War on Drugs

hehe at the U of Guelph you can take corses on hydroponics and how to properly use it.

BC and Ontario pot, some of tthe finest in the world.

Yeah, the U.S. gets most of it’s pot from Canada. I don’t know what our druggies would do without those canucks…

On 2002-06-12 15:30, TG Moses VI wrote:
But the trick is to only read the last paragraph that usually saves me time by telling me everything that I need to know.

T VI,
Thanks for the idea! I do that with some long paras in books and don’t miss a thing.
–---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Why didn’t I think of that?” - Xi

quote: hehe at the U of Guelph you can take corses on hydroponics and how to properly use it.

BC and Ontario pot, some of tthe finest in the world.

Dude, you totally havn’t been paying attention. Manitoba Marijuana is where it’s at. We received a fair bit of American attention for growing the good stuff. Speaking of which, Flin Flon, a northern communitee is the site of gov’t grown Mary Jane.
Re: Medicinal Marijuana - you can get similar pain relief from a couple of tylenol (according to one study anyway). We need REAL studies, not the anecdotes of some cancer victims before we may consider marijuana to be of any medicinal use (also see echinacea, etc.)
Re: Legality. I think that the Cdn gov’t should decriminalize marijuana use. Possibly a fine might be a little handy, and trafficers should be treated the same as smugglers, but sending pot-heads to prison is doing no one any good. I am in favor of putting both marijuana and tobacco in the same legal context as marijuana does not appear to kill as many people second-hand as tobacco does.

Well I was never a user of Marijuana. Pure Opium is where all the good stop if at, and with the highest LD50 out there.

Getting back to the original purpose of this post about weather the war on drugs should continue/should drugs be legalized, the solution seems rather simple to me. Its just a mindset really. We need to educate people in reality. The purpose of all drugs (except stupid ones like nicotine that just addict) are to take you away from reality, to get “high” is like travelling into a fantasy world where you can forget your current worries and just have a good time. If life is so FCKED up that we can’t deal with reality without artificial aids then I say legalize it all and damn the consequences…but otherwise we should just deal :smile:

Drugs do exactly as they’re told, it is up to the user’s will to decide if he wants to ruin his life by taking drugs.

ahhh Moses, you liberal you. Nice idea, but we need now to invoke a massive series of steps in order to insure quality of product, education of the people, and keeping drugs away from children. Then you have the societal problems (alcohol being the heavyweight currently in causing these). Also the public purse tends to get squeezed quite a bit by the drug users - both in terms of lost productivity, as well as rehabilitation (how many drug users wish they never started?), clinical sequelae and treatments, family issues, crime-to-support-drug-habits, and other social issues. Finally (and i know this is a weak argument already, ok?) we already have tons of legislation out there in place to protect people from themselves in order to prevent the above listed consequences - seatbelt laws, helmet laws, pharmaceuticals that never make it to market for some FDA/health Canada reason, jaywalking laws, even suicide is legislated (rather stupidly). This is in the name of the public good/fiscal responsibility of politicians etc. I will reitirate, tho’, that users (esp of "soft drugs) should not be made criminals b/c of their addiction or enjoyment of the drug, but do need to be made aware of the consequences. Dealers on the other hand . . . .

“ahhh Moses, you liberal you”

Haha, yeah right! I’m the only die-hard radical conservative communist I know! :smile:

You mentioned seatbelt laws, helmet laws, pharmaceuticals that never make it to market for some FDA/health Canada reason, jaywalking laws, even suicide is legislated (rather stupidly)

Look, I abuse my body all the time, and so do a lot of people I know. But it’s my option and laws aren’t going to stop me.

1. Seatbelt laws – I have never worn a seatbelt since age 9. Body: Fine
2. Helmet laws – Never wore a helmet since age 12 when riding a bicycle. Body: Not a scratch
3. Jaywalking laws – I agree with this, since you also damage the person’s car (and who’s gonna pay for the bills after you’re dead?) if you’re stupid enough to get hit.
4. FDA Laws – I do agree with a lot of this, since I want to know the side effects of the drugs I’m taking before I make my decision.
5. Suicide Law – It’s so sarcastic I’m not even gonna answer this

On 2002-06-14 05:08, HortenFlyingWing wrote:

On 2002-06-08 15:58, yourbuttocks wrote:

On 2002-06-07 13:51, HortenFlyingWing wrote:
“That is the thing about prohibiton, less people drank less alchohol.”

