The War on Some Drugs

Get something off your chest.
AND GET OFF MY LAWN!
User avatar
midi
Legendary
Posts:3592
Joined:14 Nov 2007, 12:10
Location:Midget say what?
Re: The War on Some Drugs

Post by midi » 18 Dec 2008, 13:02

You're in the midsts of server backups or something aren't you?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ soak rifts or riot ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

User avatar
Cartollomew
I has a monocle (Site Admin)
Posts:8805
Joined:22 Aug 2006, 12:11
Location:Perth

Re: The War on Some Drugs

Post by Cartollomew » 18 Dec 2008, 13:25

midi wrote:You're in the midsts of server backups or something aren't you?
I'm supposed to be upgrading a client test environment with our custom code.

Since I haven't the faintest idea how to do that, I frequently distract myself.

Also, this is an issue about which I feel strongly (obviously).

For the record, I should probably disclose my personal attitude toward drugs:

*I drink on a semi-regular basis. I did so "excessively" from time to time during ages 17-22. For the last 3 or so years I have done so more responsibly.
*I have partaken of exactly two illicit drugs, being cannabis and LSD. I did so once (for each), and found the experiences to be largely uninteresting.
*I do not take any drugs on a regular basis for medical purposes, although I have sporadically used in the past:
Codeine, paracetamol, ibuprofen, various antihistamines, caffeine, alcohol, nitrous oxide, various anaesthetist administered drugs.
*Of the above, I would place alcohol and caffeine in the semi-regular category (once to twice a month).
*N2O I use recreationally from time to time; perhaps a few times a year, at most.
*Would I experiment if legalisation of all recreational drugs were to go ahead? Probably not.
Who do you think you are? If you'd stopped winning, you could have been the Biggest Loser, if you gave up, you could have been a Survivor, if you'd stopped reading Orwell, you could have been on Big Brother!

User avatar
Dropdeadqt
Legendary
Posts:4895
Joined:05 Nov 2007, 01:27
Location:Brisbane

Re: The War on Some Drugs

Post by Dropdeadqt » 18 Dec 2008, 14:57

TLDR: Drugs are bad, mmmkay, so just say no to drugs, mmmkay. Else I'll gut you, skin you and mount your embalmed corpse above my fireplace.
Image

User avatar
Cartollomew
I has a monocle (Site Admin)
Posts:8805
Joined:22 Aug 2006, 12:11
Location:Perth

Re: The War on Some Drugs

Post by Cartollomew » 18 Dec 2008, 15:23

Alleycat wrote:Else I'll gut you, skin you and mount your embalmed corpse above my fireplace.
Does the embalming fluid get you high?

You are so totally going to prison, after I pick up my smuggling cut.
Who do you think you are? If you'd stopped winning, you could have been the Biggest Loser, if you gave up, you could have been a Survivor, if you'd stopped reading Orwell, you could have been on Big Brother!

User avatar
Cartollomew
I has a monocle (Site Admin)
Posts:8805
Joined:22 Aug 2006, 12:11
Location:Perth

Re: The War on Some Drugs

Post by Cartollomew » 22 Dec 2008, 14:30

Not wanting to flog a dead horse, but just a few final points of reference for those interested in this topic:

http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30546
^Seems they did it first. Lots of excellent posts on both sides, and some spectacularly bad ones too.

http://reason.com/news/show/130383.html
^Using prohibition of alcohol as an example, this article more eloquently expresses many of the things I want to say.
It also brings up the interesting point of how, in the US at least, drug prohibition is technically unconstitutional. I'd missed that one.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122843683581681375.html
^Again, kicks my arse as far as clarity of thought goes.
Some tasty quotes:
They saw what most Americans still fail to see today: That a failed drug prohibition can cause greater harm than the drug it was intended to banish.
The real difference is that alcohol is the devil we know, while these others are the devils we don't. Most Americans in 1933 could recall a time before prohibition, which tempered their fears. But few Americans now can recall the decades when the illicit drugs of today were sold and consumed legally. If they could, a post-prohibition future might prove less alarming.
Beyond the scare campaigns, we don't really know a lot about many of the illicit drugs.

And of course, http://www.erowid.org/ is a (largely "pro-drug use" - whatever that means) site devoted to providing full information about various drugs, when it can be hard to find it in other places.
If you have friends who insist on taking X or blow or whatever, point them in its direction and/or look it up yourself - this information can be invaluable in preventing Very Bad Things from happening.

On that note, I'll step away and let this thread die a dignified death, unless someone really wants to discuss it further.

Thanks for tolerating my poorly-expressed ranting.
Who do you think you are? If you'd stopped winning, you could have been the Biggest Loser, if you gave up, you could have been a Survivor, if you'd stopped reading Orwell, you could have been on Big Brother!

