|
|
Post by smokingun on Jan 27, 2003 4:48:27 GMT -5
SG, this does also apply to alcohol, yet consuming alcohol is permitted in most countries. hmmmm, i just dashed of a PM to daSilva on the same topic where i have rated alchohol also as a substance that should be as difficult as possible to obtain. note i do not make use of the word "ban" because that is simply not possible to do. i agree with this. and given that i agree with this, it is even more important to make substances that cause irrational behaviour and extreame addiction to be extreamely difficult to obtain in the first place. i fail to see the logic in permitting such substances to be freely and easily available and then standing back and shaking your head when something stupid is done. if addiction is indeed a disease, we must try our utmost to see that it's spread is curbed. legalising drugs is not the way IMO. having said that, to absolve a drug addict of all the blame is also wrong. if today i am addicted to tobacco, then i am at fault. i knew the risks and decided to smoke anyway. how can i not be responsible? if cigarettes were illigal and i obtained them anyway i should be guilty of breaking a law. likewise if a person who knows that drugs are illigel and decides to do drugs anyway for reasons best known to them, then they are to be at least in part held responsible for any thing that they do as a result of their actions. and i suppose that it is here that we disagree the most. if even one person who wanted to try dope was discouraged because it was illegal, then that would be a big victory indeed. deeming drugs to be illegal is not the end in itself. laws must be enforced. failure to enforce laws and rules does not always mean that the laws be changed. should we legalise robbery/rape/murder?? i mean people still commit these acts so why not make it legal? and how many drunk drivers did you see who cause accidents in Saudi Arabia? if they had the most alchohol i'm quite sure this number would be high indeed. so tell me honestly does the ban at least decrease the number of people hurt or killed because a driver was drunk? IMO make soft drugs like grass legal if you must. put an adequte warning on the packet, and i could live with it although the idea does not exactly thrill me. but with highly addictive drugs, there is no way i could condone making it legal and then taxing it. the logic and economics suck. using tax income on drugs to help addicts? how warped can that be? why should someone pay to consume drugs so that part of what he paid can be used to cure him? make it illegel for him to buy it, make it illegal for pushers and criminals to produce and sell it. if on the other hand making this stuff legal opens the door to R&D whereby it is possible to make drugs that provide some pleasure without the addiction then cool. but i don't see this happening. hell if i were legally selling drugs, i would want the drugs to be as addictive as possible. i could control the prices, cut advertising costs, and just count the moolah being raked in. smokingun |
|
|
|
Post by smokingun on Jan 27, 2003 5:00:18 GMT -5
SG it is because drugs are illegal that they are so expensive, this is why there is so much drug related crime. Say you can buy a kilo of heroin in Thailand for about $1000 the street value of that same heroin in London is worth around $1,000,000 by the time it has been cut. That is why we have a massive drug problem; that is why people are actively trying to get other people on to drugs. Make drugs cheaper and freely available and there is no need for the drug smugglers. It is not a perfect solution but then again we do not live in a perfect world. sorry Danny Boy, but as pointed out on this very same thread, making alchohol legal has done precious little to prevent it from being misused. on the contrary it has made the problem worse. if Henrik could confirm what i suspect about the number of drunk deaths that occur on the roads in Suadi Arabia, i am sure you too would see why making hard drugs legal wouldn't help. besides in a free market, once a person is hooked, there is no law that dictates to companies how much they can charge. there may be competition, but if OPEC can sit together and dictate oil prices, i am sure a few legal drug sellers could do the same. the only difference is that the governments get a share of the loot. and make no mistake, once addicted, you wouldn't give a rats behind about where the heroin comes from or what colour is the packing. it's potency is all that you need. alchohol at least has some value in different brands. taste etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Henrik on Jan 27, 2003 5:03:21 GMT -5
SmokinGun,
Warped as it may be, I believe today tobacco is heavily taxed, with certainly a portion of that tax money going to both prevention campaigns and healthcare. Certainly here in Switzerland, there is a major portion of the tax taken on tobacco that goes to state pension.
