Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 7/17/08 12:52 AM, Creek wrote: well yeah, legalization will destroy the black market. But I think many people will be selling it simply because there would be people buying it.

Yeah, that makes sense. I'm Joe drug user, and instead of buying drugs from a reliable source, I'll buy them from an unreliable one that's more expensive and has no quality control.

There will always be people buying drugs. Might as well regulate the market and production.

No my point was that drugs cause harm to the human brain. I searched meth not ecstacy because I've read stuff about meth before.

I wasn't claiming that methamphetamine doesn't have any negative effects on humans. I was saying that you didn't have justification for saying ecstasy burns holes in your brain. I'd also like to remind you that this discussion is not about the dangers of drugs, but the effectiveness of prohibition.

it all goes back to increased usage. That more people would be damaging their brains.

There is no reason to believe that this would happen. It didn't happen with alcohol prohibition, it didn't happen with boxing prohibition, it has never worked with any form of prohibition. All that prohibition does is force the activity underground and make it far more dangerous.

Yeah, but some kids who value money over drugs would get it subscribed just so they can sell it to the other people who want it. I know people like that. Skip their medicine to sell it.

Agreed, it's not a great plan, and that's why we have so much prescription drug abuse right now.

or provide it only at certain injection sites. Injection sites have worked well for Switzerland, where they've found that people will actually decrease their dose if they're allowed to use it in a safe, controlled environment.

well maybe that's the way to heal addicts.

Exactly. The more dangerous substances, we can make legal and cheap, but provide them in such a controlled environment that primarily only current addicts would continue to use, and we wouldn't get so many new addicts.

Providing them in this way would also provide better opportunities to get such people into rehab programs.

Yeah i just want to change this to: Legalizing drugs means there will be more people buying it which will cause more production. It's at that order.

Well, I believe you, but let's look at the replay:

At 7/14/08 11:59 PM, Creek wrote: but you realize what this would mean right? if there is production, there is buyers. the bigger the business is the more they are selling.

Seems to me like you were suggesting that production automatically creates buyers.

Okay, so how does the elimination of Schedule I = new people try it? (Tips: Cocaine is Schedule II)

No fear of arrest or crime doing. No fear of doing something wrong that will get you in trouble. Again, can't prove something that hasn't taken effect yet.

Neither of those things seem to be stopping people from trying them. Do you know ANYONE who doesn't do any illegal drugs, but says they'd want to try meth if it was legal?

by people I meant certain people. Not all people. Some people don't even consider doing it because it's illegal.

Historically and statistically, there is no evidence to support this opinion.

I know. What I'm asking you is, do you think it's impossible for us to start an honest campaign to educate people about the effects of drugs and their risks?

Yes! and I want an honest campaign to teach you about drugs too. The shit they tell you about some drugs is ridiculous. Especially how the information about marijuana is so biased.

So wait, by "yes," do you mean that it's impossible to have an honest drug information campaign post-legalization? You think that it is literally impossible to form a campaign based on facts?

Yeah but sadly it's not the majority. My freinds parents didn't really care when he got caught drinking. But they were shocked when they caught him high.

Right, that's due to misinformation again.

Lots of people don't smoke cigarettes, despite the fact that they're legal.

And lots of people do.

But the number has been rapidly decreasing in recent years. How did they do it? Through regulation and through honest information campaigns from the community and the medical profession to help people quit or not start at all.

Considering how you support prohibition, do you not consider it odd how 35 years of aggressive law enforcement against drug production and use has not managed to reduce the number of people using drugs at all, yet the use of a legal substance has been declining through education rather than scare tactics?

Oh the usage of marijuana will increase in the united states, I'm very positive about that. Considering I would be first in line to buy some.

Marijuana has an odd combination of being benign yet illegal, so there would be a brief spike in use after legalization. Once the fervor dies down though, I doubt that use would be up all that much. Marijuana use is already extremely common in North America.

Also, are you saying that you yourself don't use marijuana because it's illegal?

Probably because he has a shitty unskilled labour job where they test for drug use, right?

That's a very nice way to talk about people. A job is a job, and his job does require a drug test.

Right, so it's not government prohibition that's keeping him from using drugs, it's a private company.

Also, I wasn't talking about him, I was talking about his job. Everyone has shitty jobs at some point in their life. Later on, when you have desirable skills, companies will treat you with enough respect to not drug test you.

Because it's keeping it where it's at.

You have no reason, historical or otherwise, to believe that to be true. Prohibition has never been observed to produce lower usage rates than legalization, for any substance or activity involving consenting parties.

---

At 7/17/08 02:25 AM, CIX wrote: For fucks sake, how can you be so arrogantly hypocritical? Gangs make money off of those "hard" drugs otherwise they wouldn't be selling them.

Never said they didn't. If you read my sentence again I said marijuana alone would remove a big chunk of funding. They won't have as MUCH guns, if that pleases you.

Maybe they should start thinking for themselves. People have been lulled into this false sense of security that government is supposed to do protect them from everything "evil."

Maybe they should. You should go try and teach all these people yourself.

that cocaine will be accepted for recreational usage just like alcohol does. That is my argument.

Huh? Alcohol and cocaine are not the same, thus you want ban the latter.

Obviously.

So then cocaine will not be treated in society as the same as alcohol. The Netherlands has half as many marijuana users than that of America and that is because it is legal and it takes away the mystique of it. Doing nothing but sitting in a cafe being too numb to move doesn't seem like a recreation anyone wants to do.

But to many people it's enjoyable. Also there would be addiction.

Gangs still make money off of cocaine, ecstasy, heroine, etc. Do you think they sell it out of the goodness of their hearts?

"goodness of their hearts"? what are you talking about? and of course they make money off of selling those. Marijuana is the main source of money for gangs. And it should totally be legalized.

Because of people like you they ban Tylenol PM

woah woah woah. I had nothing to do with banning Tylenol PM.

A doctor knows a vaccine can cure or an overdose can kill. Heroin makes for a more powerful sedative than morphine.

if it had medical benefits, and it was worth it for the patient, it would be legal for medical uses.

---

At 7/17/08 09:09 AM, Elfer wrote: I'm Joe drug user, and instead of buying drugs from a reliable source, I'll buy them from an unreliable one that's more expensive and has no quality control.

How does this reply make sense? I said that it will be sold when it's legal. Why? because there will be customers!

Also if Joe drug user buys drugs from an unreliable more-expensive source, then he's an idiot. Why do that when you can get it so much cheaper and easier by walking in a store or a bar?

There will always be people buying drugs.

I said i know there will always be people buying drugs. I also said it will increase if it becomes legal. I ALSO said you can't argue the increase in usage if it becomes legal, because it hasn't happened yet.

I was saying that you didn't have justification for saying ecstasy burns holes in your brain.

Didn't I say it is just a bad example a few replies ago? yes, I did. I'm just going to accept that it's a 'myth' rather then go and try to prove it right. It wasn't my argument, it was an example. My whole argument was drugs cause brain damage. Yeah, this went off-topic.

It didn't happen with alcohol prohibition,

It's not a hard substance. ((repeating myself))

it has never worked with any form of prohibition. All that prohibition does is force the activity underground and make it far more dangerous.

It is what prohibition does. but it's not "all" prohibition does.

we have so much prescription drug abuse right now.

Yup, also because it's a good, controlled amount. Kids are more likely to try it. That's what I've learned from my experience. "what is it?" "Oh dude it's just a medication, it's called Oxycontin, it's a pain reliever", "does it fuck you up?", " if it hurt anybody they wouldn't give it to them", "okay man, cool. can I get some?", "3 bucks a pill". Pretty much how conversation goes if a kid asks "what is this?" when you offer to sell him a pill.