User avatar
Rathollorn
Legendary
Posts:5087
Joined:04 Jan 2007, 00:08
Location:Newcastle

Re: The War on Some Drugs

Post by Rathollorn » 03 Mar 2009, 00:26

I'll come back and read this more fully when it's not after midnight Cart, but I have a few thoughts ...

1 - The money spent by drug users on drugs outweighs the money spent by governments on enforcement (leglislation, policework, trials, prison housing, etc) and treatment (hospitals, needle exchange, etc). Society is funding both sides of the war - it can't be won that way, sadly politicians don't get elected by talking sense.

2 - Although the legalisation issue makes sense (in a lefty, socialist, tree-hugging sort of way) you're assuming that if you make drugs legal the people who do use drugs will want to be known as drug users. It's the same argument for legalising prostitution. Drugs and the Sex Trade are the basis of a lot of organised criminal activity (not to mention providing them with lots of liquidity) but simply sticking a government stamp on them won't work.
Or rather it will, but not overnight, societal change doesn't work like that.
As is the case with homosexual and women's rights - demographics are destiny, and the battle is won in the hearts and minds of the next generation. Education is the silver bullet, but it's slow-acting.
In 50 years time homosexual rights won't even be an issue, marriage will be non-specific as to gender, as will legislation terminology such as "couple". Why - because the current generation doesn't think of homosexuality as a strange hidden disease or the work of Satan. But you try putting that issue on the table now, or the gays in the military issue up, or women in frontline combat units ... older generations still hold the reigns of power and it would be quashed. Not only would it be quashed but we'd face a new round of indoctrination over how bad gays were and the issue would be set back 50 years. Leave it alone, let the generational change take place and the issue will take care of itself.

But we're talking about drugs - same thing. Removing drugs from the shadows and educating people is exactly what is needing, but not top-down, from the bottom-up. People always look to the top thinking that's where the power is, and so they give up their own in the process, do the work at ground level and there's far more power in it.
This is why "progressive" issues do get resolved, if you compare drugs to the alcohol prohibition in the US, or you look at women's rights, or gay rights, or race rights ... education is a profession largely dominated by the left side of the political spectrum. Their ideals are passed on to the new generation, specifically to the intelligent ones who will go on to be the movers and shakers of the world in the future.

We don't need to "save the children" we need to indoctrinate them. Drug addiction is a medical problem, it should be treated. Drugs should be taxed and come with a Surgeon General's warning (in the US) like cigarettes and alcohol. Win the battle in the soft and impressionable minds of the next generation ... then all it takes is time.

Sidebar - as for prostitution being legalised ... I'm not so sure of since at it's base prostitution is about the subjugation of women by men for profit but that's a whole other discussion.
Seize the means of production comrades!

Karjalan
Legendary
Posts:4622
Joined:24 May 2007, 17:01
Location:New Fucking Zealand

Re: The War on Some Drugs

Post by Karjalan » 03 Mar 2009, 09:28

While a lot of this info is interesting and I would like to know more, my eye's are bleeding from too much reading (ROMG IM A POET)

Yeah I liken the drug debate to the prostitution debate from NZ... Prostitues were going to be prostitutes regardless of the law and it's not particularly easy to enofrce unless you send in "undercovers" or play the "assume guilty until proven innocent" route. However the real issue was that they were a drain on tax payers, themselves and their clients were constantly in danger (beatings, rape, std's, robbery) because they couldn't exactly go crying to the police. Making it legal all of a sudden the government could claim tax of prostitutes, they could write off condoms, cleaning products etc. as business costs, they could (and should) get addiquate protection and the law is now ON their side... It just seemed like a really smart idea, the only reason to not legalise it is the moral fibre issue really... which FOR ME seems to be the similar case for drugs...

I know that from our puberty/health classes in highschool that drugs are supposed to be the devil, however the way the talked about them sparked my interest in them more than before, I already was an insecure, innocent little boy and fearful of drugs sex and rock and roll... however the very teachings supposed to drive fear into me and flush out any potential desires I had for the stuff instead infused me with interest. I have a great desire to at least once try LSD, Mushrooms and Extasy... I've had a few opportunities already, but I would rather do it with close mates than some randoms at a party.