I'm not in any way condoning the consumption of hard drugs, but I guess I'm really wondering if the consumption would increase considerably if it was made legal. Is it really the case that people are in general foolosh enough to consume hard drugs? If you think about it, with alcohol being legal, we don't have a majority of the population being alcoholics.
Anyway, very interesting discussion, and I thank you for your input.
|
|
|
|
Post by Danny Boy on Jan 27, 2003 5:17:12 GMT -5
SG
The death rate on the roads in Saudi is at an unacceptable level because the morons who live there are “addicted to religion” and drive with the “inshalla” (Gods wish) mentality. Religion is one of the world’s biggest evils at the moment and it is highly addictive, I will support you 1000% if you want to lead a crusade against all religion
|
|
|
|
Post by smokingun on Jan 27, 2003 5:24:43 GMT -5
SmokinGun, Warped as it may be, I believe today tobacco is heavily taxed, with certainly a portion of that tax money going to both prevention campaigns and healthcare. Certainly here in Switzerland, there is a major portion of the tax taken on tobacco that goes to state pension. hmmm if addiction is a disease, then this is a case of states and governments actually profiting from people who suffer from this disease. hmmm, i am not saying that a "majority" of the people would be junkies, but i am saying that a considerably higher number of people would become addicted to hard drugs as a result of it becoming legal and easy to do. even one addict more is an addict too many. from the movie "Predator": anytime  |
|
|
|
Post by smokingun on Jan 27, 2003 7:31:37 GMT -5
SG The death rate on the roads in Saudi is at an unacceptable level because the morons who live there are “addicted to religion” and drive with the “inshalla” (Gods wish) mentality. Religion is one of the world’s biggest evils at the moment and it is highly addictive, I will support you 1000% if you want to lead a crusade against all religion hmmm Danny Boy, what about the number of accidents caused by drunk driving in Saudi Arabia. Henrik has put the idea in my head and i really would like to know. even a rough estimate. it should be a compelleng argument in the current thread about legalising drugs especially the more notorious ones like heroin. about fighting against all religions, perhaps we can discuss that later. right now i gotta leave this place or i'll miss my transport. |
|
|
|
Post by Henrik on Jan 27, 2003 8:03:09 GMT -5
Okay SmokinGun,
You are after figures for road-deaths in Saudi Arabia caused by alcohol. Well, I am afraid I can't help you at all there. I have no idea what it might be, but I would assume it to be fairly low.
Considering that it is illegal to consume alcohol there, people tend to stay at home to get drunk and avoid taking their cars.
However, given the type of government currently in place there, I doubt any such information could ever be obtained, let alone that they would admit to there being even one accident caused by alcohol.
I could however give another example that is fairly interesting. In Sweden, the selling of alcohol is very restricted and controlled by the government. There is no free market, and alcohol is sold only through government run shops, that until recently also had fairly limited opening hours. This has resulted in a behaviour from the Swedish population to drink too much alcohol. Since obtaining your wine/whiskey whatever is cumbersome, people end up buying more each time they go to the store so as to not having to return too soon. However, once at home, since they have the alcohol, they will finish it. Sounds silly, but it is a fact. Most other places, such as Switzerland, you can go and buy a bottle of wine just about anywhere, and so if you want some wine for your dinner, you buy one bottle, not one box. Consumption stays down.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wycco on Jan 27, 2003 9:06:17 GMT -5
About a page back- the question was raised "does legalizing something increase consumption".
It may not be a perfect parallel- but it makes me think of people age 18-20 and people age 21-23.
Just a few years different in age- but they straddle the line of adulthood here in the US. Under 21s are not premitted to drink alcohol- but over 21s are.
What I noticed through college and work since then... (note this is not an official study- just a personal observation) is this...
A fair portion of people under 21 didn't drink, because it was illegal. Once you get over 21, there are still some people who won't drink (like my wife who doesn't like the taste)- but a lot more people over 21 WILL drink.
However, from my days back in college I noticed that most of the people who ABUSED alcohol were UNDER 21. It seems once you hit 21- the desire to abuse the substance became less.