Also nerdy kids who try to get drugs and don't know where to get them from won't have to look further then their local drug store. Just call up a friend to buy it for you (legal age).

...provide them in such a controlled environment...

Propose this idea.

Providing them in this way would also provide better opportunities to get such people into rehab programs.

Yeah, definitely would encourage people to give rehab a try.

Seems to me like you were suggesting that production automatically creates buyers.

Sorry if it did. I think I mixed up the order, started with saying production, because i was replying to something that had to do with jobs concerning the production of drugs. And I replied that if there is production going on, it's because there are buyers. And if those business' get bigger it's a result of more customers. Hopefully it's clarified now.

how does the elimination of Schedule I = new people try it?

Yeah I know cocaine is schedule II, along with PCP and other shit. And marijuana is schedule l, which puts it at the same category with heroin, ecstasy, GHB and some other shit. Any law that consideres marijuana worse then cocaine is obviously flawed.

Neither of those things seem to be stopping people from trying them. Do you know ANYONE who doesn't do any illegal drugs, but says they'd want to try meth if it was legal?

Well, nobody ever thinks of that. Why would anybody think of meth being legal? You want me to ask? okay. The answer was no. But people would be more likely to try it if it would be legal. My freind won't and I won't (meth), but I can give you an example where what will seem like everybody will.

Amphetamines. Low-risk drug, side-effects aren't unbearable, and to most people crashes are bearable, it all depends on the person. Crashes don't exist to me, because I have it prescribed, so I don't have to crash because I don't have to stop taking it. If it's legal why would people want to deal with the crashes? just buy more. It's cheap.

So not much bad for the body and brain (that is, if you are a healthy person), but why would people want to take them?

It helps you concentrate, stay awake, increases your awareness, become efficient, makes life extra easy. (Probably more to me than others, because life with ADHD is hard and it sucks. It helps me catch up to normal rather then get an unfair advantage).

Pretty much on this drug you can spend 2 hours studying for your final test instead of spending a week. You can absorb all that information in a shorter session. So being humans, we have to catch up with the competition. Chris is getting As without as much effort now because he's taking amphetamines. wait, that's not fair. John is putting in more effort for that same grade. Why should John do that? Chris is doing it then John's gonna do it, John doesn't want to work harder for the same results. This is my idea of what would happen in that situation, if it's unrealistic or flawed please correct me.

Why don't they do that now? They do. except John can't do it, because he can't get adderall. He doesn't have any ADHD freinds who give their pills away. He can either turn to the street where he can die from impure shit, or deal with it. Also the ADHD friend isn't going to be able to supply you everyday.

there is no evidence to support this opinion.

Because it's never happened.

I know. What I'm asking you is, do you think it's impossible for us to start an honest campaign to educate people about the effects of drugs and their risks?

Yes! and I want an honest campaign to teach you about drugs too. The shit they tell you about some drugs is ridiculous. Especially how the information about marijuana is so biased.

So wait, by "yes," do you mean that it's impossible to have an honest drug information campaign post-legalization?

Oh shit, I see it. I wasn't thinking 100% last night when I replied I can see. I meant "yes" as in I strongly agree with that. so what I really meant was 'no'.

Right, that's due to misinformation again.

That's some of it. But it's an illegal substance, and even THEY can't buy it, it added more.

Lots of people don't smoke cigarettes, despite the fact that they're legal.

And lots of people do.

But the number has been rapidly decreasing in recent years.

And I hope it continues to drop. Cigarettes are a ripoff! you pay money and you feel normal.

do you not consider it odd how 35 years of aggressive law enforcement against drug production and use has not managed to reduce the number of people using drugs at all

No I don't find it odd. The law enforcement policies on drug use are flawed. It's ridiculous to spend so much money on such a small nuisance. (I've said this before). There are more important things to spend our money on.

yet the use of a legal substance has been declining through education rather than scare tactics?

Scare tactics have always been stupid.

there would be a brief spike in use after legalization.

Yup, like first year.

Once the fervor dies down though, I doubt that use would be up all that much.

Yeah, just like alcohol, everything would settle down.

Also, are you saying that you yourself don't use marijuana because it's illegal?

No, I would buy a lot more, just because it's easier and cheaper to get.

Right, so it's not government prohibition that's keeping him from using drugs, it's a private company.

No.

Also, I wasn't talking about him, I was talking about his job. Everyone has shitty jobs at some point in their life. Later on, when you have desirable skills, companies will treat you with enough respect to not drug test you.

Cause hard drug addicts usually don't have skills, lol.

You have no reason, historical or otherwise, to believe that to be true. P

I don't think hard drugs were ever legal.

And here is an example of why I believe it's true:
It would seem probable to me, that if a young college guy, really doesn't care about drugs, is shopping in a supermarket and walks across the marijuana edibles isle and sees "marijuana cookies". He would think "Heh, that's cool, maybe I should try some" and buys it.

Ofcourse I WANT to see this happen. But I think it will bring more users

---

Creek, do you have any sources that say gangs get most of their money from marijuana? Marijuana is cheap drug that can grow it in a closet so people don't need to buy it from gangs while cocaine, heroine, meth, and ecstasy are all very expensive. Why would you want to keep drug money on the street if you could stop the violence by legalizing all drugs?

---

At 7/17/08 06:34 PM, CIX wrote: Creek, do you have any sources that say gangs get most of their money from marijuana?

I guess it would all depend on the gang. Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug, almost everybody does it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/inDepthNe ws/idUSN0344864020080708?sp=true

"SMUGGLING PROFITS

Smuggling is big business in southern Arizona, where last year the Border Patrol seized 440 tons of marijuana in a furiously trafficked corridor south of Tucson and arrested more than 370,000 illegal immigrants.

Police say the gangs, which offer easy money and a sense of belonging to youngsters, are recruiting teens and sometimes children as young as eight, as foot soldiers in the trade worth billions of dollars a year."

Marijuana is cheap drug that can grow it in a closet so people don't need to buy it from gangs

Yeah that's true, but most people don't even bother to grow it on their own. Also if you live with your parents it's not that easy to all of the sudden have a bush in your backyard without them noticing.

while cocaine, heroine,

meth,

So cheap.

and ecstasy

8$ a pill

are all very expensive. Why would you want to keep drug money on the street if you could stop the violence by legalizing all drugs?

because legalizing all drugs would have other effects too.

---

At 7/17/08 01:08 AM, Creek wrote: Why do you keep saying "dear boy" ? do you think it's witty? or I'm some goody goody tooshoo or whatever?

Why do you object to being thought of as a goody too-shoe? Still in the clutch of the rebellious phase I see.

Anywho it's an affectation, indulge me.

You can still bring it to attention and explain it honestly. I think there should be more of that too.

So education does work. I'm glad we got that straightened out. The point, however, is that education is a much more succesful method of stopping drug abuse as prohibition, as demonstrated historically, has no real impact on figures. Ergo prohibition, which doesn't work, should be replaced with an honest, objective education and governmental regulation. Again, ya digg?

I don't know why you're afraid to say it. It's true. Legalizing marijuana alone would take out their largest source of money.

It's a saying; more specifically an attempt to satisfy negative face needs and thereby soften an otherwise potentially inflammatory message. You did disagree after all; however apparently now once more we're on the same page. So very glad to hear it.

So why would we want to increase the cases with the other drugs. There are far greater numbers of those cases with alcohol because more people do it. If it becomes legal, I think more people would start it too, I think that is very likely.

You appear to have swerved the message somewhat; that being the real social impact of drugs is not their effects on people but the crime industry that has grown up around it like it does any illegal activity. Anywho to answer that point as I, and my compatriots have repeatedly stated, prohibtion does not have a discernible affect upon the enjoyment of that activity. Just makes the activity far more dangerous and proftiable.

We're not on the same page, so I'm not going to argue a definition with you. Obviously we both interpret it differently.