The problem is that drugs are a huge money market for organised crime, it's dodgey, the prices are obsurdley high (pun possibly intended), and instead of making tax revenue off their sales they are SPENDING tax to train "elite drug units" who's job is to bring these people down... It's a war the law will never win, yet so much is spent on it which could easily be prevented and made less of an issue if legalised and regulated. The gangs and other illegal organisations would lose business, who wants to risk getting "the bash" or robbed or stuck in regretable debt with dodgey strangers when your local opium shop has competeing prices and can ensure the drug isn't 90% arsenic and won't kill you... Possibly offer some more harmless drug parraphinalia (no idea on spelling >.<) and pamphlets on how to "use responsibly"... Not everyone that uses drugs are addicted, evil, low life, bludging off society mungrels that they are often painted as. Which I think is the real reason behind the lack of progress in general legalisation, moderation and regulation of many drugs.

I find it ironic that places with the most extreme scenario's (netherlands with marijuana, germany with the autoban) tend to have much better rate's than countries that enforce extreme penalties. There are far less crashes/deaths with cars going 300 kph on the autoban than there are with cars going 50 kph on NZ roads... (% wise ofcourse).

Life is too conservative, fear of change prevents foreward movement in many key area's. It's sad, maybe, hopefully politics one day won't be so driven by fear.
"2+2 is 4"
Barney, the Dinosaur

User avatar
Cartollomew
I has a monocle (Site Admin)
Posts:8805
Joined:22 Aug 2006, 12:11
Location:Perth

Re: The War on Some Drugs

Post by Cartollomew » 03 Mar 2009, 11:53

Further reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reefer_Madness

http://www.reefermadnesslondon.com/events.html

Some delicious quotes here:
http://www.reefermadnesslondon.com/history.html
(if you can't see why they're funny, you need to do a little research on the topic)

Don't believe that such careless fearmongering could continue today? How about this article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2002/ ... andalcohol

Finally (and more seriously):
http://www.tdpf.org.uk/

Nobody is suggesting that drugs won't be an issue - alcohol and alcoholism is a major issue after all - but as Rath said, drugs are a health/medicine concern, not a criminal concern.

If they were treated as such, we'd be in a better place.

@Karj
You'll find organised crime is right up there next to church going puritans when opposing the repeal of prohibition. The criminal system that supplies our illegal drugs stands to lose a lot if those same drugs become regulated and legal.

It'll be a brave politician (from a "major" party, of course) who chooses to be the first to really give this issue legs.
Who do you think you are? If you'd stopped winning, you could have been the Biggest Loser, if you gave up, you could have been a Survivor, if you'd stopped reading Orwell, you could have been on Big Brother!

User avatar
Cartollomew
I has a monocle (Site Admin)
Posts:8805
Joined:22 Aug 2006, 12:11
Location:Perth

Re: The War on Some Drugs

Post by Cartollomew » 15 Jun 2009, 12:40

Good post recently from Bad Science:

http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/this- ... questions/
It specifically singled out anti-drug adverts which sought to modify behaviour through fear. “Despite a broad range of educational and prevention approaches, most programmes do not prevent myths, but perpetuate stereotypes and misinform the general public. Such programmes rely on sensationalized, exaggerated statements about cocaine which misinform about patterns of use, stigmatize users, and destroy the educator’s credibility. This has given most education campaigns a naïve image and has reduced confidence in the quality and accuracy of these campaigns.”
Edit:

Pro conclusion also:
Drugs instantiate the classic problem for evidence based social policy. It may well be that prohibition, and the inevitable distribution of drugs by criminals, gives worse results for all the outcomes we think are important, like harm to the user, harm to our communities through crime, and so on. But equally, it may well be that we will tolerate these worse outcomes, because we decide it is somehow more important that we publicly declare ourselves, as a culture, to be disapproving of drug use, and enshrine that principle in law. It’s okay to do that. You can have policies that go against your stated outcomes, for moral or political reasons: but that doesn’t mean you can hide the evidence, it simply means you must be clear that you don’t care about it.
It's nice when someone else writes something you've been trying to say, and they do it far more eloquently than you ever could.
Who do you think you are? If you'd stopped winning, you could have been the Biggest Loser, if you gave up, you could have been a Survivor, if you'd stopped reading Orwell, you could have been on Big Brother!

Karjalan
Legendary
Posts:4622
Joined:24 May 2007, 17:01
Location:New Fucking Zealand

Re: The War on Some Drugs

Post by Karjalan » 15 Jun 2009, 14:03

I do sigh at the "public" campaigns on drugs, crazy hyperbole, inflated statistics, misleading data, I haven't done enough research myself to make a definitive argument, however I have read how alcohol has worse physical and psychological health effects than marijuana, and I know there are some drugs that can cause psychotic episodes.... but I don't ever recall hearing about a dude on pot who went on a killing spree, or smashed his wife... or got into a fight at a bar....
"2+2 is 4"
Barney, the Dinosaur

User avatar
Cartollomew
I has a monocle (Site Admin)
Posts:8805
Joined:22 Aug 2006, 12:11
Location:Perth

Re: The War on Some Drugs

Post by Cartollomew » 15 Jun 2009, 14:13

A-yep.