My, totally unscientific opinion, is this: If you legalise a substance, Yes, more people will use it- But less people will abuse it.
|
|
|
|
Post by DeadCat on Jan 27, 2003 9:42:46 GMT -5
All very valid comments…
Henrik,
Hehe, I still remember in Bangkok driving home from work and stopping into a petrol (gas) station to fill up on fuel and to pick up a six-pack for the way home.
(mind you that drink driving wasn’t an offence in Thailand at the time)
For all,
Anyway, my opinion is and has always been (since a close friend explained to me whilst he was still studying medicine) that drugs should be placed into classifications and that each classification needs to be based on medical evidence.
For instance, I believe that any chemical (drug) that can penetrate the membrane surrounding the human brain should be illegal and that the harshest of penalties should be enforced for mind-altering substances.
A short list of known drugs that don’t do this is as follows:
- Alcohol
- Marijuana (THC - Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) – including Hashish…
- Caffeine
- Paracetamol
A short list of known drugs that do this is as follows:
- Nicotine
- Heroin
- Opium
- Crack/PCP
- Cocaine
- LSD
- Morphine
Codeine gets transformed by the human body into a more pure version of Morphine so it is less effective/addictive….
I know I’m no angel myself, and have even experimented with LSD; it came about because we had a close group of friends (we were young and stupid) and that we all agreed to give it a try together and that we’d all look after each other… (Which we did mind you)
On the experience, it was fucking wild, (this is 10 years ago mind you). Was it addictive? Yes, very very much so, to the point of not wanting to be in the situation where it is readily available for about 2-3 years.
The down side is that mind-altering drugs do just that; they alter the chemicals within the persons mind. The human brain is a very sensitive muscle and substances that change how this all-important muscle operates should be illegal.
I know it’s a long shot, but I just hope that the governments of the world start to understand that education is a key element in stopping young people from initially taking and then getting addicted to these mind-altering substances.
(As an example, I’d only heard rumours that LSD may have flashback effects. Never really knew what they were till I was sitting in a meeting (about 3 years after having some) and the floor of the room lost all texture and appeared to be liquid, very friggin scary stuff.)
(DeadCat)
Oh, and in Sydney we can already carry around 25 grams of Marijuana and only receive a warning if searched. (If Adelaide I believe they are allowed to have 2 private Marijuana plants not above 5-feet)
|
|
|
|
Post by smokingun on Jan 28, 2003 2:17:27 GMT -5
wycco,
IMO there is no difference between using and abusing a drug like heroin.
Henrik,
the stats about alchohol based accidents in Saudi don't need to be official. if you lived there, or know someone who does, then even an informed opinion would do. i have this gut feeling that the number of people who actually drink and drive in Saudi would be very small, just out of fear of being caught. the same would hold true for countries like malaysia as well where IMO the laws (Sharia) do exist and are enforced to a large extent.
DeadCat,
i was quite alarmed to read nicotine in your second list, what started off as a misguided attempt to look cool and grown-up now has me tightly by the balls. i am trying my best to quit, to that extent i've cutdown my smoking from an average of a pack a day to half that amount. i just got my last pack which i hope will last for the week, and already the thought of sneaking out to get another pack gnaws at the back of my mind.
addiction is indeed a disease. but i honestly cannot blame anyone but myself for the mess that i find myself in. i suppose the difference between tobacco and other hard drugs is that at least tobacco does not affect my sense of morality or the ability to differentiate between right and wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Henrik on Jan 28, 2003 2:30:55 GMT -5
Since we are on the topic, there is something I have been wondering about for sometime with ergards to LSD.
Now, as DeadCat mentioned, there is a clear mental addiction that is related to LSD, i.e. once you have tried it you have this desire to experience the effects again. However, does it also create a physical addiction, as is the case with heroine and cocain based drugs?
I'm just curious.