My word; my previous idiom has been proven false. The teasrs, they fall so freely. I'm afraid that the page I share is with society in general and it would be a good idea to join us. It makes the use of language so much more conveniant.

Because they will be legal. Drugs like opiates and adderall (amphetamines) are subscribed and legal for medical use. But if you have it in your car and you don't have a subscription, it's now narcotics.

Yes they're legal, also highly regulated to the point possesing them without liscence leads to incarceration. Seems to me you've shot yourself in the foot rather.

Sorry, I thought that's what you were talking about when you said "clinical environment"

As in safe, clean and supervised.

no because I haven't tried any other drugs. And can't because of my medicine.

Then the point is moot in your case; regardless drug usage will not soar.

that cocaine will be accepted for recreational usage just like alcohol does. That is my argument.

We are under different societal pressures now. It was an example of where something you consider as unacceptable was acceptable as recreational usage but not as an addiction then compared this with as it is today with alcohol. Social views do not change so readuly as you assume.

I know drugs are, but it's about not increasing their usage.

Prohibition does not decrease usage therefore it follows the removal of it will not increase it.

That's a problem, I agree. Legalize marijuana and gangs all of the sudden can't get guns for the kids.

Remove the prohibition and ensure the gangs cannot afford to sustain themselves at all.

But it's stopping people who don't think about wishing to try it. to want to try it.

Where's your evidence for that? You yourself admit to the importance of education and that it is not really legality that dictates what you are willing to sample.

Hell no, we shouldn't be spending that much on a small nuisance.

My word. I'm sorry are you pro or anti prohibition? Your views are getting increasingly contradictory. There is no shame in being convinced by your opponents; that is the point of debate afterall.

---

At 7/17/08 07:19 PM, Creek wrote: I guess it would all depend on the gang. Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug, almost everybody does it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/inDepthNe ws/idUSN0344864020080708?sp=true

"SMUGGLING PROFITS

Smuggling is big business in southern Arizona, where last year the Border Patrol seized 440 tons of marijuana in a furiously trafficked corridor south of Tucson and arrested more than 370,000 illegal immigrants.

Police say the gangs, which offer easy money and a sense of belonging to youngsters, are recruiting teens and sometimes children as young as eight, as foot soldiers in the trade worth billions of dollars a year."

Still does not support your claim that gangs get most of their money from marijuana and that should not be an argument for prohibition because legalization will get rid of the gangs.

At 7/17/08 07:19 PM, Creek wrote: Yeah that's true, but most people don't even bother to grow it on their own. Also if you live with your parents it's not that easy to all of the sudden have a bush in your backyard without them noticing.

40% of all marijuana is grown INSIDE the United States

At 7/17/08 07:19 PM, Creek wrote: So cheap.

and ecstasy

8$ a pill

Stop fucking contradicting yourself. You're against legalization because it would make those drugs 'cheap' but according to you they already are.

this about the street price PER gram
weed - $25
cocaine - $50
ecstasy - $75
heroin - $100

At 7/17/08 07:19 PM, Creek wrote: because legalizing all drugs would have other effects too.

You think there are worse things that could happen then gangs causing murders? Please tell me what these are.

---

At 7/17/08 06:05 PM, Creek wrote:

At 7/17/08 09:09 AM, Elfer wrote: ...provide them in such a controlled environment...

Propose this idea.

Okay, let's get down to business:

Since I'm for legalization, but not for complete deregulation (i.e. I certainly think there are options other than having heroin available at stores for private use), I'd say that "hard" drugs (i.e. ones with a high addiction risk, mainly stimulants) should be available at supervised injection/dosage sites. These sites would provide pure, measured doses to users, and would have supervision for a certain period before releasing the person back into public.

The best part about this idea? They already exist in some places, and they work. There's such a site in Vancouver called Insite. Users are allowed to inject their drugs legally, using clean equipment in a supervised environment. Since Insite opened, there's been a reduction in injection-related litter in the area, a reduction in injection-related disease transmission, a reduction in petty crime such as car break-ins, and a reduction of overdose-related deaths (over 600 overdoses at Insite since it opened several years ago, zero fatalities).

Amphetamines. Low-risk drug, side-effects aren't unbearable, and to most people crashes are bearable, it all depends on the person. Crashes don't exist to me, because I have it prescribed, so I don't have to crash because I don't have to stop taking it. If it's legal why would people want to deal with the crashes? just buy more. It's cheap.

Amphetamines are already a prescription stimulant legal to those who can actually use it (along with a lot of unnecessary prescriptions). The abuse rate is relatively low, considering. I don't think we need to deregulate amphetamine.

Also: Not everyone gets a prescription with unlimited refills in a given time period. You can't really use prescribed amphetamine to keep yourself jacked up 24/7.

there is no evidence to support this opinion.

Because it's never happened.

There was a time when drugs were not illegal, you know. Society didn't collapse.

Once the fervor dies down though, I doubt that use would be up all that much.

Yeah, just like alcohol, everything would settle down.

Exactly. Once we get over the bump of novelty, things will settle and we can start working on actually trying to fix the drug problem instead of pretending it doesn't exist.

Also, are you saying that you yourself don't use marijuana because it's illegal?

No, I would buy a lot more, just because it's easier and cheaper to get.

Government taxation could easily peg prices at ten bucks a gram. Wouldn't work though, since people could just grow it. My point is, prohibition has in no way stopped you from using weed.

Also, I wasn't talking about him, I was talking about his job. Everyone has shitty jobs at some point in their life. Later on, when you have desirable skills, companies will treat you with enough respect to not drug test you.

Cause hard drug addicts usually don't have skills, lol.

No, but plenty of recreational drug users do. That includes people who use marijuana, heroin, meth, and so on.

You have no reason, historical or otherwise, to believe that to be true. P

I don't think hard drugs were ever legal.

They were legal before prohibition started in 1917 (I think that's the right year). Drug laws were only moderately enforced until the drug war started in the 70s. Increased pressure and funding has, surprise surprise, done nothing to curtail the production, distribution, and use of drugs. It hasn't even affected prices.

---

At 7/17/08 07:28 PM, Pontificate wrote: Why do you object to being thought of as a goody too-shoe? Still in the clutch of the rebellious phase I see.

Anywho it's an affectation, indulge me.

The term's use makes it seem like it's written to a child. Disrespect, not rebellious.

You can still bring it to attention and explain it honestly. I think there should be more of that too.

So education does work. I'm glad we got that straightened out.

I never said it didn't; I strongly believe that education should be increased.

In fact this was one of my earlier replies to you: "I agree about increasing our education and awareness of drugs, especially with marijuana"

The point, however, is that education is a much more successful method of stopping drug abuse as prohibition

I haven't disagreed with that.

Ergo prohibition, which doesn't work, should be replaced with an honest, objective education and governmental regulation. Again, ya digg?

Yeah, but you lost me with the government regulation. I think that we should replace our current education with an honest, objective education. And our current policies on drugs need changes, not legalization.

You did disagree after all; however apparently now once more we're on the same page. So very glad to hear it.

I disagree with the legalization of all drugs. I am a strong supporter of marijuana legalization.

the real social impact of drugs is not their effects on people but the crime industry that has grown up around it like it does any illegal activity. Anywho to answer that point as I, and my compatriots have repeatedly stated, prohibtion does not have a discernible affect upon the enjoyment of that activity. Just makes the activity far more dangerous and proftiable.

It's not that prohibition has an effect on the enjoyment of drug abuse or not. I said it doesn't have anything to do with it's legal status: "It's not because it's illegal, it's the effects of the drug that make you aggressive and likely to do those things.".

