Main Index   Search   Register   Login   Who's Online   FAQ   Links
	1 Online, 0 Active		You are not logged in

This is a historical archiveThe forum is read-only. Private information has been removed. It is not possible to login.

	Law and Order	Thread:   Previous  Forum index  Next

	All 78 posts		Subject: hypocrites?		Please login to post		Down

		Ascension (Stranger) 09-19-04 02:53 No 532080				hypocrites?
						Okai i understandy why meth is illegal, the government says its a dangerous drug. So no one is allowed to make it/use it. But what about dextroamphetamine? this is prescribed to people. Therefor it must be safe. So why cant someone make dextroamphetamine in their back yard? Or is it just because dextroamphetamine can be abused therefor its illegal. I just dont understand how docters can prescribe you something, yet your not alowed to use it recreationally. We are allowed to do anything we want to our own bodies. So how can they tell us what to do? Isnt this against basic human rights? Your an individual just like everyone else.
		ApprenticeCook (Hive Addict) 09-19-04 06:11 No 532102				You cant make illegal drugs thats known.
						You cant make illegal drugs thats known. You cant make drugs which are prescribed as they are sill controlled substances. You cannot make medications (any kind) without certification by the relevant authority who controlls medications in your country. Well thats the case in oz anyway. -AC Its just my opinion, but no-one listens to me anyway, and rightly so...
		Ascension (Stranger) 09-19-04 08:39 No 532114				Yeah i know that AC of course.
						Yeah i know that AC of course. But i was just stepping back and looking at the big picture, i mean who the hell are these people to tell us what to do. If people want to take drugs they have no right at all to stop us. And making the shit doesnt hurt anyone as these people dont force other people to take it. Making these things illegal doesnt solve anything, everyone can tell that by now. Your an individual just like everyone else.
		biotechdude (Hive Bee) 09-19-04 10:07 No 532123				reality check
						But i was just stepping back and looking at the big picture, i mean who the hell are these people to tell us what to do. They are the Government; its their job to tell us what to do.  If you don't like it; its either 'tough shit' or 'move elsewhere'.   If people want to take drugs they have no right at all to stop us. Yes they do.  If we want to live in their country and enjoy the perks, they have every right to.  If you ruled and lived alone in your own independant country then they would have no right. And making the shit doesnt hurt anyone as these people dont force other people to take it. Some people that take drugs do hurt people, and have a negative impact on society.  The gov makes rules and decisions to protect everyone.  Although you may know how to manage your life and make correct decisions; others dont.  Thats why the gov make the calls for them... Making these things illegal doesnt solve anything, everyone can tell that by now. Neither will making it legal. Although its easy to get caught up in the whole 'bad government' vibe you need to realise the role they play in social architecture.  Its easy to find fault in government laws and decisions but if the alternate path is taken it may end up in a equally bad shitpile.
		Ascension (Stranger) 09-19-04 11:01 No 532134				Yeah i suppose, you gotta take the whole ...
						Yeah i suppose, you gotta take the whole package huh. But saying that some people that take drugs do hurt people is definitely no reason to ban them. I mean, look at alcohol. That would have to have caused more injuries and deaths through fights and car crashes than any other drug out their. Have you noticed that alot of the banned drugs have medical uses. Where as alcohol and tobacco dont have one? (the only thing i could find was alcohol is used to create medical solutions some times) I just cant see the reasoning behind these drugs being illegal. Just look at the ratio of deaths caused by tobacco compared to MDMA. How can anyone justify this? These people should be put away in jail for allowing so many people to die. How can such an injustice like this go on? all those people complaining about illegal drugs dont have a clue that the biggest killer are legalized drugs. Your an individual just like everyone else.
		Osmium (Stoni's sexual toy) 09-19-04 11:33 No 532141				> They are the Government; its their job to
						> They are the Government; its their job to tell us what to do. No, that's not what I consider the job of a government. > If we want to live in their country and enjoy the perks, they have every right to.  ??? Last time I checked it wasn't THEIR country. Most people have no choice in joining a certain country anyway, since citizenship usually cannot be chosen freely. > If you ruled and lived alone in your own independant country then they would have no right. I consider my body to be my own property and an independent nation. Any aggression against this nation (in the form of physical action or otherwise) will be considered an act of war and be dealt with accordingly. > Some people that take drugs do hurt people, and have a negative impact on society.  Some people that drive cars do hurt people, and have a negative impact on society. Some people that participate in team sports do hurt people, and have a negative impact on society. [etc.] > The gov makes rules and decisions to protect everyone. The gov makes rules and decisions to govern everyone and perpetually keep itself busy so that nobody gets the idea that we could live without them and give them the boot. > Although you may know how to manage your life and make correct decisions; > others dont.  Thats why the gov make the calls for them... I didn't ask them to do so. BUSH/CHENEY 2004! After all, it ain't my country! www.american-buddha.com/addict.war.1.htm
		biotechdude (Hive Bee) 09-19-04 11:34 No 532142				comments
						Tobacco and alcohol are caue more deaths because a greater portion of society use (and abuse) them. If everyone had free and easy access to endless drugs, would society continue to function?  Not likely... Alcohol and tobacco are legalised and socially accepted as they are more physiologically active than psychoactive.  They are predicatable and there is a well defined feed-back loop.  You get drunk, you get really hungover; and no ammount of drinking will make u better.  Additionally, u smoke, you get cancer later in life.  Conversely, u take drugs - and if there was and easy endless supply - you'd just take more to make u feel better.  Your body will still function and your mind thinks you are sweet.  If a large enough portion of society does this; unpredictable choas will ensue.
		Osmium (Stoni's sexual toy) 09-19-04 11:42 No 532145				> Conversely, u take drugs - and if there...
						> Conversely, u take drugs - and if there was and easy endless supply - you'd > just take more to make u feel better. It could very well be that certain members of this board have access to unlimited amounts of certain drugs and still haven't done any in more than a year or even two. Simply because they voluntarily choose not to. BUSH/CHENEY 2004! After all, it ain't my country! www.american-buddha.com/addict.war.1.htm
		biotechdude (Hive Bee) 09-19-04 12:01 No 532148				Osmium
						I tried to respond to your comments but each reply had the same common theme. The fact is that u can wish for a government-less society that doesn't control u and makes correct decisions; but it will never happen.  You have to take the good with the (very large ammounts of) bad Although you may believe you have all the answers, have u changed the course of society at all?  Do you believe any of your idealistic opinions could actually eventuate.    I hate the government as much as anyone; but i also realise that we have next to no hope of making any of the major changes (that u preach).  The fact is that there will always be governments that fuck up.
		Ascension (Newbee) 09-19-04 12:03 No 532149				I know lots of people who have access to all...
						I know lots of people who have access to all the drugs they could ever want. Yet they hardly use them because these people like to be incontrol of their life. The fact that the drug is illegal doesnt make a difference. Thats like saying, alcohol is legal so everyone goes out and gets pissed all the time. You could use MDMA in consideration one night, go home 3 or 4 in the morning, have a good nights sleep and the next day you will be complety fine. Abuse the drug that night and the next day you will be scattered like a mad womens shit. Alcohol is the same, you can use it in moderation and be fine or you can abuse it and get a hangover. And if your trying to tell me that MDMA has caused more deaths than alcohol or tabocco (and im talking ratios not gross numbers here) then you need to check your facts mate. If a person had the mindset to use a drug endlessy than they would be doing so whether it was illegal or not. Your an individual just like everyone else.
		biotechdude (Hive Bee) 09-19-04 12:04 No 532150				small cross section
						It could very well be that certain members of this board have access to unlimited amounts of certain drugs and still haven't done any in more than a year or even two. Simply because they voluntarily choose not to. True, but do u believe that the whole of society will have this same ammount of self control, given the oppotunity.