The trouble with justifying the overstatement of risk or consequence is that people become jaded towards the campaigns. And if they routinely see that the claims made in anti-drug posters are false, they begin to question all the information provided with regards to drug use - education is a far more effective tool than enforcement, but enforcement is the only wing that receives respect.

And then when the agencies who have to provide support to the people actually suffering from addiction try to provide publications to minimise harm, the puritanical mobs rise up and vilify them.

Again, I just can't see how you can justify having a health matter treated as a criminal matter.
Who do you think you are? If you'd stopped winning, you could have been the Biggest Loser, if you gave up, you could have been a Survivor, if you'd stopped reading Orwell, you could have been on Big Brother!

Xact
Legendary
Posts:3635
Joined:07 Sep 2006, 12:02
Location:Victoria, Australia

Re: The War on Some Drugs

Post by Xact » 15 Jun 2009, 14:22

Karjalan wrote:however I have read how alcohol has worse physical and psychological health effects than marijuana
I think this is also "crazy hyperbole, inflated statistics, misleading data" as these statistics are probably true if you were talking about natural marijuana, and good luck getting a hold on that unless you have a mate that grows his own, otherwise I'm pretty sure the effects of Hydro would probably be worse than alcohol... then again this all depends on how much alcohol we are talking about.

User avatar
Cartollomew
I has a monocle (Site Admin)
Posts:8805
Joined:22 Aug 2006, 12:11
Location:Perth

Re: The War on Some Drugs

Post by Cartollomew » 15 Jun 2009, 14:35

I'd like also to point out, at this stage, that the impediment to obtaining natural marahuana is a legal one.

Consider alcohol:
Bathtub gin is considerably worse than the gin available today.

There's no need for bathtub gin today, because you can legally obtain clean stuff.

I don't really see what there is for people to argue about any more:
Prohibition is bad. The current system fails, and exacerbates the problem. It damages the consumer societies and it damages the producing societies.

The only thing our governing, scientific and research bodies should be arguing over is how best to remove prohibition and regulate and treat the problem.
Who do you think you are? If you'd stopped winning, you could have been the Biggest Loser, if you gave up, you could have been a Survivor, if you'd stopped reading Orwell, you could have been on Big Brother!

Karjalan
Legendary
Posts:4622
Joined:24 May 2007, 17:01
Location:New Fucking Zealand

Re: The War on Some Drugs

Post by Karjalan » 15 Jun 2009, 14:50

It's all relative, I mean one beer isn't as bad for you as say one cone.... however in the average night out for drinks how many beers might you drink? You certainly won't be taking the same quantity with weed.
I recall some police dude trying to scare us saying that marijuana was twice as toxic for you as tobacco (poisons, chemicals etc).... And all I could think was. "Ok, your average smoker has 10-20 cigarettes a day? Sometimes you get chain smokers smoking multiple packs? Even the heartiest stoners will not be pushing 10 joints a day... Most people that recreationally use it won't use it every day as well, where as smoking is usually a multiple daily thing...
"2+2 is 4"
Barney, the Dinosaur

Takius
Legendary
Posts:1709
Joined:06 Aug 2007, 00:07
Location:Melbourne's finest Opium den.

Re: The War on Some Drugs

Post by Takius » 15 Jun 2009, 16:50

Karjalan wrote:It's all relative, I mean one beer isn't as bad for you as say one cone.... however in the average night out for drinks how many beers might you drink? You certainly won't be taking the same quantity with weed.
I recall some police dude trying to scare us saying that marijuana was twice as toxic for you as tobacco (poisons, chemicals etc).... And all I could think was. "Ok, your average smoker has 10-20 cigarettes a day? Sometimes you get chain smokers smoking multiple packs? Even the heartiest stoners will not be pushing 10 joints a day... Most people that recreationally use it won't use it every day as well, where as smoking is usually a multiple daily thing...
True, but it would depend on the quality of your weed.

I imagine the main health reason for not legalizing weed is the smoking factor, but personally I still would prefer to have a good night with friends getting high over getting drunk, as generaly people are not aggressive or anywhere near as stupid (speaking in general terms I'm sure people have anecdotal evidence to say "NUH UH TAK"). Plus at least theres no hangover in the morning ^^.

The down side to legalization of course would be a lot of drug tourists coming to your country and making asses of themselves.
Once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of ' hot xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, " give me back my free hardcore!"..... quoth the server, 404.

Post Reply