If a person takes Angel Dust (PCP) which "In toxic doses, the user can become hostile and violent, acting in a bizarre or psychotic manner. They may attempt to assault other people, or to harm themselves through self-mutilation or suicide." and goes to work, and sees his boss, he says do this and do that or whatever. Irrationally this person punches his boss and beats him half to death, goes outside to the street and beats up random people he sees until a cop shoots him. This can also happen if you go anywhere outside, the park, a store, the mall. You would act in ways you wouldn't if you were sober. Legal or not legal.

I'm afraid that the page I share is with society in general and it would be a good idea to join us.

I already explained what I meant by 'fry'.
"what I meant by saying 'fry' I meant that as saying it causes severe brain damage"
This is a comparison just to get the point across on the difference in brain damage. If alcohol is having 2 drinks a night. Meth is having 50 drinks a night. 2 drinks a night wouldn't have a serious impact. Might not even be very noticeable long term. But meth would burn up your brain very quickly, and this is what I meant by 'fry'. And I'm not going to argue a definition of something. I told you what I meant by it. The argument is not about the word.

Yes they're legal, also highly regulated to the point possesing them without liscence leads to incarceration.

I know.

Seems to me you've shot yourself in the foot rather.

how?

Sorry, I thought that's what you were talking about when you said "clinical environment"

As in safe, clean and supervised.

Now I know. Misunderstanding gone.

drug usage will not soar.

How can you assure me of this claim? It's impossible to prove something that hasn't taken place.

Social views do not change so readily as you assume.

Which is why cocaine isn't legal.

Prohibition does not decrease usage therefore it follows the removal of it will not increase it.

Well, if it was never legal. And it only became illegal when it started gaining attention.

Remove the prohibition and ensure the gangs cannot afford to sustain themselves at all.

Marijuana is harmless. It doesn't kill or harm anyone and it isn't addictive. Hard drugs are not as pretty.

But it's stopping people who don't think about wishing to try it. to want to try it.

Where's your evidence for that?

It's impossible to prove something that hasn't taken place. No evidence, just an assumption based on the way humans think.

You yourself admit to the importance of education and that it is not really legality that dictates what you are willing to sample.

It's not legality that dictates you are willing to sample if you sample illegal things. Legality does guide a person into trying it, think of alcohol, why do more people drink alcohol then smoking weed? It's legal, It's not hard to get, it's acceptable, alot of people do it. Legalization DOES make it acceptable. make marijuana legal and all of the sudden it's acceptable, it's not hard to get, a lot of people do it.

Hell no, we shouldn't be spending that much on a small nuisance.

My word. I'm sorry are you pro or anti prohibition?

I'm pro soft drug legalization. And I want changes in our current policies on drugs.
But I disagree with the legalization of all drugs.

Your views are getting increasingly contradictory.

Please provide an example.

There is no shame in being convinced by your opponents; that is the point of debate afterall.

I have not read a convincing argument so far. I'm debating yours.

---

At 7/17/08 10:13 PM, Elfer wrote: Okay, let's get down to business:

Since I'm for legalization, but not for complete deregulation (i.e. I certainly think there are options other than having heroin available at stores for private use), I'd say that "hard" drugs (i.e. ones with a high addiction risk, mainly stimulants) should be available at supervised injection/dosage sites. These sites would provide pure, measured doses to users, and would have supervision for a certain period before releasing the person back into public.

The best part about this idea? They already exist in some places, and they work. There's such a site in Vancouver called Insite. Users are allowed to inject their drugs legally, using clean equipment in a supervised environment. Since Insite opened, there's been a reduction in injection-related litter in the area, a reduction in injection-related disease transmission, a reduction in petty crime such as car break-ins, and a reduction of overdose-related deaths (over 600 overdoses at Insite since it opened several years ago, zero fatalities).

Sounds convincing. What I meant is propose this to the law-makers / government people. I think this would be a successful way to cure people of drug addiction.

I have a question though, will these injection sites offer it to new users or only to recovering drug addicts?

Amphetamines are already a prescription stimulant legal to those who can actually use it

Legal to those who have a disorder. Anybody can use it.

The abuse rate is relatively low, considering.

A Dose of Genius
'Smart Pills' Are on The Rise. But Is Taking Them Wise?

"these "brain steroids" can be purchased on many campuses for as little as $3 to $5 per pill, though they are often obtained free from friends with legitimate prescriptions, students report."

"It reported that among kids of middle school and high school age, 2.25 million are using stimulants such as Ritalin without a prescription."

"That's about one in 10 of the 22 million students in those grades, ... Half the time, the study reported, the students were using these drugs not so much to get high as "to help me with my problems" or "to help me with specific tasks." That motivation was growing rapidly, Hedrick says."

I don't think we need to deregulate amphetamine.

Then don't expect the black market for amphetamines to disappear either.

Also: Not everyone gets a prescription with unlimited refills in a given time period. You can't really use prescribed amphetamine to keep yourself jacked up 24/7.

I was saying I don't have to deal with crashes because I don't ever stop taking it. I take x3 the amount a non-ADHD regular person would take in order to abuse. And I am given this amount to last me for an entire month. then I just get refills again. That's just me though, I'm medicated.

There was a time when drugs were not illegal, you know. Society didn't collapse.

Of course it didn't. I don't think that they were that mainstream back then though. Didn't prohibition start as soon as they saw there was a problem?

Exactly. Once we get over the bump of novelty, things will settle and we can start working on actually trying to fix the drug problem instead of pretending it doesn't exist.

I'm positive most educated people are aware that the drug problem exists. And there is no problems with marijuana. There ARE problems with both cigarettes and alcohol.

Government taxation could easily peg prices at ten bucks a gram. Wouldn't work though, since people could just grow it. My point is, prohibition has in no way stopped you from using weed.

That's right. That's just me though. Even if they pegged the prices, it would be nice to see pre-packed marijuana cigarettes, marijuana cookies, cake, brownies, tea. All types of shit.

Cause hard drug addicts usually don't have skills, lol.

No, but plenty of recreational drug users do. That includes people who use marijuana, heroin, meth, and so on.

Except heroin and meth could get you addicted while marijuana can't. Also I've never met / heard of an educated and successful heroin addict. To hear of a successful, educated, responsible, meth-smoking adult seems like a fairy tale to me.

I don't think hard drugs were ever legal.

They were legal before prohibition started in 1917 (I think that's the right year). Drug laws were only moderately enforced until the drug war started in the 70s. Increased pressure and funding has, surprise surprise, done nothing to curtail the production, distribution, and use of drugs. It hasn't even affected prices.

I don't agree with the policies of the drug war.

---

At 7/17/08 08:55 PM, CIX wrote:

At 7/17/08 07:19 PM, Creek wrote: I guess it would all depend on the gang. Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug, almost everybody does it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/inDepthNe ws/idUSN0344864020080708?sp=true

"SMUGGLING PROFITS

Smuggling is big business in southern Arizona, where last year the Border Patrol seized 440 tons of marijuana in a furiously trafficked corridor south of Tucson and arrested more than 370,000 illegal immigrants.

Police say the gangs, which offer easy money and a sense of belonging to youngsters, are recruiting teens and sometimes children as young as eight, as foot soldiers in the trade worth billions of dollars a year."

Still does not support your claim that gangs get most of their money from marijuana

I can't find an article that says exactly "gangs get most of their money from marijuana" what I showed you is that marijuana is a major source of money.

that should not be an argument for prohibition because legalization will get rid of the gangs.

Exactly, I support legalization of marijuana, not all drugs. Will get rid of the gang's major funds. No more money to provide 14 year old kids with handguns anymore. And it's only legalizing a harmless, safe, non-addictive plant that should have never been made illegal. It's safer than alcohol for shit's sake!

Yeah that's true, but most people don't even bother to grow it on their own. Also if you live with your parents it's not that easy to all of the sudden have a bush in your backyard without them noticing.