		kingsofsleep (Hive Addict) 09-19-04 15:45 No 532164				self determination
						Tobacco and alcohol are caue more deaths because a greater portion of society use (and abuse) them.   Because they have a higher incidence for addiction as well. Alcoholism is rampant as is nicotine addiction. If everyone had free and easy access to endless drugs, would society continue to function?  Not likely...   Actually yes it would. Studies have shown (with heroin at least) that prescribing free herion to addicts reduces the crime goes along with drug use. Also these patients have shown an ability to to level out their use on their own and simply maintain their addiction. Another words they weren't using to get high but rather to avoid the potentially lethal withdrawal. They became productive responsible members of society. https://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/hras/2003-January/000069.html http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2001/B/200112702.html   Will it work for everyone?   That's hard to say but the results make it worth looking at.   On a personal note, I have found that the novelty wears off quite fast when one has an unlimited supply of drugs at their disposal. For many it's also the forbidden fruit syndrome as well - we all want what we can't have. make them legal and for many - the thrill is gone. Alcohol and tobacco are legalised and socially accepted as they are more physiologically active than psychoactive.   You really don't know too much do you?   Both are very psychoactive - ever seen someone having a nic-fit?   Ever been around a raging alcoholic? You get drunk, you get really hungover; and no ammount of drinking will make u better.  Additionally, u smoke, you get cancer later in life.    Again you show your ignorance.   Ever heard the phrase " hair of the dog that bit you"?   While in college I was a huge drinker. it was common knowledge that the best way to cure a hangover was to have a drink - bloody marys make the world right on those painful sunday mornings.   As for cancer being a deterrent...do you really think that stops people who are nicotine addicts?   That's why lung cancer from smoking is one of the biggest killers in thew world.   Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances out there and the threat of cancer is apparently not stopping very many people from smoking. Conversely, u take drugs - and if there was and easy endless supply - you'd just take more to make u feel better.   Not always true. Maybe for you it is. If a large enough portion of society does this; unpredictable choas will ensue.   With statements like this, I wonder why you are even am member of this site.   One of the basic beliefs here is that our bodies and consciousness belong to us and governments have no right to determine what we can do with them.   You seem to have drunk the kool-aid and are more than willing to turn over control of your mind and body to the government. Cui peccare licet peccat minus - One who is allowed to sin, sins less. (Ovid)
		Captain_America (Hive Bee) 09-19-04 16:19 No 532165				I agree with biotechdude.
						Hey, Osmium, why do you think people vote? Becose there is something called government, and government knows best, they represent us. We live in a democracy, we, the majority don't like drugs and want them to bee illegal, if you don't like it, too bad Osmium - you are outvoted and shouldn't bee doing drugs, or else you should spend some time in jail. If tobacco and alcohol came about today both would bee illegal, as they are dangerous, but they are not drugs, you can controll yourself while smoking a cigarrete or drinking a beer, it's not the same thing as illegal drugs. Another proof that drugs are bad is when president Bush during a speech said that he is going to escalate the war on drugs to save our children. Do you really think a president of the united states of america would say something like that on national television if drugs were something good? Why would anyone want to legalise something dangerous? Again, I agree with the biotechdude, not everyone in the society knows whats best for them, so we need laws to protect the society and also those people that think doing drugs is cool and something good.
		jsorex (Hive Addict) 09-19-04 16:24 No 532166				The reason that drugs are illegal, regardless...
						The reason that drugs are illegal, regardless of all that has been said, is because the people that decide, including the vast majority of voters or average citizens fear that if drugs were legalized it would change society as a functioning system for the worse. This doesn't necessarily imply that drugs are believed to be dangerous or that addiction is dangerous. People that make decisions and risk assesments concerning drug legilation are afraid of drugs that effect the user's ability to make rational decisions. Hence LSD is seen as a "threat to society" regardless of the fact that it has been shown to not cause addiction or cancer. All drugs (medicine) are to be used under supervision. All European and USA pharmacy schools teach a subject called rational drug use. Rational drug use is process that happens to the patient under the supervision and guidence of the doctor and the pharmacist, for which the guide lines are set by legislation also. The hippie selling LSD at a concert, or the junky sellig heroin on the street are not seen as rational drug therapy.
		Jade (soccer mom) 09-19-04 21:46 No 532211				Vote?
						The reason that drugs are illegal, regardless of all that has been said, is because the people that decide, including the vast majority of voters or average citizens fear that if drugs were legalized it would change society as a functioning system for the worse. Who are these people that decide?  When the fuck were the majority of average citizens able to vote on it?  I guess I missed it. Is this the hive?  Where are these ideas (not facts) coming from anyway? There's a terrorist behind every Bush.
		MargaretThatcher (Hive Bee) 09-19-04 21:54 No 532212				Manufacturing Consent
						The population's perceptions and opinions are to a large extent controlled by propaganda. Within a month, the government could form opinion to be pro-legalisation and generally against tough sentencing. This is a manufactured threat, just like paedophillia, food scares and terrorism. If people had no threat to worry about, they might just start wondering what the fuck the government is up to. Are you, or have you ever been a Liberal? YES / NO
		jsorex (Hive Addict) 09-19-04 22:40 No 532223				Yes I agree, this is how it is, whether or not
						Yes I agree, this is how it is, whether or not those threats are real. Many times people arguing for drugs say that those threat are not real. But this is insignificant, the big masses do not distinguish real from not real, in any manner. They fear, they fear the unpredicatable, irrational. Any damage that could happen to their house, family, car, dog, community etc. The grand population elected the people that decide, thus there was no vote. They elected the health care professionals and the politicians - mostly. I willing to bet that 90% of the people do not consider drug issues at all when they vote. They see politically more relevant thigs that relate to their wealth. I'm not even sure that if it were voted upon, the pro-people would be a majority at all. It's all about fearing the irrational, we invest millions into getting schizofrenia and psychoses under control and rid of. Thus we also invest millions in getting so called substance abuse, addiction and psychedelic illusion etc. under control.
		MargaretThatcher (Hive Bee) 09-19-04 22:53 No 532225				Voting tactics
						The whole issue is complicated. I think there is what you can call a 'sheep curve'. You have red-necks, religious and morons at one end and chomskies and hive-members at the other. These categories are irrelevent though - the key voters are in the middle. Not quite sheep and yet not quite intelligent. They make up 90% of the population. Propaganda is all about controlling these people. Yes, governments need to get elected, but they also need to control their human resources (that is what it is all about, afterall). Fear, greed and sex are prime controllers, whether used negatively or positively. This is all basic stuff and yet most people are unaware of it. It is used by advertisers, it is used by the government. The question is: how can this situation be changed? Are you, or have you ever been a Liberal? YES / NO
		biotechdude (Hive Bee) 09-19-04 23:31 No 532236				general comments
						Alcohol and tobacco are legal and socially accepted as their effects are completely predictable and rules and regulations govern their use.  Naturally, some people choose to not follow these rules (eg nic-fit, alcoholic) and they suffer the consequences.  If drugs were released with no rules or regulations governing their use, there would also be negative consequences. The view of 'fuck the gov' and 'free drugs for all' is far to often preached as the answer.  The Hive represents an small elightened cross section of educated drug users, that evidently control their drug use and continue to function in society.  However, i dont trust the greater majority of society with this responsibility.    I agree that the government should have no control over our bodies and conciousness.  But they should have rules concerning the use of drugs.  That is, they're illegal and they recommend you shouldn't use them.  This rule alone keeps the stupid majority away from drugs; leaving a small minority that uses, and another that abuses. The government serves many roles and responsibilities other than controling the use of drugs.  Its easy to get caught up in the latter point and believe that we should banish them altogether.  Its true that legalising drugs will remove a large portion of crime and misguided government funds.  But legalising drugs would create new (unknown) social burdens that would use up just as many resources. Besides, even though drugs are currently illegal, do many bees have trouble 'expanding their mind' whenever they choose to?  Drugs are practically legal and freely obtainable anyway.  They are face-valued as 'illegal' as a means of regulation; just as alcohol and tobacco are legal and have their own rules and regulations. Think of the big picture.  There is no black and white, only differing shades of grey.
		Jade (soccer mom) 09-19-04 23:41 No 532239				Wake up!
						Besides, even though drugs are currently illegal, do many bees have trouble 'expanding their mind' whenever they choose to? You really need to expand your mind a little and consider the bees that are not present because they are locked up just because drugs are currently illegal. There's a terrorist behind every Bush.
		biotechdude (Hive Bee) 09-19-04 23:56 No 532241				jade
						You really need to expand your mind a little and consider the bees that are not present because they are locked up just because drugs are currently illegal. As in my last comment, the government can only make black or white decisions.  In cases such as yours, the answer is grey.  He chose to break the law knowing the consequences.  However, (moreso) the punishment was unjust compared to his actions.
		MargaretThatcher (Hive Bee) 09-20-04 00:04 No 532243				Justice
						What is a just punishment? Who are you to decide? Who is anyone to decide? Justice is an arcane religious concept. Grow up and take control of yourself. Are you, or have you ever been a Liberal? YES / NO
		Jade (soccer mom) 09-20-04 01:42 No 532257				No,
						You missed the point I was trying to make... Personal use of drugs should never have been illegal to begin with.  There shouldn't have been a punishment at all.  I wasn't just referring to my situation either.  There are a great number of families besides mine that are affected by this, as well. There's a terrorist behind every Bush.