SmokinGun, through my experience in Saudi, it was not common for people to drive drunk. As I mentioned previously, given that it is illegal in that country, they would tend to avoid it as getting caught driving drunk is a very serious offence. I know of a Swedish construction worker who was caught while we were living there. He had a slight accident, no injuries, but he was arrested for being drunk and the fact that they found several bottles in his car. He spent a month in jail, was whipped in public and then deported from the country. Such punishment normally would make you think twice before driving under the influence!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Danny Boy on Jan 28, 2003 5:21:17 GMT -5
Henrik;
Take from me, there is no physical withdraw/craving with LSD, in my experience; there is no mental craving either. Once you have had a bad trip that is enough to make you give it up.
I think opium is the most powerful drug on the market for making people want to take it again. Both heroin and morphine are made from raw opium.
SG
There is no law in Saudi that covers drunk driving; a friend of mine was in an accident whilst drunk over there. Hr was just charged with driving without due care, even though the accident was not his fault. Any foreigner in an accident, even if you are the passenger in a taxi, will have to pay 25% of the fine, even if he is completely innocent. The logic being, the accident would not have happened if he was not in the country.
After 22:00hrs in the UK 20%, maybe less, of accidents are caused by over the limit drivers, so for me it is the sober bastards you should keep of the roads. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by DeadCat on Jan 28, 2003 7:27:14 GMT -5
SG, In my opinionated opinion, yes, Nicotine should have been made illegal at the same time cocaine was made illegal (when Coca-Cola still contained a small amount of cocaine). Nicotine is a chemical that has the ability to pass the membrane surrounding the brain (much like a firewall, lol) and tricks the brain into thinking it is a naturally produced chemical by stimulating various receptors. The brain then adapts to the chemical thinking it is normal and thus makes it very addictive. For the record, I am a smoker; in fact, I just lit one up right then. On some withdrawal symptoms of Nicotine please see: www.quit-smoking.net/nws.htmlNot very pleasant stuff…. Henrik, Danny Boy, It is true that it is reported that LSD has no physical withdrawal symptoms. But the human body quickly adapts to LSD and if you use if everyday for say even 3-4 days in a row, then taking even 3-5 trips isn’t going to help you get what you had before. (So where do people go from there, see – Amphetamines.) Admittedly, I didn’t have too many LSD trips and many of us were quite mature about it, i.e. only around close friends in isolated controlled situations. (I took less than 10, heard the limit was about 20 before any permanent damage got done, I never knew this was as there was never any drug related information available on illegal substances, oh, and I never had a bad one, they were all good.  So what happens next? One friend has the really smart idea of buying in bulk and selling them off at a profit. (1 sheet of 100 @ AUD$3 a trip = sell price of AUD$25 a trip = instant $2200 profit = not a good idea at all) – and I know you get them so much cheaper than us in Aust all across the globe. Anyway, we all backed off but he carried on, (fuelled by having possession of a sheet of acid along with problems he had at home) the urge to take more was too much for him and he ended up even spending some time in a mental institution, he hasn’t been the same since. Trust me, LSD is bad. (DeadCat) I have worse stories about drug abuse that include people I care about, as I’m sure most people do… |
|
|
|
Post by Henrik on Jan 28, 2003 9:27:19 GMT -5
Indeed, most of us probably have some bad stories about friends getting messed up with drugs to various levels, no doubt including death.
About the LSD, it really is a fairly amazing drug. I was always ineterested in how it affects you in different ways. Clearly the hallucinogene side of it is well known, but I found the amplification of emotions to be very interesting.
Biggest danger about these chemical drugs though is that you have absolutely no idea what really is in it. Just think about how such drugs are produced, and then sold on the market!! At least with soft drugs like marijuana it is a natural plant product, and you can be fairly confident that it wont leave your mind permanently crippled!
|
|
|
|
Post by BrainFade on Jan 28, 2003 10:47:37 GMT -5
LSD is definitely not physically addictive, and in my experience not mentally addictive either. I did a bit of acid a few years ago at university, just out of curiosity. To be honest I never really enjoyed it on any of the occasions I took it - I got too confused and paranoid and a trip lasts soooo long... Just an example of how you can try a drug and not get hooked on it or even enjoy it. Oh yeah, the distinction between use and abuse is a critical one when talking about drugs. Believe it or not there are even heroine users that aren't addicted.
|
|
Don't Die Before You Live...