40% of all marijuana is grown INSIDE the United States

What does that prove?

Stop fucking contradicting yourself. You're against legalization because it would make those drugs 'cheap' but according to you they already are.

I said it would make those drugs 'cheaper' and easier to get. Instead of paying 8$ per pill of ecstacy, you can buy a pack of 6 pills for 8 bucks plus taxes. Instead of calling up 'D' to go meet up with him in a corner, you walk into a local drug store.

this about the street price PER gram
weed - $25
cocaine - $50
ecstasy - $75
heroin - $100

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! YOU'RE GETTING RIPPED OFF BUDDY! xD

and what are you trying to prove by giving me the street prices PER gram?

This is what it's like here:

Weed - Free, freinds just give it away. And if I do buy it it's less than 10 bucks for a gram.
Cocaine - freinds told me they bought 2 grams of cocaine for 30$
Ecstacy - Like I said 8$ a pill, it's all I know. I don't take this, it's a ripoff version of my medicine mixed with some other bullshit drug dealers put in there.
Heroin - Nobody cares about this drug.

because legalizing all drugs would have other effects too.

You think there are worse things that could happen then gangs causing murders? Please tell me what these are.

It doesn't matter what I THINK will happen, because the truth is I can't prove it to you because it hasn't happened yet. What I believe will happen will be teenage / young adults dying because they're heart exploded because they overdosed on ecstasy and coke. Addicts... people depending on this drug the way many do on cigarettes. Many people who TRY to quit and FAIL. therefore keeping it's legal status and having a stupid warning on the drug's box that says it's bad that everybody ignores.

Some people ignoring their family because they can be happier under the influence of heroin. And when reality comes back and their kids are all neglected their parent's don't give a shit about them and they start doing it in their teenage years. And the parent's know they are bad parents, and don't want to feel bad about it so they take more of the drug. It's cheap, easy to get, just buy it again and be happy again. They don't want to quit because 1. it's the only things keeping them happy 2. withdrawal from heroin can be unbearable and even deadly.

Amphetamine abuse for studying and working. All this terrible shit that can happen, and it's not unlikely to happen. It's happening now, but it's mostly associated with low-life people and poverty.

Now we can get a HUGE benefit of decreasing gangs just by legalizing marijuana alone. And avoid all of the above from going mainstream.

---

At 7/18/08 12:03 AM, Creek wrote: Exactly, I support legalization of marijuana, not all drugs. Will get rid of the gang's major funds. No more money to provide 14 year old kids with handguns anymore. And it's only legalizing a harmless, safe, non-addictive plant that should have never been made illegal. It's safer than alcohol for shit's sake!

Alcohol prohibition was a failure and so is this drug war.

At 7/18/08 12:03 AM, Creek wrote: What does that prove?

That marijuana is easier to come by than the other drugs because it can be grown it doesn't need a third party involved.

At 7/18/08 12:03 AM, Creek wrote: I said it would make those drugs 'cheaper' and easier to get. Instead of paying 8$ per pill of ecstacy, you can buy a pack of 6 pills for 8 bucks plus taxes. Instead of calling up 'D' to go meet up with him in a corner, you walk into a local drug store.

Now you're just arguing because you can't take losing gracefully.

At 7/18/08 12:03 AM, Creek wrote: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! YOU'RE GETTING RIPPED OFF BUDDY! xD

and what are you trying to prove by giving me the street prices PER gram?

aww little baby
want your bottle?

At 7/18/08 12:03 AM, Creek wrote: This is what it's like here:

Weed - Free, freinds just give it away. And if I do buy it it's less than 10 bucks for a gram.
Cocaine - freinds told me they bought 2 grams of cocaine for 30$
Ecstacy - Like I said 8$ a pill, it's all I know. I don't take this, it's a ripoff version of my medicine mixed with some other bullshit drug dealers put in there.
Heroin - Nobody cares about this drug.

Oh yeah, weed is free!! everything is free /sarcasm
That just helps prove my point, weed is cheap and not the other drugs that you said were also cheap.
Your friend must be getting fucked up by the impure cocaine he's doing. No way does cocaine cost that little, I was being conservative with my estimate for cocaine. Heroin costs over a hundred dollars so someone must care if they want to buy it.

At 7/18/08 12:03 AM, Creek wrote: more preachy ignorance.

You only want to legalize marijuana because you smoke it. I don't do any drugs yet I want them to be legalized because the potential abuse far outweighs the crime associated with drugs.

---

At 7/18/08 12:27 AM, CIX wrote:

At 7/18/08 12:03 AM, Creek wrote: Exactly, I support legalization of marijuana, not all drugs. Will get rid of the gang's major funds. No more money to provide 14 year old kids with handguns anymore. And it's only legalizing a harmless, safe, non-addictive plant that should have never been made illegal. It's safer than alcohol for shit's sake!

Alcohol prohibition was a failure and so is this drug war.

I know. We already went over that. Is that supposed to be an argument?

At 7/18/08 12:03 AM, Creek wrote: What does that prove?

That marijuana is easier to come by than the other drugs because it can be grown it doesn't need a third party involved.

I'm lost at what your argument is. Let's go back a bit.

You: "Marijuana is cheap drug that can grow it in a closet so people don't need to buy it from gangs"

Me: "but most people don't even bother to grow it on their own. Also if you live with your parents it's not that easy to all of the sudden have a bush in your backyard without them noticing."

You: "40% of all marijuana is grown INSIDE the United States"

Me: "what does that prove?" (confused)

You: "That marijuana is easier to come by than the other drugs because it can be grown it doesn't need a third party involved."

How does that prove that marijuana doesn't need to be bought from gangs?

Are you saying it has to be bought from outside of the U.S. to be bought from gangs? That's obviously stupid.

Most people buy it, there are major growers that distribute it. It goes around and gets sold.

I said it would make those drugs 'cheaper' and easier to get. Instead of paying 8$ per pill of ecstacy, you can buy a pack of 6 pills for 8 bucks plus taxes. Instead of calling up 'D' to go meet up with him in a corner, you walk into a local drug store.

Now you're just arguing because you can't take losing gracefully.

Please, show me how I lost.

Bad excuse for not coming up with an argument.

and what are you trying to prove by giving me the street prices PER gram?

aww little baby
want your bottle?

Hilarious. Also terrible job dodging a serious question.

Oh yeah, weed is free!! everything is free /sarcasm

Wow.... you're a loser.

That just helps prove my point, weed is cheap and not the other drugs that you said were also cheap.

And what is your point arguing?

Your friend must be getting fucked up by the impure cocaine he's doing.

Maybe. I don't know.

I said that's the way it's over here. which means that's how cocaine costs here. And nobody cares about Heroine here. You have shitty hookups and you know it.

You only want to legalize marijuana because you smoke it. I don't do any drugs yet I want them to be legalized because the potential abuse far outweighs the crime associated with drugs.

shitty ad-hominem, so I only want marijuana legal because it will have a positive effect on my lifestyle? Is that supposed to be some sort of argument? because it's not even true.

I'm going to post quotes of me stating why I want marijuana legal to prove your ignorance:

"look at marijuana, good fun drug, safer then alcohol."

"Marijuana is harmless. It doesn't kill or harm anyone and it isn't addictive"

"Oh, the cost isn't worth it, especially with marijuana. They do need to spend less on it, there needs to be a change in drug policy, because the current war on drugs is a failure."

"Yes! and I want an honest campaign to teach you about drugs too ... . That's why I support the legalization of marijuana, it does NOT belong in the category with harmful, illegal substances."

I've also said argued that marijuana is a main source of income for gangs.

---

At 7/17/08 11:31 PM, Creek wrote: Sounds convincing. What I meant is propose this to the law-makers / government people. I think this would be a successful way to cure people of drug addiction.