		Ascension (Newbee) 09-20-04 02:32 No 532265				biotechdude are you a fuckin cop?
						biotechdude are you a fuckin cop? you sound like one, whats up man? "This rule alone keeps the stupid majority away from drugs; leaving a small minority that uses, and another that abuses." How can laws keep the stupid majority away? the stupid majority are the ones who are breaking the laws and abusing drugs already. Laws dont do ANYTHING to keep STUPID people away from drugs. Do you think some 40 yr old adult with a family and a respectful job will one day just start taking drugs day in and day out just because its legal? No one said they wanted to get rid of the government all together, if we did then there would surely be chaos. But they should pull their fuckin thumb out of their asses and have a real look at drugs. It is no doubt one of the stupidest things is that alcohol and tobacco is legal while other drugs are banned. Illegal drugs are illegal because there harmful, so why the fuck isnt alcohol and tobacco banned. If all drugs came into this world at the same time they would of all been banned or all be legal. No doubt these things are changing, look at marijuana. Finally they are realizing the truth about this and it is becoming decriminalized in many places and im sure one day it will move into legal status. And you know what the government says, marijuana is the gateway drug. So i guess once thats legal it wont be long before they start looking hard and long at the rest of the illegal drugs. Your an individual just like everyone else.
		kingsofsleep (Hive Addict) 09-20-04 03:01 No 532266				smells like pork to me
						Alcohol and tobacco are legal and socially accepted as their effects are completely predictable and rules and regulations govern their use   And yet you ignore the fact that alcohol and tobacco ill more people every year (legally) than all drugs combined.   So if there were controls on drugs like there are on alcohol and booze (which I advocate), the number of drug related deaths would be even lower.   Taking drug production and sales off the streets and into legal venues would allow a stricter set of controls over who does what. It would work just the same as prohibition. People like you have demonized drugs and given them this mythical status. You talk like someone who only reads about drugs. You talk like a pig. The view of 'fuck the gov' and 'free drugs for all' is far to often preached as the answer.   Where have you ever seen "free drugs for all" preached here?   We only want to the right to responsibly use drugs. However, i dont trust the greater majority of society with this responsibility.   Well thank god we don't have you deciding people's fate. Again, drugs aren't the problem, it's people's addictive behavior - if it's not drugs, it will be booze or sex or gambling - there are many vices to choose from. Should we take away everything that people abuse?   And don't give me this "socially acceptable" bullshit, that's a copout answer. If it's the government's responsibility to regulate everything that the public can abuse then shouldn't it regulate all things of this nature? I agree that the government should have no control over our bodies and conciousness.  But they should have rules concerning the use of drugs.  That is, they're illegal and they recommend you shouldn't use them.   You just contradicted yourself. Drugs affect our bodies and our consciousness, that's what they do. You sound like a cop again. Think of the big picture.  There is no black and white, only differing shades of grey   But your solution/explanation is black and white not grey at all. It's an LE solution... Cui peccare licet peccat minus - One who is allowed to sin, sins less. (Ovid)
		Ascension (Newbee) 09-20-04 04:05 No 532269				Even if you arnt a cop, what are you doing on...
						Even if you arnt a cop, what are you doing on this site with opinions like that? You just sound like another dumbass who has been brainwashed by society and cant even think for themselves. Just looking at the facts should be enough to convince anyone of whats truly right and wrong. But then again some people only have the mental capacity to believe what they have been told and cant work out the truth if their life depended on it. And sadly its people like these who make up the majority of this world. Your an individual just like everyone else.
		biotechdude (Hive Bee) 09-21-04 00:12 No 532397				Settle down
						I appreciate all your comments.  I think margaret summed it up - The whole issue is complicated We could banter back and forth forever; as both sides of the arguement have merit and defect.  Further, this debate has reaffirmed my personal position of 'undecided'.    My posts were only trying to present the other side of the arguement.  They are by no means a total representation of my opinion or personal character.  It was insular of you to make such a hasty judgement.  Posters have recommended i 'expand my thinking', however the comment could be reflected back.  Some get so caught up in a notion that they refuse to see the alternate positive. Lastly, i'm no pig.  If i was, why the hell would i waste my time trying to convince you "drugs are bad, mmm-kay".  I would instead be posting lucrative offers of "i have lots of whizzy-bang fizzer, who will buy it? PM me".  Also, if you hopped off The Couch and read my input in other forums; it would quickly negate this concern.
		Jade (soccer mom) 09-21-04 03:49 No 532432				more mind expanding...
						Posters have recommended i 'expand my thinking', however the comment could be reflected back.  Some get so caught up in a notion that they refuse to see the alternate positive. Here's some interesting facts you might think about....   Illegal drugs are dangerous and kill people, so that's why they are illegal, right? Well, maybe not. After the recent death of a professional ballplayer was linked to his use of ephedra, the cry went out across the land: we must ban this dangerous substance. That got me thinking, and as usual led me to do a little research.   You might think that there would be some kind of logical process applied to determine exactly the point at which the relative "danger" of a given substance would cross a threshold and consequently be declared illegal. I thought that perhaps I could uncover some part of the truth by reading the materials published by the Office of National Drug Control Policy. They have been claiming for years that "drugs kill people" and have managed to finagle an annual budget of over $20 billion to "protect Americans from the scourge of illegal drugs." I'm not necessarily claiming that the ONDCP is prone to exaggeration, but I'd like to share what I've discovered about drug deaths in America. The ONDCP annual Drug Control Strategy provides a table of drug-induced deaths that shows an increase in the number of such deaths from 7,101 in 1979 to 16,926 by 1998. Starting in 1999, the Centers for Disease Control adopted the new international standards for coding causes of death, so ONDCP tells us that the new standard is not directly comparable to the old standard. The good news though, is that the CDC provides an on-line interface into their database of 20 years of mortality data, which proved more than adequate for exploration. First, though, I had to find a definition of which causes of death are included in the ONDCP's figures. The way the data is usually presented, one would be inclined to believe that all 214,575 of those folks died from using illegal drugs. As it turns out, however, nothing could be further from the truth. Fortunately, the footnotes on the table of death in the latest Drug Control Strategy revealed that there are actually a wide variety of deaths included in the total, most of which as it turns out have nothing to do with illegal drugs. Using the codes provided in the ONDCP tables, and the on-line mortality database at CDC, I learned that in actuality, only 44,727 of those deaths over a 20-year period were due to the use of illegal drugs. As you might expect, most of those were due to accidental overdoses of heroin or cocaine. In fact, during those 20 years, only 22,735 were caused by heroin, and only 15,551 were due to cocaine use. Together, heroin and cocaine accounted for nearly 86 percent of all deaths due to illegal drugs, which in their entirety accounted for only 21 percent of all drug-induced deaths claimed by ONDCP. Nearly 80 percent of the drug-induced deaths were due to the use of drugs other than the ones declared illegal. To really put this data into perspective, consider that during those 20 years, over 42.8 million Americans died. That means that all "drug-induced" causes account for less than one-half of one percent of all deaths, while those involving illegal drugs account for a mere one-tenth of one percent of all deaths. Meanwhile, deaths from alcohol-induced causes tallied 378,960, or nine-tenths of one percent of all deaths. Clearly, the legality of a given substance has precious little to do with how "dangerous" it is in terms of direct mortality. In the same 20-year period, 30,150 people died from choking on food, and another 37,246 died from choking on things other than food. An additional 38,328 committed suicide via inhaling car exhaust and 80,959 committed suicide via hanging. Especially in these days of economic woes and budget crunches, the time surely has arrived when we need to take a more serious look at the "horrors" of drug use and our approach toward dealing with them. From where I stand, America's drug war is beginning to look like the absolute dumbest endeavor ever undertaken. Every dollar spent in the futile attempt to prevent people from doing things to themselves is a dollar that could be much better spent on just about anything else. http://www.briancbennett.com/writing/drug-deaths.htm Now, I think this brings us back to the original question that started this thread.  Legal drugs vs. illegal drugs and the self-rightous hypocrites that decide which is which. There's a terrorist behind every Bush.
		Captain_America (Hive Bee) 09-21-04 08:54 No 532462				President Nixon put it well when he declared...
						President Nixon put it well when he declared War On Drugs; "Think of a child, then think of a drug, who do you value most...?" War on drugs is a good thing as drugs are dangerous. Keep up the good work biotechdude, you seem very intelligent when it comes to drug-policies! It shows that you really have thought about this issue and not fallen a victim for liberal propaganda.
		abolt (Hive Addict) 09-21-04 09:09 No 532465				When all is said and done...............
						..........none of you have any right to tell me what I can and can't take, or tell anyone else what they can or can't take, for that matter. Whether or not drugs are involved is irrelevant. All arguments of good and bad are purely relative and, therefore, irrelevant. As the above statements are 100% absolutely correct, this thread is now null and void. Hey, Osmium, why do you think people vote? As Os hasn't replied, then allow me to............Voting can only be considered as "free and democratic" when the words "NONE OF THE ABOVE" appear at the bottom of all ballot papers. THEY must be made to conform to US, and not the other way around. Then, and only then, can we begin to approach a "free and Democratic" model. Have a nice day. He took Blood Money They took Blood
		Ascension (Newbee) 09-21-04 09:47 No 532471				Very true Abolt, i cant believe i havn't ...