No, alcohol use went up after falling drastically during world war 1.

“Oh, it is the Middle Class which is big into drugs. It’s not surprising, they have the money. Rich white suburbs have higher drug usage rates than poor ghettos.”

I think statistically the lower classes smoke more…

You’re wrong on both counts, Horten. To quote my brother’s history text, “The persistent myth that drinking increased under prohibiyion is not true. Drunkeness and alchoholism deckined significantly in spite of speakeasies.” About the the rich whites using the most drugs, i can’t remeber the numbers, however I see that regularily on news magazine shows.

"“The persistent myth that drinking increased under prohibiyion is not true. Drunkeness and alchoholism deckined significantly in spite of speakeasies.” "

you are wrong. I have read the statistics…people drank less than in 1916, but mre than 1919…and it was on the rise.

NO, you are weong. Alchohol consumed was cut in more than half.

On 2002-06-14 10:08, TG Moses VI wrote:

I’m the only die-hard radical conservative communist I know! :smile:

What does this mean? How are you conservative?

Easy. I’m a member of the Young Republicans Club. You can figure the rest out.

If I were a younger man, I would write a history of human stupidity; and I would lie down on my back with my history for a pillow; and I would make a statue of myself, lying on my back, grinning horribly, thumbing my nose at You Know Who. - Bokonon

[ This Message was edited by: TG Moses VI on 2002-06-14 21:47 ]

you are wrong. I have read the statistics…people drank less than in 1916, but mre than 1919…and it was on the rise.

If drinking increased in 1919 it was becuase the US was in a recession caused by the end of the Great War. Surplus of people fresh from the military without jobs + the sudden halt of wartime production = recession. That generally means more people drinking.

your a republican yet you seem to suport leftist and maxist ideals.

that is the bigist contradiction i have ever heard

Moses - i said that that was a weak series of arguments. Now deal with the meat of my statement (please?)

“your a republican yet you seem to suport leftist and maxist ideals.
that is the bigist contradiction i have ever heard”

Notice that’s where the “radical” conservative motif fits in. :smile:

“i said that that was a weak series of arguments.”

Wait… what are we talking about here? I’m off track.

@TG:

Drugs do exactly as they’re told, it is up to the user’s will to decide if he wants to ruin his life by taking drugs.

This is my biggest problem with The War On (Some) Drugs; this idea that it is the drugs that ruin the users life. To be sure this is the case with some users of some drugs. Heroin is destructive. Meth is destructive. Ditto cocaine a lot of the time. But in the case of a lot of other so-called “drugs”, it isn’t the drugs that do the damage, it is the laws against the drugs. This is most true of marijuana. The vast majority of pot smokers are hard working, tax paying, every day regular types of folks. The ruin they risk is the ruin of being arrested, put in jail, losing their jobs and all that entails, simply because the substance is illegal and not because of any harm the drug itself did. When you get down to the actual reality of the situation, you see that the effects of the laws against drugs are far worse than the effects of the drugs themselves could ever be.

You brought up marijuana, which I find interesting. Marijuana is far less lethal than alcohol (it’s almost impossible to overdose on marijuana), yet it’s the one that’s illegal. Also the side effects of marijuana aren’t nearly as life threatening. You rarely ever see major traffic accidents on account of marijuana, but for drunk driving, it is the opposite. Over 50% of all teenage deaths are caused with a combination of cars and alcohol. As are the numbers of aggravated assaults with marijuana users compared with alcohol users. Also, many call marijuana a gateway drug, but lets look at the facts:

During the depenalization era, the Dutch adopted their tolerant policy in part to separate the soft and hard drug markets, theorizing that this might weaken the so-called “gateway” link – the concept that marijuana users are more likely than non-users to move on to hard drugs.
This study suggests the Dutch may have had some success in this regard. The probability of trying cocaine among marijuana users is 22 percent in Amsterdam, but 33 percent in the U.S.