I have a question though, will these injection sites offer it to new users or only to recovering drug addicts?

Depends. If the black market remains a big problem even after wide availability of these, it may be necessary to offer the drug to new users as well. I doubt many people would be going in to try it, though, what with the clinical awkward setting and all.

I don't think we need to deregulate amphetamine.

Then don't expect the black market for amphetamines to disappear either.

The black market for amphetamine isn't as serious, because the production and distribution is not controlled by violent criminals. Production is government regulated, and the pills are usually sold by people with prescriptions.

There was a time when drugs were not illegal, you know. Society didn't collapse.

Of course it didn't. I don't think that they were that mainstream back then though. Didn't prohibition start as soon as they saw there was a problem?

The first law to make a substance outright illegal was the marihuana tax act, which was enacted primarily due to pressures from textile and plastic industries, who didn't want farmers growing industrial hemp. The term "marihuana" was used because not many people knew that marijuana and hemp were the same thing.

No, but plenty of recreational drug users do. That includes people who use marijuana, heroin, meth, and so on.

Except heroin and meth could get you addicted while marijuana can't. Also I've never met / heard of an educated and successful heroin addict. To hear of a successful, educated, responsible, meth-smoking adult seems like a fairy tale to me.

I didn't say addict, I said user. There are people who use heroin and meth recreationally who aren't strung out all the time.

---

At 7/17/08 10:36 PM, Creek wrote: The term's use makes it seem like it's written to a child. Disrespect, not rebellious.

Now who's arguing semantics? It's simply a friendly but impersonal way of referring to someone.

Yeah, but you lost me with the government regulation. I think that we should replace our current education with an honest, objective education. And our current policies on drugs need changes, not legalization.

The regulation is there to ensure purity, afety of both the user and society and as a means of benefitting the state through taxes. Similar to alcohol regulation with the softer drugs but more like prescription medicine with the more destructive variety.

Our current policy on drugs cannot really change unless you either reduce sentences (which would be somewhat akin to using a plaster on a shotgun wound) or legalise at least some drugs. I understand your hesitation to legalise everything but history has taught us that prohibiting an activity has not stopped that activity from going on therefore to legalise some but not others would not really solve the problem as there will still be a major market for these illicit substances. Most of the problems we face are from the selling of harder drugs.

I disagree with the legalization of all drugs. I am a strong supporter of marijuana legalization.

As I've said that wouldn't solve the crime problem to any great extent: still wasted taxes, still gang warfare, still crack dens, still widespread prostitution, still muggings, still robberies etc. etc. ad nauseum.

It's not that prohibition has an effect on the enjoyment of drug abuse or not. I said it doesn't have anything to do with it's legal status: "It's not because it's illegal, it's the effects of the drug that make you aggressive and likely to do those things.".

That's not what I meant when I said 'enjoyment'; rather the amount of people taking them. Anywho while I shall concede continual usage of such substances are more likely to make someone act irrationally it is the criminal element that compells them to commit crimes in order to fund their habit.

If a person takes Angel Dust (PCP) which "In toxic doses, the user can become hostile and violent, acting in a bizarre or psychotic manner. They may attempt to assault other people, or to harm themselves through self-mutilation or suicide." and goes to work, and sees his boss, he says do this and do that or whatever. Irrationally this person punches his boss and beats him half to death, goes outside to the street and beats up random people he sees until a cop shoots him. This can also happen if you go anywhere outside, the park, a store, the mall. You would act in ways you wouldn't if you were sober. Legal or not legal.

What are the significance of such incidents when placed in comparison to the gang warfare, murders, robberies, fatal overdoses, muggings and venereal disease carrying prostitutes? It is the prevelance of such incidents that makes a community, society and individuals suffer not the occasional insane gun man.

Even if in the spirit of fairness I disregard the real problem then your logic is still flawed in that it dictates any substance that makes people act dangerously or irrationally should be illegalised to protect the public. What of alocohol, then?

I already explained what I meant by 'fry'.
"what I meant by saying 'fry' I meant that as saying it causes severe brain damage"
This is a comparison just to get the point across on the difference in brain damage. If alcohol is having 2 drinks a night. Meth is having 50 drinks a night. 2 drinks a night wouldn't have a serious impact. Might not even be very noticeable long term. But meth would burn up your brain very quickly, and this is what I meant by 'fry'. And I'm not going to argue a definition of something. I told you what I meant by it. The argument is not about the word.

I know what you mean by fry. I am suggesting that your definiton of 'fry' is spurious as it lies outside the accepted definition. Language relies on a set of rules and public opinion; one cannot simple alter the meaning of a word to suit their arguement.

The fact remains common knowledge would have it that persistent alcohol usage 'fries' the brain. Simply watch a recovering alcoholic attempt to function and you will understand.

Seems to me you've shot yourself in the foot rather.

how?

Well you're arguing that prescription medicines can be exploited and therefore governmental regulation is ineffective and I was pointing out that in this scenario they very much come in to effect and demonstrate how those who disobey these will be breaking the law regardless of the actual legal status of the drug.

How can you assure me of this claim? It's impossible to prove something that hasn't taken place.

Ah but similar events have: you are familiar with the alcohol prohibition in the 1920's I take it? Studies have shown that while crime and incidents where alcohol was directly involved soared the actual usage didn't and in some areas actually increased.

This is a very good overview that is well worth the lengthy read.

Which is why cocaine isn't legal.

That makes no sense; kindly explain how societal change affects the law when it's recreational usage was accepted (and really still is today in the media) but was outlawed anyway.

Well, if it was never legal. And it only became illegal when it started gaining attention.

It had nothing to do with its attention; opiates had been widely known and understood for centuries before it was first outlawed.

Marijuana is harmless. It doesn't kill or harm anyone and it isn't addictive. Hard drugs are not as pretty.

Well while studies do show that long term cannabis usages can cause harm that point is moot; hard drugs are not pleasant as we all know however they're still consumed regardless of the prohibition and the billions spent in funding it. The actual effect of the drug is not what is being debated; rather whether prohibition and the taxes invested in to it are justified.

It's impossible to prove something that hasn't taken place. No evidence, just an assumption based on the way humans think.

Then by your own admission cannot be discussed and is therefore pointless in a debate.

It's not legality that dictates you are willing to sample if you sample illegal things. Legality does guide a person into trying it, think of alcohol, why do more people drink alcohol then smoking weed? It's legal, It's not hard to get, it's acceptable, alot of people do it. Legalization DOES make it acceptable. make marijuana legal and all of the sudden it's acceptable, it's not hard to get, a lot of people do it.

Well as Eifer has already pointed out cannabis is perhaps a special case in that its usage is widespread as it stands and most people know that taken with prudence and self restraint causes no real harm. The same cannot be said for other drugs and therefore usage is unlikely to increase.

I would state, however, that while a valid point it is not the law that 'guides' people but rather how easy it is to obtain and with sufficient regulation the dangerous drugs, even if more people did wish to try them (which I doubt), would still be difficult to obtain. If anything more difficult, a dealer will sell something to anyone but a pharmacy/clinic/wherever-the-hell-they'd -be-sold would use more discretion.

Please provide an example.

You: I am taking a pro-prohibition stance in the case of harder drugs.
Us: Prohibition doesn't work and is a waste of money.
You: Yes it is a waste of money.
You: I am still pro-prohibition.
(or words to that effect anyway)

The two viewpoints are incongruous, surely you can see that?

---

At 7/18/08 12:03 AM, Creek wrote: Weed - Free, freinds just give it away. And if I do buy it it's less than 10 bucks for a gram.

It's not proper etiquette to just mooch all the time and not give any back. In any case, marijuana is often around $20 per gram in many parts of the United States, probably because production is more centralized than it is in say, Canada. The closer you live to a production area, the fewer times the product changes hands before it reaches the consumer. Seeing as you live in California, of course it's going to be cheap.