						Very true Abolt, i cant believe i havn't thought of that one myself yet. Im going to push that idea around, by not having a "none of the above" option there forcing you to choose something, which i guess is illegal. Its a pretty good point that needs to be pushed i say. Your an individual just like everyone else.
		weedar (Gaylord) 09-21-04 10:01 No 532473				hell
						In Norway you can vote nothing or "blank". "seriously thishomo internet shit needs to stop" -mcrandom
		Captain_America (Hive Bee) 09-21-04 10:20 No 532474				do the majority of US population vote?
						do the majority of US population vote? (a serious question) I'd like to know..
		Ascension (Newbee) 09-21-04 10:29 No 532475				I just checked up on that capt america.
						I just checked up on that capt america. Its around 50% of Americans vote. I guess it would prob be the same in most other countries. I guess most people dont like having people telling them what to do... geez what a surprise. Your an individual just like everyone else.
		paranoid (Quick-witted Quibbler) 09-21-04 23:25 No 532587				"do the majority of US population vote?
						"do the majority of US population vote? (a serious question) " How much of your posting is serious and how much is actually just trying to be a little trouble-maker?   I wonder who's alternative identity this is anyway...? As for voting, the USA has definitely been declining over the last few decades, dropping from a 63% in 1960 to 49% in 2000. Most Western nations seem to follow a similar trend, although some much more than others.  Sweden still had a turnout of 77% at their last election. Some have even increased, like Greece (last 89%), or remained consitently high (Italy - 84%, little variation). Here's an awesome web site that shows voter turnout over the last 45 years across the globe: http://www.idea.int/vt/index.cfm My ideal vacation - Juxtaposed along the precipice intersecting reality and fantasy (i.e. wanking).
		biotechdude (Hive Bee) 09-22-04 02:17 No 532609				Some thoughts against legalisation
						none of you have any right to tell me what I can and can't take, or tell anyone else what they can or can't take, for that matter Yes they can.  When you became and continue to be a citizen of a country (by birth or pledge), you agree to abide by their laws.  Laws set boundaries for what you can and can’t do.  So in essence, you agreed that drugs should be illegal.  By voting you are simply exercising your right to preference.  If your chosen option doesn’t win majority, it doesn’t mean you don’t follow the majority party's values.  It does mean however, that as a citizen you agree to follow the law elected by the majority of voters.  And they want drugs illegal.  If the majority hold that opinion because of government propaganda, well too bad; they gave power to the government that provided that info.  People (not just Jade) argue ‘I didn’t vote drugs should be illegal’.  Well yes you did.  Because as a citizen of your country you agreed follow the majority-elected government and their decisions and laws.  As I said in my first post, its either ‘tough shit’, ‘move elsewhere’, or set-up your own independent country. I'll explain part of my stance on the legalisation issue Anti-prohibitionists want to give people the choice to ‘use drugs responsibly’.  To legalise and actually implement such a utopian idea, a framework outlined below would have to be implemented. 1) Drugs would be mass produced, sold cheaply and be easily available.  This would remove organised and drug-related crime and divert WOD funds towards better causes. 2) This dispensary service would be structured on a points system so everyone gets their fair share.  Partnered with this would be a continuous public awareness and education campaign to encourage responsible, moderated usage.  There would also have to be ‘check-points’ and addiction management programmes. 3) Laws and regulations would need to be re-established to ensure those under the influence didn’t endanger others or make irrational decisions.  Systems would have to be in place to detect and enforce breaches in these laws. 4) Anti-prohibitionists are steadfast on the idea that drug use will not increase under this scheme.  This is due to every person’s inbuilt, moralistic, self-moderation.  Now come some realities… Who will perform these duties?  Who will provide the funds?  I suppose you’d say the government. Why should the government spend taxpayer funds so that a minority is satisfied?  The main argument is to reduce crime of course… Organised crime flourishes on the interaction between commodities and black markets.  If drugs became a legal commodity, they would simply find another avenue to exploit.  Secondly, drug related crime stems from many factors such as outright greed for money, anger, or related mental or emotional problems.  Under this scheme, only the small portion crime stemming from a ‘desire to obtain drugs’ will be lessened.  Do you trust the Governments' ability to implement and enforce regulations under this scheme?  Further, with drugs being legal it would be their responsibility to detect and manage addiction, and police overuse.  How could they ensure that those under the influence aren’t potentially harming others or making important decisions?  Who would be accountable, the provider or user.  How good a job are the Government doing now?…  It would also open a Pandora’s box of legal issues, as it would be unjust to continue imprisonment for a crime that is now ‘legal’.  Many dangerous and entrepreneurial criminals would we released just because their conviction was loosely related to drugs. Lets throw a crazy idea in the air and assume that drug use will increase if made legal.  Will families’ continue to function with drug users, let alone abusers and addicts?  Remember, people don’t choose to be an addict; their ‘self-regulation’ loop isn’t giving it the ok.  They become addicts because of environmental cues, and a craving for the drug itself.  Making drugs legal, cheap and easily available wont negate these factors.  Lastly, drugs are directly or indirectly harmful to ones health (and currently; not fully understood).  Resultantly, increased usage will place a large burden on the healthcare system. An alternative here is to hand it over to the public sector.  Do u feel secure in the thought of handing over a monopoly to the worldwide drug industry.  I doubt the company could sell drugs cheaply to a minority market, whilst covering the costs of- 1) distribution – mass production of all drugs and making it available worldwide 2) regulation - ensuring users aren’t endangering or making irrational decisions 3) consumer monitoring and treatment - education, addiction programmes and healthcare.  Lastly, in view of ‘big business’; do you honestly believe they wont get greedy?.. In closing, I agree that the current WOD on drugs is a futile and inconclusive approach.  Furthermore, I agree that legalising drugs will resolve many problems and shift the power of choice back to the people.  Many understand the greedy, fraudulent and often incompetent nature of the government and private sector.  For this very reason, it is difficult to comprehend how the grand plan to legalise drugs could actually be implemented and successful.  I cannot see how legalising drugs can become an effectively managed and integrated part of society.  The solution? I'm still unsure and undecided...  Love, Biotechdude P.S I wonder who's alternative identity this is anyway...? C_A certainly ain't mine; i'm sure the Mods could verify.
		Ascension (Newbee) 09-22-04 02:41 No 532616				Paranoid your a quick one ;-) I deleted my old
						Paranoid your a quick one I deleted my old account, got quite sick of it. Plus i thought this new account name was much better Besides i am not putting down America at all (thats all i seemed to do in my last account) But this drug topic is a global one, not specific to any country. Now biotech everything you just stated is of course a real concern. But imagine that these now illegal drugs will be treated just like alcohol or tobacco when they come legal. Id go down to my local drug store, pick up some alcohol, a pack of ciggies, some MDMA tabs and maybe something for the next day... You say all these problems are going to happen if they become legal but you say it if these things arnt already a problem now while there illegal? Your an individual just like everyone else.
		Jade (soccer mom) 09-22-04 03:09 No 532623				Re: People (not just Jade) argue ‘I didn’t...
						People (not just Jade) argue ‘I didn’t vote drugs should be illegal’.  Well yes you did.  Because as a citizen of your country you agreed follow the majority-elected government and their decisions and laws.  As I said in my first post, its either ‘tough shit’, ‘move elsewhere’, or set-up your own independent country. No, I don't think so!  You, as well as many others, seem to have this backwards.  As an "elected government", they signed on to work for us, the people.  Funny, how you didn't list the option of running any of the fuckin' assholes out of office?   Who will perform these duties?  Who will provide the funds?  I suppose you’d say the government. Resultantly, increased usage will place a large burden on the healthcare system. Who the fuck pays for all this shit right now?  With the billons (that's not a typo either, it's a "b") being spent to fight this ridiculous war, I'd say the government would be a good place to start with.  We could actually have such a thing as a healthcare system. Under this scheme, only the small portion crime stemming from a ‘desire to obtain drugs’ will be lessened. Exactly!  Then we could seperate the criminals from the non-criminals.  We could charge people with actual fuckin' crimes.  I know that must be hard for some, such as you, to comprehend.  It's just too logical. There's a terrorist behind every Bush.
		biotechdude (Hive Bee) 09-22-04 03:30 No 532625				I agree
						Jade, i agree with your comments.  However they were taken out of the context of my arguement. My question to you is - 1) If all drugs were legalised, how would it be implemented and under what conditions? 2) Do you trust the governments' ability to perform and manage this framework? My short answers are 1) I dont think its practically feasable 2) because i sure as hell don't believe the government has the funds, skills or common sense to do it.
		Ascension (Newbee) 09-22-04 11:26 No 532681				How would it be implemented?
