people mine does, your electoral vote is only about 2.5x larger. It all balances out.

I feel the need to comment on this. Although I'm not American, I paid close attention to the election campaign. Hell, it was more interesting than the tv programmes, anyway. But getting back to being serious.

America claims to be a democracy.

Now, I, as a person believing in free societies and all that stuff, happen to believe that the ideal that America represents is a great one. Not at all perfect; perhaps not even close; but its a great one, nonetheless.

But the reality isn't even close. Democracy means the majority of the people decide; the minority can go screw itself. Now, being generally in the minority, this annoys me. But thats a personal annoyance; until a better system comes along, democracy is about the fairest way to go. But if a state with 3x as many people only gets 2.5x the say, how is that a democracy? Its not. Its a carefully balance, but rigged, system, in essence. Now the British system is equally rigged; although our voting is fair, the government essentially never changes, because Whitehall (being the centre of the civil service) essentially runs the country whoever is in government, and whoever is the opposition.

In a democracy, the small vote just doesn't matter. If you believe in democracy, then you accept that. And you don't whine if you happen to be in that small vote. Its just the way life is. The majority get their way; what else can be fair?

And I'd just like to make one, small, highly radical point.

You said that 'I would have no role in politics whatsoever...'; but tell me, just what role do you play? None, unless you are in government. You vote people in who seem to have similar views to you in key area's, but it ends there. From the moment the election result is declared, you play no part whatsoever - except perhaps in carefully manipulated 'opinion polls'. But ask the right questions, in the right order, and you'll get whatever answers you want. And thats a fact. Ask any psychologist. Or anyone who goes to see a pyschologist, for that matter.

There is only one democracy on the entire planet, and even that one is eroding slowly. Where? I hear you ask? (Well, I don't hear anything except news about cricket on the TV, actually, but just pretend...)

Switzerland.

Auqakah · 2002-12-26 12:59:58

Here is a summary of my view on the whole legalize drugs or intensify-the-current-violent-circle-of-abuse issue, with a bit of slightly off-topic stuff thrown in at the end for good measure.

1. Addicts are not criminals, and do not deserve to be treated as such. They have rights, just like everybody else; a right to a good standard of life, whatever their choices, being the principle one. (Thats one which we all should have, also.)

2. Economics should not play any part in any decision in which human lives are at risk. Money is money. At the end of the day, it just doesn't matter. If I had thirty billion, and had to pay it all out to save some dying criminal who was sentenced to death row anyway, I'd pay it out - because that is dedication to ones morals.

3. Truthful education about drugs is all-important to the future of any country.

4. Free health-care and treatment for addicts - and not removing their health-care if they refuse to cease usage.

5. The legalization of the USE of all and any drugs, no matter how harmful, but the creation of 'social drug control' laws; ie, controlled drugs remain controlled - it just isn't an offense to use them. Dealers would still be prosecuted, however.

6. The opening of centres where addicts can use their drugs safely, and in clean surroundings - with quick access to counselors and therapists if wanted/needed.

7. Screening of addicts to determine how many drug problems stem from mental health problems, in order to determine the best way forward on that issue.

8. An end to all over-the-counter cough, cold, and headache remedies, etc. Those could be gateway drugs.

9. An end to all drug commercials, except for industrial purposes.

10. An end to all alcohol and cigarette advertisements worldwide.

11. The banning of all drinks which contain stimulants(excluding safe levels of caffeine, which can be quite healthy in small doses - one cup of coffee a day helps my asthma no end), or the removal of said stimulants from all drinks. Stimulants in drinks could be a gateway drug, after all.

12. The release of any person in prison for a drug-use offense, and immediate installation into an appropriate centre, with appropriate support and advice in order to secure willingness.

13. Compassion for addicts.

14. Faith in people's abilities to change.

15. Hard work in order to solve the problems that our
societies have at all levels.

Echus_Chasma · 2002-12-26 14:36:13

In New Zealand we have an elected politician named Nandor Tanchos or something like that. He is Rastafarian and has long dread-locks and smokes pot.

Argh, I can't remember the rest I was going to say. Damn memory...

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-26 17:32:05

I do play an important role in politics. I vote for national leaders and congressmen, governors (who 40% of the time will run for President at some point), and Senators (who run during the other 60%).

And SWITZERLAND is better than the US? Hmmm... I remember why I don't get along with Europeans very well...

Auqakah · 2002-12-26 18:10:58

Its a good thing I'm not European, or I'd take offense.

And Switzerland better than the US... hmmm... lower unemployment... a majority vote by the population can pass any law they want... they have a president, but that president doesn't have a massive amount of power; instead, that power is shared out amongst an executive council, and the president is just a ceremonial figurehead. They all own guns, but not many people get shot. And they haven't bombed eight countries in nine years. So... Switzerland better than the US... what a strange idea. I must be going mad or something.

And you don't play an important role in politics. The system is just set up so it appears that you do.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2002-12-23 14:33:05

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#52 2002-12-23 14:35:41

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#53 2002-12-23 14:54:25

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#54 2002-12-23 15:00:24

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#55 2002-12-23 15:07:58

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#56 2002-12-23 15:13:15

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#57 2002-12-23 15:18:47

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#58 2002-12-23 15:26:07

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#59 2002-12-23 15:35:38

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#60 2002-12-23 15:39:15

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#61 2002-12-23 15:42:42

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#62 2002-12-23 15:45:12

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#63 2002-12-23 15:49:20

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#64 2002-12-23 15:57:08

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#65 2002-12-23 15:58:13

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#66 2002-12-23 17:40:01

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#67 2002-12-23 19:37:59

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#68 2002-12-23 23:27:21

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#69 2002-12-24 06:42:26

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#70 2002-12-24 16:53:59

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#71 2002-12-26 12:44:57

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#72 2002-12-26 12:59:58

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#73 2002-12-26 14:36:13

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#74 2002-12-26 17:32:05

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#75 2002-12-26 18:10:58

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

Board footer