Cocaine - freinds told me they bought 2 grams of cocaine for 30$

If that's true, what they probably bought was maybe half a gram of cocaine and 1.5 grams of lactose.

Ecstacy - Like I said 8$ a pill, it's all I know. I don't take this, it's a ripoff version of my medicine mixed with some other bullshit drug dealers put in there.

Not really. If he's referring to the price in grams, he's probably referring to crystalline methylenedioxymethamphetamine (which is not the same thing as your medicine at all), which makes $75 a decent estimate.

Heroin - Nobody cares about this drug.

Um

---

At 7/18/08 01:30 AM, Creek wrote: I know. We already went over that. Is that supposed to be an argument?

Alcohol is not a safe non-addictive drug yet it's legal. Yet you have a double standard for the other addictive substances.

At 7/18/08 01:30 AM, Creek wrote: How does that prove that marijuana doesn't need to be bought from gangs?

Are you saying it has to be bought from outside of the U.S. to be bought from gangs? That's obviously stupid.

Most people buy it, there are major growers that distribute it. It goes around and gets sold.

At 7/18/08 01:30 AM, Creek wrote: Please, show me how I lost.

Bad excuse for not coming up with an argument.

um what's cheaper than 'cheap'????

At 7/18/08 01:30 AM, Creek wrote:

and what are you trying to prove by giving me the street prices PER gram?

aww little baby
want your bottle?

Hilarious. Also terrible job dodging a serious question.

Great job censoring your little tantrum. Are you that dumb in the head that you can't remember typing that those drugs were 'cheap.'

At 7/18/08 01:30 AM, Creek wrote:

Oh yeah, weed is free!! everything is free /sarcasm

Wow.... you're a loser.

Ad hominem.

At 7/18/08 01:30 AM, Creek wrote: And what is your point arguing?

Stop arguing just for the sake of it.

At 7/18/08 01:30 AM, Creek wrote: Maybe. I don't know.

I said that's the way it's over here. which means that's how cocaine costs here. And nobody cares about Heroine here. You have shitty hookups and you know it.

Your friend does cocaine and I have "shitty hookups"? I said that was about what you would expect to pay for a street price of gram dumbass.

At 7/18/08 01:30 AM, Creek wrote: shitty ad-hominem, so I only want marijuana legal because it will have a positive effect on my lifestyle? Is that supposed to be some sort of argument? because it's not even true.

I'm going to post quotes of me stating why I want marijuana legal to prove your ignorance:

"look at marijuana, good fun drug, safer then alcohol."

"Marijuana is harmless. It doesn't kill or harm anyone and it isn't addictive"

"Oh, the cost isn't worth it, especially with marijuana. They do need to spend less on it, there needs to be a change in drug policy, because the current war on drugs is a failure."

"Yes! and I want an honest campaign to teach you about drugs too ... . That's why I support the legalization of marijuana, it does NOT belong in the category with harmful, illegal substances."

I've also said argued that marijuana is a main source of income for gangs.

Stop comparing marijuana to alcohol if it "safer" and if you also think marijuana doesn't deserve to be classified among other drugs. You're doing a bad job informing the public if you tell them it's not addictive. ANYTHING CAN BE ADDICTIVE That's a biased argument.

You agree that the war on drugs is a failure but you still want to prohibit other drugs? DUMB DUMB DUMB

You've never shown any evidence that gangs get most of their income when I have asked for it.

---

At 7/18/08 07:39 AM, Elfer wrote: The black market for amphetamine isn't as serious, because the production and distribution is not controlled by violent criminals. Production is government regulated, and the pills are usually sold by people with prescriptions.

Well for prescription medicines yes. But ecstasy and methamphetamine are both amphetamines too..

I didn't say addict, I said user. There are people who use heroin and meth recreationally who aren't strung out all the time.

Guess I just haven't met one.

---

At 7/19/08 02:07 PM, Creek wrote:

At 7/18/08 07:39 AM, Elfer wrote: The black market for amphetamine isn't as serious, because the production and distribution is not controlled by violent criminals. Production is government regulated, and the pills are usually sold by people with prescriptions.

Well for prescription medicines yes. But ecstasy and methamphetamine are both amphetamines too..

Yeah, and they're illegal, and as a result, they have huge problems with black market distribution.

I didn't say addict, I said user. There are people who use heroin and meth recreationally who aren't strung out all the time.

Guess I just haven't met one.

They tend to be middle to upper class professionals in the business sector who are relatively discrete about it.

---

At 7/18/08 09:26 AM, Pontificate wrote:

Yeah, but you lost me with the government regulation. I think that we should replace our current education with an honest, objective education. And our current policies on drugs need changes, not legalization.

The regulation is there to ensure purity, afety of both the user and society and as a means of benefitting the state through taxes. Similar to alcohol regulation with the softer drugs but more like prescription medicine with the more destructive variety.

Why would they be prescribed if they are destructive to the body? This is what confuses me.
Every drug that has medical benefits is already allowed to be used for medical use.
I have a question about the regulation. Would it be illegal for somebody to carry a drug from the more destructive variety if he doesn't have a prescription?

Our current policy on drugs cannot really change unless you either reduce sentences (which would be somewhat akin to using a plaster on a shotgun wound) or legalise at least some drugs.

Not spend that much money on drug enforcement. Definitely reduce sentences, or send them to rehab and job training. And legalize marijuana.

As I've said that wouldn't solve the crime problem to any great extent

But look at all the benefits we would get from marijuana alone. I mean marijuana is a great plant! We could use hemp for clothing, paper, other shit. We could have tons of marijuana edibles, a whole food industry. Marijuana cigarettes. Big boost to the economy.

Also marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug. And it will cease to fund gangs.

If marijuana becomes legal, people could get a good, safe high. And not have to deal with ghetto bullshit.

It is the prevalence of such incidents that makes a community, society and individuals suffer not the occasional insane gun man.

I guess you're right about that. I was trying to point out that the insane gun man, if PCP becomes legal, would happen more often. But I agree about gangs being a bigger problem.

Even if in the spirit of fairness I disregard the real problem then your logic is still flawed in that it dictates any substance that makes people act dangerously or irrationally should be illegalised to protect the public. What of alocohol, then?

Alcohol's effects are different. They DO make you act irrationally and make you beat your children or your wife. But PCP can make you throw a table on your wife instead of a couple smacks.

Also fuck alcohol. Just another reason that we should legalize marijuana. It will make you too lazy to go beat your wife. It will even make you not care about it.

The argument is not about the word.

Language relies on a set of rules and public opinion;

Just drop it already. It's not about the word.

The fact remains common knowledge would have it that persistent alcohol usage 'fries' the brain. Simply watch a recovering alcoholic attempt to function and you will understand.

It can, but not as fast. Damage from Alcohol < Damage from meth.

Well you're arguing that prescription medicines can be exploited and therefore governmental regulation is ineffective and I was pointing out that in this scenario they very much come in to effect and demonstrate how those who disobey these will be breaking the law regardless of the actual legal status of the drug.

Okay, but anytime where a person has to break the law to get drugs, it becomes a black market. If they can't get it from regular stores, or just go to their doctor and ask for a prescription for heroin or cocaine or whatever it is (which would be retarded). Then it will be sold in the black market.

Ah but similar events have: you are familiar with the alcohol prohibition in the 1920's I take it? Studies have shown that while crime and incidents where alcohol was directly involved soared the actual usage didn't and in some areas actually increased.