						How would it be implemented? Why cant the production of Meth and MDMA just become another business? It would be just like the production of alcohol or tobacco. My guess is the tobacco companies would buy into it straight away because the profit margin would be through the roof. I don't think you understand that these drugs are so readily available on the streets that it would be the same as if it was being sold at every corner shop. The ONLY difference making these things legal would be that people would now have medical grade drugs and not some back yard job (thats even if their getting the drug they want and not some mock up) Now your prob going to come back at me and say, well some girl could get her friends to go buy her 10 pills and she can OD on them all. But if she wanted to she could do that right now while the drugs are still illegal. The only difference there will be when these drugs are made legal is that they can get the proper recognition they deserve and people can be taught the TRUTH about them and usage. And this is the ONLY way any damages done by these drugs to people can be brought down, not by trying to ban them because as you can see it obviously doesn't work. Why the hell are you people so against the legalization of these drugs? if you don't want to use them, then don't! its that simple. The people who use will keep using and the people who don't use now, prob wont use even if it was legal. biotechdude can you please tell me the disadvantages of these illicit drugs becoming legal, and i'm not talking about the shit like who's going to supply them, but about safety concern side of things (which is why there banned in the first place) Your an individual just like everyone else.
		biotechdude (Hive Bee) 09-22-04 12:47 No 532687				biotechdude can you please tell me the ...
						biotechdude can you please tell me the disadvantages of these illicit drugs becoming legal, and i'm not talking about the shit like who's going to supply them, but about safety concern side of things (which is why there banned in the first place) I never have said drugs should be illegal because they kill people.  That is a weak catch-phrase arguement that the government pushes to win votes. You must understand i do understand and agree with the positives of legalisation.  However, i am only trying to explore the opposing arguement; without the clouding of government propaganda. My main arguement concerns the feasability of a legalisation framework, and secondly the resultant social and legal problems.  A weak and distant third is that if drugs came legal and usage increased, that health problems and deaths would increase proportionatly also.  I'm not saying that if drugs came legal, then suddenly people are going to boot up 5g of smack. Once again 1) If all drugs were legalised, how would it be implemented and under what conditions? 2) Do you trust the governments' ability to perform and manage this framework? Its no use dreaming the positives of drug-legalisation without offering a feasible way to implement it.
		weedar (Gaylord) 09-22-04 15:35 No 532702				Okay
						I'm sorry, I just have to comment on the following: It would also open a Pandora’s box of legal issues, as it would be unjust to continue imprisonment for a crime that is now ‘legal’.  Many dangerous and entrepreneurial criminals would we released just because their conviction was loosely related to drugs. No, no and no! Why would anyone assume that changing a law affects people already convicted of breaking that law? They broke the law at a time when it was illegal to do whatever activity they did and they knew it. This goes both ways, mind you, like GHB-laws in Norway; Some people got busted with GHB, but this was before the law was enacted(right word?), so they didn't get any fine or jailtime. Also, you assume that the price of drugs would skyrocket beecause of the costs of producing and distributing. Now that is pretty naive, seeing as drugs are produced and distributed quite efficiently today (both legal and illegal). Is pot in The Netherlands more costly than in countries where it is illegal? Also, the quality in The Netherlands is better than in many other countries as well. "seriously thishomo internet shit needs to stop" -mcrandom
		jsorex (Hive Addict) 09-22-04 16:03 No 532708				In a democracy a the majority decides.
						In a democracy a the majority decides. There are politician that are pro-drug, atleast in my country - which people from the USA think is Utopia. They aren't very popular, the majority doesn't want more legal drugs.
		biotechdude (Hive Bee) 09-22-04 23:16 No 532746				comments
						>>Also, you assume that the price of drugs would skyrocket beecause of the costs of producing and distributing. Now that is pretty naive, seeing as drugs are produced and distributed quite efficiently today I stated - I doubt the company could sell drugs cheaply to a minority market, whilst covering the costs of- 1) distribution – mass production of all drugs and making it available worldwide 2) regulation - ensuring users aren’t endangering or making irrational decisions 3) consumer monitoring and treatment - education, addiction programmes and healthcare.  If legalised, many preach that drug prices will go down dramatically (to keep the junkies from turning to crime).  However, whoever produces and distributes will also have the responsibility to cover the costs of enforcing legiclation, consumer monitoring and treatment.  As you said, current production and distribution channels are quite efficient and street prices are loosely related to these costs.  I fail to see how prices could drop dramatically, whilst covering the aformentioned additonal costs. >>Why would anyone assume that changing a law affects people already convicted of breaking that law?  They broke the law at a time when it was illegal to do whatever activity they did and they knew it. The key phrase was 'Pandora's Box'; meaning unpredictable legal issues would surface.  I agree that prison doors wont swing open, but there will be alot more room for appeals to be sucessful.  The other area is accountability; can an OD victim challenge the provider of their drugs.  Much like a drunk that gets hurt argues 'they continued to serve me'.  One grand daddy bonafide disclaimer would need to be in place...
		Artex (Stranger) 09-27-04 16:49 No 533400				The Law
						I. The commissioner shall place a substance in Schedule I if the commissioner finds that the substance has a high potential for abuse; and has no accepted medical use in treatment in the US or lacks accepted safety for use in treatement under medical supervision. II. The commissioner shall place a substance in Schedule II if the commissioner finds that: the substance has a high potential for abuse; the substance has currently accepted medical use in treatment in the US; and abuse of the stubstance may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence. III. The commissioner shall place a substance in Schedule III if the commissioner finds that: the substance has a potential for abuse less than that of the substances listed in Schedules I and II; the substance has currently accepted medical use in treatment in the US; and abuse of the stubstance may lead to moderate or low psychological or physical dependence. IV. The commissioner shall place a substance in Schedule IV if the commissioner finds that: the substance has a potential for abuse less than that of the substances listed in Schedule III; the substance has currently accepted medical use in treatment in the US; and abuse of the stubstance may lead to a more limited psychological or physical dependence than that of the substances listed in Schedule III. V. The commissioner shall place a substance in Schedule V if the commissioner finds that: the substance has a potential for abuse less than that of the substances listed in Schedule IV; the substance has currently accepted medical use in treatment in the US; and abuse of the stubstance may lead to a more limited psychological or physical dependence than that of the substances listed in Schedule IV. Seems pretty straight forward to me. Because the commissioner of public health and safety is hired by the elected officials, your votes put these people in the position of making the above mentioned determinations. So, you do vote for these laws.
		Captain_America (Hive Bee) 09-27-04 17:13 No 533405				so deeply brainwashed
						and then some Mrs. and Mr. Smartasses say: "Now, my vote goes to Kerry, so that Bush don't win" Yes, incredibly as it might sound you can find that type of people @ da Hive 2, then imagine the vast population of crap cunsuming semi-morons struggling to choose a "leader", constantly to put it over on someone else, on that super-human they have imagined in their minds, these people say no to life of their own. a horrible thought. now, the moonlight is too beatuiful, i must watch it, bye...
		Artex (Stranger) 09-27-04 18:11 No 533414				Not national
						Actually, the law I quoted above is from Texas, State level legislation. It's titled the Health and Safety Code. While the classifications come from the Feds, the punishments per volume for each substance is regulated on the State level. That's why you have some variance.
		Osmium (Stoni's sexual toy) 09-27-04 22:22 No 533453				Why should it be any of your fucking business...
						Why should it be any of your fucking business what chemicals I consume? I don't care how you mount your wife or boyfriend either, so get off my back. BUSH/CHENEY 2004! After all, it ain't my country! www.american-buddha.com/addict.war.1.htm
		Artex 09-28-04 14:41				Because the collateral effects of your ... (Rated as: insignificant)
		Captain_America (Hive Bee) 09-28-04 20:43 No 533628				typical drunken-guncrazy-moron logic
						Because the collateral effects of your decisions have a negative impact on society. Indeed, Shulgin is someone to fear... Hey, it's not weapon industry's fault that people use their automatic machine guns irresponisbly, isn't it so, hillibilly?
		Artex 09-28-04 20:46				Wow (Rated as: insignificant)
		Osmium (Stoni's sexual toy) 09-28-04 20:49 No 533631				Land of the Free?
						> Because the collateral effects of your decisions have a negative impact on society. I wonder what negative collateral impact the drug war has? And if it might be worse than the impact that drugs could ever have if they were available and people wouldn't need to commit crimes to get them? What's your opinion on the US being the country with the highest incarceration rate worldwide? BUSH/CHENEY 2004! After all, it ain't my country! www.american-buddha.com/addict.war.1.htm
		Artex 09-28-04 20:57				Steps are being taken (Rated as: Your state is the main problem, not part of the solution.)
		Jade (soccer mom) 09-28-04 22:10 No 533647				Bullshit!
						In my State, we're taking steps to reduce the incarceration of victimless or non-violent crime. Excuse me?  What about the following quote? "Once again Cooke County jurors have shown how seriously they take drug cases," she said. "I think this case is an example of the district attorney's office aggressively prosecuting drug cases." As far as this "probation" with the "circumstances" such as supervision and threats of incarceration should the defendant still have a desire commit a non-violent, victimless crime by using drugs, your not helping anyone.   There's a terrorist behind every Bush.
		jsorex (Hive Addict) 10-24-04 13:00 No 537462				Ascension asks why are some drugs illegal and...
						Ascension asks why are some drugs illegal and others not - why is the same drug both legal and illegal (amphetamine, and prescription dextroamphetamine) Post 532080 (Ascension: "hypocrites?", Law and Order). I guess we can say that in that case it is because of the rational manner in which the consumption takes place, and also for the reason that it is taken. Actually there are many other such drugs, for instance morphine, codeine etc. In the country that I live in, I work in a pharmacy, and we have two brands of codeine cotaining cough medicine. One contains 3mg/ml and has to be kept in the back room and all prescriotions kept in the pharmacy 10 years, the other cotains 1mg/ml and is in the customer area where anybody can buy/steal 10 bottles if they want. Even though there was never any vote on the issue, it is a democratic decision. The WHO has been advocating rational drug use for decades. (also cf. Post 532166 (jsorex: "The reason that drugs are illegal, regardless...", Law and Order)). If you look at the worlds richest countries, you can find lists made by sociologists, of things that people in gen. find most important. Work will be in the top 5 always. This leeds to the voting issue (Post 532223 (jsorex: "Yes I agree, this is how it is, whether or not", Law and Order)). People who form their own society like some junkies, are anarchists. That is why junkies are anomalities and not seen as just ill people. They threaten the system the system threaten them. Predictability is important (cf. eg. Post 532236 (biotechdude: "general comments", Law and Order)). Now the EU has taken some serious steps to end tobacco use also, and there are campaigns for more rational alcohol use too. Around here you have brochures in the wine section on healthy alcohol use, containing comments such as "the day after is not a day for heavy excercise" etc. Is it reason enough for drugs to be legal that some individuals want it so? Look at what MT says here: Post 532243 (MargaretThatcher: "Justice", Law and Order). Even when asked here among us, many people said that no explicit benefit come from drugs. Notice how many of the really rational scientist types around here didn't comment! Post 537008 (jsorex: "What do we benefit from psychedelics?", The Couch) Every time I read about some quack wanting to use psychedelics in psychotherapy, I always wondered whether there was enough patients that could actually benefit from it, or is it just overhyped. Why do "drugs" cause so much "hype"? I'm pretty sure that some drugs will be legalized in the future, perhaps cannabis. In some controlled manner. But anybody that has had a psychedelic experience probably agrees that the experience is inseperably mingled with the experience of being released from the grip of the ego, society, petty everday bullshit, etc. Then, would a super controlled psychedelic experience be the same? This situation is analoguos to the situtation of indidgenous people learning to hunt animals in the jungle using ayahuasca for days, and then the designer drug, sitter-included "pharmahuasca" experience looking at a plasma screen. Like LapTop mentions in the thread (Post 537361 (LaBTop: "?", The Couch)) part of the "psychedelic experiece" can be reached without drugs, perhaps it is the experience of freedom. Freedom is a threat to the system.
		superman (Hive Bee) 10-29-04 20:41 No 538605				can't you fucking people realize that your...
						can't you fucking people realize that your brains are as washed as my oldest pair of disintegrating underwear? "drugs are illegal, regardless of all that has been said, is because the people that decide, including the vast majority of voters or average citizens fear that if drugs were legalized it would change society as a functioning system for the worse." wake up to the real world.            get rich,    fuck the system,    share the wealth with like minded people. the bad guys are are doing this better than us (and thus ruling)
		tina_craig (Hive Bee) 10-29-04 21:21 No 538614				Prejudice
						I have read that all drugs used to be legal but were eventually outlawed due to prejudiced views of a certain ethnicity using a certain drug and others didn't like seeing these types of people feeling good and enjoying themselves and eventually alot of the drugs were outlawed.  Prohibition is bullshit, it was proven with alcohol.  If drugs were legalized would more people that don't use today start using, not IMHO, and the ones that steal and commit crimes to support there habit wouldn't have the problems they have with affording it and the shit would be more reliable and less damaging if you could pick up a bottle at the pharmacy like a bottle of aspirin, FDA motherfucking approved.  Bottom line, legal or not, drug use will ALWAYS be around, drug laws are in place so the government always has a BIG JOB to do.  Don't get me wrong, I don't want some sketchy bitch on a 5-day binge driving down my street taking out mailboxes and kids but I don't want some drunk either but it happens, what the fuck is the difference?  People that are gonna use and not be able to handle wouldn't survive long anyway and they would be in the same shithole boat anyway, IMHO.  My worst fear is a cage, but the feeling of never being able to experience some of the experiences that swim has had in his life is just as bad.  Government has a place and they overstep that boundary on a regular basis, IMHO! Tina Craig worked for me!!
		Unobtainium (Minister of Propaganda) 10-29-04 22:44 No 538627				Re: I have read that all drugs used to be...
						I have read that all drugs used to be legal but were eventually outlawed due to prejudiced views of a certain ethnicity using a certain drug and others didn't like seeing these types of people feeling good and enjoying themselves and eventually alot of the drugs were outlawed. With the possible exception of pot, that isn't true. The rest of the drugs are controlled for economic and political purposes and in extremely rare cases, actual health concerns. However the severity of punishment differs according to ethnicity. The penalty for crack is more severe than the penalty for cocaine because crack is used mostly by blacks, and coke by whites. Milk rots your brain.
		MargaretThatcher (Hive Bee) 10-29-04 22:53 No 538630				Prohibition
						spread outwards from the US, just like other FUD. It is a control system. Are you, or have you ever been a Liberal? YES / NO
		P6_mmc 10-30-04 01:34				Not true (Rated as: incomprehensible)
		Jade (soccer mom) 10-30-04 03:27 No 538671				wait a minute
						With the possible exception of pot, that isn't true. The rest of the drugs are controlled for economic and political purposes and in extremely rare cases, actual health concerns. However the severity of punishment differs according to ethnicity. The penalty for crack is more severe than the penalty for cocaine because crack is used mostly by blacks, and coke by whites. Actually, the laws did begin with prejudice being a major issue.  They've, since then, became political and economical issues.  Here's a few paragraphs from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs#Early_Drug_Laws that tells about it. The first law outright prohibiting the use of a specific drug was a San Francisco, California ordinance which banned the smoking of opium in opium dens in 1875. The inspiration was "many women and young girls, as well as young men of respectable family, were being induced to visit the Chinese opium-smoking dens, where they were ruined morally and otherwise." The primary cause of the movement for the law was a moral panic based on a fear of Chinese immigrants and other railroad workers seducing white women with the drug. This was followed by other laws throughout the country, and federal laws which barred Chinese people from trafficking in opium. Though the laws affected the use and distribution of opium by Chinese immigrants, no action was taken against the producers of such products as laudanum, a mixture of opium and alcohol, commonly taken as a panacea by white Americans. The dividing line was usually the manner in which the drug was ingested. Chinese immigrants smoked it, while it was included in various kinds of (generally liquid) medicines for white people. The laws were aimed at smoking opium, but not otherwise ingesting it.  As a result of this discrepancy, modern commentators believe that these laws were racist in origin and intent. Cocaine was prohibited in the first part of the 20th century. Newspapers used terms like "Negro Cocaine Fiends" and "Cocainized Niggers" to drive up sales, causing a nationwide panic about the rape of white women by black men, high on cocaine. Many police forces changed from a .32 caliber to a .38 caliber pistol because the smaller gun was supposedly unable to kill black men when they were high on cocaine. This was followed by the Harrison Act, which required sellers of opiates and cocaine to get a license (which were usually only distributed to white people). The supporters of the Harrison Act did not support blanket prohibition of the drugs involved.  This is also true of the later Marijuana Tax Act in 1937. Soon, however, the people who were allowed to issue the licenses did not do so, effectively banning the drugs. The American judicial system did not initially accept drug prohibition. Prosecutors argued that possessing drugs was a tax violation, as no legal licenses to sell drugs were in existence; hence, a person possessing drugs must have purchased them from an unlicensed source. After some wrangling, this was accepted as federal jurisdiction under the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. 1937 saw the passage of the Marijuana Tax Act. Harry Anslinger (Bureau of Narcotics Commissioner) testified in hearings on the subject that the hemp plant needed to be banned because it had a violent "effect on the degenerate races". This specifically referred to Mexican immigrants who had entered the country, seeking jobs during the Great Depression. The law passed quickly and with little debate. The American Medical Association (AMA) protested the law soon after, both on the grounds of actual disagreement with the law and the supporters' lies on the subject; Anslinger and others had claimed the AMA had vocalized support when, in fact, the opposite was true. There's a terrorist behind every Bush.
		Artex (Bone Smuggler) 11-08-04 21:38 No 540482				Yup.
						Jade is absolutely correct. Most substance abuse laws began at a time when the substance wasn't understood, just feared. The Controlled Substance Act is an attempt to apply logic to compartmentalize what substances are more acceptable than others. Not everyone in government agrees on the HSC schedules. I think the most interesting trend is the legalization of medical marihuana applications. The more states and areas that pass this law the more exposed your average joe will be to the use. The more exposed average joe is to marihuana, the less 'FEAR' of the unknown. I think that change may bring about lesser punishments for personal amounts. (less than 2oz) Jade: I believe the two quotes you've placed side by side are not contradictory because Mack's criminal history included robbery and other violent crimes. I believe the application of the punishment enhancements were proper in his case because he was a known violent drug dealer that got right back into selling Crack Cocaine. He was on parole only 4 WEEKS before we caught him selling again. His partner, Alton "Worm" Thomas, shot and nearly killed another man within two blocks of a school at 3:45pm as the CHILDREN we getting out for the day. Thomas was convicted of Agg. Assault and went to prison as well. For the user, probation is mandatory on the first offense. For the DEALER who uses firearms and is a repeat offender, Prison Time.
		geezmeister (Of Counsel) 11-08-04 21:47 No 540486				Well, that and...
						Legalization of marijuana will depend on allowing corporate America to profit from its sale and allowing both layers of government to tax it heavily. We already have the model in place in the cigarette industry, and as we phase out that deadly product, we could give Ligett and Meyers, R.J. Reynolds, and Lorrilard something else to profit on... If we develop a test as easy as the breathalyzer to test for intoxication on marijuana, we will be in position to sell the legalization of marijuana. I'd buy stock in Phillip Morris, myself... mostly harmless
		Freemind148 (Stranger) 11-09-04 15:54 No 540656				IMHO I think certain drugs are made illegal...
						IMHO I think certain drugs are made illegal because there have been incidents of drug abuse that caused problems to the society that could involve those who abuse the drugs and those who are around them.  Drugs may have different effects on different people at different does.  If people who take drugs without knowing the effect on him/her or his/her limit, then it could become dangerous for him/herself and other people around them.  It boils down to how one is being responsible for himself and others by knowing his/her own limit and this is very dificult to control and administer.  There are also some people who use the drugs on innocent people in order to take advange of them and there have been many incidents to this account.  Those who are not responsible nor can not control themselves can be dangerous when on drugs whether legal or illegal.  (They could be perfectly decent people otherwise).  Therefore, the government decided for themselves that it is easier to control the drugs than people by depriving them from all the drugs that could be abused.  Unfortunately for all those who are responsible and know their limits to be also deprived. I know a few people who take soft drugs such as canibis and MDMA who are high rank officers working at very large reputable companies and they are very responsible and succesful at their work.
		Artex (Bacon) 11-09-04 22:13 No 540707				Hmm
						Couple of thoughts: 1. Yes, the impact of some high profile examples directly affects the scheduled status of certain drugs. For example, Rhohypnol(sp?) is scheduled now because of its high profile use as a date rape drug. 2. Most of law enforcement doesn't consider MDMA as a soft drug. (check the impact of long term use on the cardiovascular system in the brain. 3. If every member of society was capable of being responsible for themselves, we wouldn't need criminal law at all.
		kingsofsleep (Hive Addict) 11-10-04 00:02 No 540716				2. Most of law enforcement doesn't consider...
						2. Most of law enforcement doesn't consider MDMA as a soft drug. (check the impact of long term use on the cardiovascular system in the brain.   I am assuming you are referring to neurotoxicity. http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/mdma_faq3.shtml#neurotox Other results of human studies in MDMA users are at odds with the conclusion that MDMA is a human neurotoxin. McCann, et al. in the same study which analyzed CSF 5-HIAA, found that MDMA users tended to have better impulse control and lower hostility while lower serotonin levels are thought to be correlated with increased hostility. A study of sleep patterns of MDMA users found that MDMA users had normal sleep patterns, but with a statistically significant decrease in stage 2 sleep, leading to an overall improvement in sleep quality -- more importantly these results are not at all in accordance with studies on sleep patterns of humans given the 5-HT supressor para-chlorophenylalanine (PCPA) or with animals having lesioned 5-HT systems[5]. Prospective studies (giving users MDMA in a controlled environment with baseline testing and then checking for indications of neurotoxicity) rather than retrospective studies (after the fact with no baseline) are only just getting underway at the Harbor-UCLA medical center (other studies are starting in England, Switzerland and Germany[6]). Initial retrospective results of the UCLA study indicate that MDMA may increase cerebral blood flow [7]. This may be indicative of benficial rather than neurotoxic changes in the brain: We are aware of a variety of neuro-psychiatric disorders associated with measurements of low blood flow, including Alzheimer's Disease, HIV Dementia, Major Depressive Disorders and Chronic Cocaine Abuse. However, there are no known clinical disorders or drugs which induce long-term elevations of rates of cerebral blood flow. -- Charles S. Grob. There have been reports of adverse psychiatric effects in the literature particularly anxiety attacks, paranoia and depression. However, some cases present the onset of psychiatric symptoms after a single typical dose[8] which suggests a psychological rather than biological/neurotoxic mechanism. Also, some cases of paranoia reported appear to have occured after repeated daily abuse and probably represent a manifestation of amphetamine psychosis, possibly in part due to adulteration or substitution by amphetamines[9]. The diet drug d-fenfluramine (Redux) causes similar effects on the 5-HT system, and it has been suggested that the lack of adverse psychiatric effects to chronic ingestion of d-fenfluramine implies that MDMA is probably without adverse effects. However, it appears that the mechanism behind MDMA and d-fenfluramine neurotoxicity are not the same, and this may make extrapolation from one drug to the other problematic[10]. To summarize the clinical data, the available evidence tends to suggest that in human users a (probably reversable) decrease in 5-HT may occur (possibly via suppression of the enzyme tryptophan hydroxylase) but that 5-HT neurons remain functionally intact. However, neurotoxic levels in humans are probably "attainable" and the exact amount of MDMA required to elicit a neurotoxic response in humans is unknown. The exact mechanism of MDMA neurotoxicity in animals is not presently known [11], but it seems to require dopamine activity, oxidation, and access to the 5-HT transporter. Increasing dopamine activity via ingestion of methamphetamine, l-tyrosine, phenylalanine or l-dopa would tend to increase MDMA neurotoxicity. This is a concern since phenylalanine is in diet soft drinks and products sweeted with aspartame(tm) and is also in many "smart drinks" sold at raves and of course methamphetamine is a concern since MDMA is often cut with crystal. On the other hand ascorbate (vitamin C) and l-cystine which are anti-oxidants have been shown to prevent MDMA induced neurotoxicity in animals, as has the administration of a SSRI antidepressant (Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Luvox, etc.). Studies indicate that taking either an anti-oxidant or a SSRI up to 5 hours after taking MDMA will prevent neurotoxicity in animals   Long term effects are controversial and at best only a theory.   You will have to do better than that.   The problem is that each side is apt to believe that the other is full of shit. While we are more than willing to accept the positive and negative aspects of our activities LE has a hard on for the big bad boogie man when it comes to drug use. They find it impossible to believe that one can use recreationally and not be an addict with serious physical effects.   In short, most of you know nothing about drugs, only what you hear from idiots from the streets or urban myths from your high school and college days.   I once watched a doctor in an ER try to give a friend, who was OD'ed on ghb, valium...fucking near killed him.   His only reply was: "have you gone to harvard medical school?"   I am not kidding.   LE and medical profession just don't have the proper information even though there are sites where it can be obtained.   Why is this?   You would have to use a lot of MDMA to get the type of results that you suspect. The same sort of damage comes from alcohol at much lower doses in a shorter period of time.   I suppose you don't see the hypocrisy in your actions though - just following orders right? 3. If every member of society was capable of being responsible for themselves, we wouldn't need criminal law at all.   I do agree with you there. Cui peccare licet peccat minus - One who is allowed to sin, sins less. (Ovid)
		Jade (soccer mom) 11-10-04 00:20 No 540717				?
						If every member of society was capable of being responsible for themselves, we wouldn't need criminal law at all. Then why is criminal law coming after reponsible individuals?  Ones that have not done a damn thing any different than any other responsible human being? There's a terrorist behind every Bush.
		abolt (Comandante A) 11-10-04 01:10 No 540721				Then why is criminal law coming after ...
						Then why is criminal law coming after reponsible individuals? Laws are always made in relation to the lowest common denominator. This is one of the wonders of "Democracy". A PROUD MEMBER OF THE WESTERN MINORITY
		jboogie (Hive Bee) 11-10-04 05:53 No 540750				cash...
						Then why is criminal law coming after reponsible individuals? because the responsible people have the capital to pay fines, laywers, ect.,ect... without the responsible members of society, they would have to bee more selective about who they arrest and why. cops will pull over a lexus and give them a fat ticket, yet never search the car. on the other hand, the pigs may stop an old beater and do the search, arrest them for the joint and never give 'em the ticket cause they know theyll never pay it. money is the motivating factor in all fascits of governmental buisness. Don't you think if I had something intelligent to say, it would bee in my post?
		Flash (Stranger) 11-10-04 06:17 No 540752				All drugs are legal in America right now.
						Your post is so ignorant that it is frightening, if I hadn't seen the same lack of knowledge of the purpose of the American government and rights and powers et cetera thousands of times I'd be freaking out. "They are the Government; its their job to tell us what to do.  If you don't like it; its either 'tough shit' or 'move elsewhere'. " Not in America. It's your job to decide what to do with yourself. Yes they do.  If we want to live in their country and enjoy the perks, they have every right to.  If you ruled and lived alone in your own independant country then they would have no right. In America, every person is their own independent country. We are all naturally soveriegn beings. The government can only regulate behavior between individuals, they can't prohibit people from doing as they want in private with themselves or with consenting adults. Also, the government has no rights. The government has powers, which are assigned when we the people concede some of our rights and powers for the common good through the process of amending the Constitution. We never gave the government the power to regulate drugs, they don't have it. Some people that take drugs do hurt people, and have a negative impact on society.  The gov makes rules and decisions to protect everyone.  Although you may know how to manage your life and make correct decisions; others dont.  Thats why the gov make the calls for them... You are confusing rhetoric and propaganda with truth and reality. Legal drugs kill about two hundred and fifty times more people than illegal drugs, which rather nicely dispells the belief that some drugs are illegal to protect people. The purpose of government isn't to protect people, but to protect their freedom, including the freedom to be stupid and to kill or harm themselves. "Neither will making it legal." Simply ending the enforcement of all drug laws will not solve our nations drug problem. A comprehensive solution must be developed. The last act of any government is to loot the nation - Mike Rivero, whatreallyhappened.com
		Flash (Stranger) 11-10-04 06:26 No 540754				America is NOT a democracy and it NEVER was
						"Hey, Osmium, why do you think people vote? Becose there is something called government, and government knows best, they represent us. We live in a democracy, we, the majority don't like drugs and want them to bee illegal, if you don't like it, too bad Osmium - you are outvoted and shouldn't bee doing drugs, or else you should spend some time in jail." America is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic. The majority of people do not rule over the minority of people in a republic. People have a natural and unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When the majority of people in this country find that pursuing happiness is too dangerous for the public, they can't prohibit it but they can regulate it. Driving two hundred miles is dangerous to the public, and it can and should be banned on public roads but you can't ban people from driving that fast on a private track. The government can't infringe on the rights of anyone. The majority can't either. "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government," - The Constitution of the United States, Article IV, Section 4 The last act of any government is to loot the nation - Mike Rivero, whatreallyhappened.com
		abolt (Comandante A) 11-10-04 06:29 No 540755				^^^^^
						Did you forget to take your Lithium? A PROUD MEMBER OF THE WESTERN MINORITY
		Flash (Stranger) 11-10-04 06:29 No 540756				WhaFuck?
						This is a manufactured threat, just like paedophillia, Pedophilia is not a manufactured threat, one out of three girls and one out of seven boys is molested by adulthood. Try comparing the average time spent in jail for drugs versus the average time for kiddie rape. The last act of any government is to loot the nation - Mike Rivero, whatreallyhappened.com
		Flash (Stranger) 11-10-04 06:33 No 540757				www.judgejimgray.com
						"But legalising drugs would create new (unknown) social burdens that would use up just as many resources." Go to Judge Gray's site and order his book, he does an excellent job of documenting why legalization would be vastly less harmful. Rehab prevents future drug use at a rate seven times per dollar than prison, yet we spend seven times more on prison than on rehab. Legalize it all, and spend all of the prison drug money on rehab, and we could prevent fifty times more drug use than we do now. The last act of any government is to loot the nation - Mike Rivero, whatreallyhappened.com
		jboogie (Hive Bee) 11-10-04 06:36 No 540758				"Hey, Osmium, why do you think people...
						"Hey, Osmium, why do you think people vote? Becose there is something called government, and government knows best, they represent us. We live in a democracy, we, the majority don't like drugs and want them to bee illegal, if you don't like it, too bad Osmium - you are outvoted and shouldn't bee doing drugs, or else you should spend some time in jail." Who the fuck are you? rumsfeld? what are you doing here with an attitude like that? just tryin to start shit i suppose. Try comparing the average time spent in jail for drugs versus the average time for kiddie rape. I know how much time you get for a drug charge, why dont you tell every one how long you get for kiddie rape... Don't you think if I had something intelligent to say, it would bee in my post?
		Flash (Stranger) 11-10-04 06:48 No 540762				No, they can't
						"Yes they can.  When you became and continue to be a citizen of a country (by birth or pledge), you agree to abide by their laws.  Laws set boundaries for what you can and can’t do.  So in essence, you agreed that drugs should be illegal." It's unfortunate you haven't heard of a little known thingy called the Constitution. It is the collection of laws that set boundries that determine what the government can and can't do. They can't regulate drugs in any way, except for interstate commerce of them, which they can't prohibit. "Further, with drugs being legal it would be their responsibility to detect and manage addiction, and police overuse." That must explain why they manage alcohol, tobacco, and caffiene in this manner. Oh wait, they don't, and they shouldn't. If you want to drink or drug yourself to death, to poverty, to homelessness, to unemployment, go on ahead and do so. It's your right to do so. "It would also open a Pandora’s box of legal issues, as it would be unjust to continue imprisonment for a crime that is now ‘legal’.  Many dangerous and entrepreneurial criminals would we released just because their conviction was loosely related to drugs." Anyone who has robbed, killed, stolen, et cetera to get their drugs, or who has done the same or raped, destroyed, et cetera while on drugs, should and would stay in jail. If we let out all of the people in jail only for drug crimes, those who are real criminals will have plenty of room to ensure that they are given real time for real crimes. " I cannot see how legalising drugs can become an effectively managed and integrated part of society.  The solution? I'm still unsure and undecided... " It's quite possible, and is necessary to the survival of our society. The last act of any government is to loot the nation - Mike Rivero, whatreallyhappened.com
		Flash (Stranger) 11-10-04 06:51 No 540763				how to legalize drugs
						"1) If all drugs were legalised, how would it be implemented and under what conditions?" Here's the very rough sketch of an idea: Q: How do you propose drug legalization to work? A: We believe that marijuana should be regulated by the states in a fashion similar to the regulation of alcohol, except that we believe the legal age for all drugs should be eighteen, the age at which one becomes a legal adult and assumes the responsibilities inherent with this milestone. We believe that all other drugs should be dispensed at pharmacies, because pharmacies are already prepared to prevent the sale of drugs to minors and to dispense medical advice along with the drugs. We also support a ban on all television advertising for all drugs in order to prevent children from being exposed to biased, one-sided propaganda that would mislead them as to the risks and dangers of drug use and that would glamorize drug use. "2) Do you trust the governments' ability to perform and manage this framework?" This government, absolutely not. But this government won't ever legalize drugs. In order to legalize them, we must change the government first, which makes a whole lot possible. The last act of any government is to loot the nation - Mike Rivero, whatreallyhappened.com
		Flash (Stranger) 11-10-04 06:56 No 540765				"No, no and no! Why would anyone assume...
						"No, no and no! Why would anyone assume that changing a law affects people already convicted of breaking that law? They broke the law at a time when it was illegal to do whatever activity they did and they knew it. This goes both ways, mind you, like GHB-laws in Norway; Some people got busted with GHB, but this was before the law was enacted(right word?), so they didn't get any fine or jailtime." You can't punish people who haven't broken a law even if it becomes illegal under the law to do the exact same thing, because there is no law against it. You can't punish people who broke a law that is unconstitutional, because the law never really was a law. The last act of any government is to loot the nation - Mike Rivero, whatreallyhappened.com

	All 78 posts		End of thread		Top

	https://the-hive.archive.erowid.org		the-hive@erowid.org
Powered by Charles Lee RayTM 4.07, 2016 - 2018, NeuroSoft R&D Limited
Links     Erowid     Rhodium

Date: 04-19-24, Release: 1.6 (10-04-15), Links: static, unique