That's because the ban of alcohol was dumb. People were already addicted to it. I mean try to ban cigarettes today. Where would all these nicotine addicts get their shit from? And a lot of people did alcohol. So nobody cared about the government. Also it was cool and rebellious to do it.
It's wrong to ban alcohol. It's even MORE wrong to ban marijuana because it can benefit us much more then alcohol is. Also it's safer then alcohol.

That makes no sense; kindly explain how societal change affects the law when it's recreational usage was accepted (and really still is today in the media) but was outlawed anyway.

I never lived in a time where it's recreational use was accepted. And today in the media? Idk about that.

It had nothing to do with its attention; opiates had been widely known and understood for centuries before it was first outlawed.

And they are legal to use for medical purposes.

Well while studies do show that long term cannabis usages can cause harm that point is moot;

Those studies are biased and full of shit! Lol, just playing around. I know heard it can cause short-term memory loss and loss, difficulty to concentrate, and lack of emotion. But non of those would harm all people, a lot of people are born like that. I was born with all these symptoms, so i have nothing to lose. Can you link me to the studies you read please?

The actual effect of the drug is not what is being debated; rather whether prohibition and the taxes invested in to it are justified.

I've already said the taxes invested to it are too much. I don't support that. The effect of the drug isn't being debated, I know, I wasn't debating the effect of the drug. I was saying there would be an increase in use of the drug, and mentioning those drugs are harmful.

Then by your own admission cannot be discussed and is therefore pointless in a debate.

It cannot be proven. But it can be discussed as a possibility.

It's not legality that dictates you are willing to sample if you sample illegal things. Legality does guide a person into trying it, think of alcohol, why do more people drink alcohol then smoking weed? It's legal, It's not hard to get, it's acceptable, alot of people do it. Legalization DOES make it acceptable. make marijuana legal and all of the sudden it's acceptable, it's not hard to get, a lot of people do it.

The same cannot be said for other drugs and therefore usage is unlikely to increase.

Why can't it be said for other drugs? It can still increase even if there is real harm. It's just gonna be worse for people. Also they are addictive.

I would state, however, that while a valid point it is not the law that 'guides' people but rather how easy it is to obtain and with sufficient regulation the dangerous drugs, even if more people did wish to try them (which I doubt), would still be difficult to obtain. If anything more difficult, a dealer will sell something to anyone but a pharmacy/clinic/wherever-the-hell-they'd -be-sold would use more discretion.

So the black market isn't going anywhere. Anything given at a pharmacy/clinic is given for medical purposes right? And every drug with medical benefits is already legal for medical use. (Except medical marijuana is being debated. I don't see why, if it treats people effectively, the government tries to take it away from them). So those who want drugs meant for abuse will still go to the dealer.

Anyways, if that is the scenario you were talking about, the black market would still exist.

You: I am taking a pro-prohibition stance in the case of harder drugs.
Us: Prohibition doesn't work and is a waste of money.
You: Yes it is a waste of money.

Because it is, spending way too much.

You: I am still pro-prohibition.

With changes in policies, because currently it's a failure.

(or words to that effect anyway)

The two viewpoints are incongruous, surely you can see that?

The first paragraph in this post: " think that we should replace our current education with an honest, objective education. And our current policies on drugs need changes, not legalization"

---

At 7/19/08 02:37 PM, Elfer wrote: Yeah, and they're illegal, and as a result, they have huge problems with black market distribution.

Elfer: "I don't think we need to deregulate amphetamine."

Creek: "Then don't expect the black market for amphetamines to disappear either."

Elfer: "The black market for amphetamine isn't as serious, "

Creek: "But ecstasy and methamphetamine are both amphetamines too.."

Elfer: "and they're illegal, and as a result, they have huge problems with black market distribution"

I don't want to get off-topic. But I'm losing track of the argument.

Your argument was that we shouldn't deregulate amphetamines because the black market for amphetamines isn't that serious because production and distribution of amphetamines is controlled by the government, not by criminals. And that is true for prescription medications only. Other, non-medical forms of amphetamines such as ecstasy and meth, are sold in the black market.

So you want to legalize it without deregulation? That wouldn't change a thing. That's status quo.
This is why I'm confused.

They tend to be middle to upper class professionals in the business sector who are relatively discrete about it.

Cool. I guess I just haven't met one.

---

At 7/18/08 10:45 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 7/18/08 12:03 AM, Creek wrote: Weed - Free, freinds just give it away. And if I do buy it it's less than 10 bucks for a gram.

It's not proper etiquette to just mooch all the time and not give any back.

nononono don't get me wrong, I don't mooch. If we buying then I pitch in. But almost all the time somebody offers to smoke everyone out, and I give back also with other stuff. You see, free. Sharing :)

Seeing as you live in California, of course it's going to be cheap.

That makes sense.

Cocaine - freinds told me they bought 2 grams of cocaine for 30$

If that's true, what they probably bought was maybe half a gram of cocaine and 1.5 grams of lactose.

Maybe.

Not really. If he's referring to the price in grams, he's probably referring to crystalline methylenedioxymethamphetamine (which is not the same thing as your medicine at all), which makes $75 a decent estimate.

Mine is mixed amphetamines. Dextro, Dioxy bunch of that shit combined. I really don't know what the difference with all the amphetamines are. I mean I would like to know. Because they all do pretty much similiar things. Increase the dopamine production in your brain and are stimulants.

Heroin - Nobody cares about this drug.

Um

Fuck heroin.

---

At 7/18/08 05:24 PM, CIX wrote: Alcohol is not a safe non-addictive drug yet it's legal. Yet you have a double standard for the other addictive substances.

To give people more substances to get addicted to?

At 7/18/08 01:30 AM, Creek wrote: How does that prove that marijuana doesn't need to be bought from gangs?

Are you saying it has to be bought from outside of the U.S. to be bought from gangs? That's obviously stupid.

Most people buy it, there are major growers that distribute it. It goes around and gets sold.

No reply?

At 7/18/08 01:30 AM, Creek wrote: Please, show me how I lost.

Bad excuse for not coming up with an argument.

um what's cheaper than 'cheap'????

You can't figure it out by yourself? I feel sorry for you.

Again, although you consistently ignore it, I said it will make drugs cheaper and easier to get.

If a something costs 5 dollars and it is considered cheap. The same something costing less then 5 dollars would be cheaper.

At 7/18/08 01:30 AM, Creek wrote:

and what are you trying to prove by giving me the street prices PER gram?

aww little baby
want your bottle?

Hilarious. Also terrible job dodging a serious question.

Great job censoring your little tantrum. Are you that dumb in the head that you can't remember typing that those drugs were 'cheap.'

You have a crazy imagination. I don't react the way you do to the internet, so keep believing I had a tantrum.

CIX: "cocaine, heroine, meth, and ecstasy are all very expensive. "

Creek: "Meth, So cheap. And ecstacy, 8$ a pill"

CIX: Shows average street prices PER gram.

Creek: "what are you trying to prove by giving me the street prices PER gram?"

CIX: You are a baby, you had a tantrum, you forgot everything because you are stupid.

I'll ask you again. What are you trying to prove by giving me the street prices PER gram?

At 7/18/08 01:30 AM, Creek wrote:

Oh yeah, weed is free!! everything is free /sarcasm

Wow.... you're a loser.

Ad hominem.

Oh, let's pretend I'm the first one here to use ad hominem. Btw that argument was pointless.

And what is your point arguing?

Stop arguing just for the sake of it.

See, so far in this post you haven't given an argument.

that was about what you would expect to pay for a street price of gram dumbass.

And I said that sucks if that's how much you pay over there. Here it's better. I already replied to you about this. Thanks for going in a circle. Twice.

Stop comparing marijuana to alcohol if it "safer"

Why should I stop? It's a great argument. Alcohol is legal while marijuana is not, and marijuana is alot safer then alcohol.

From: http://www.fcda.org/tenthings.html
Q. How Does It Affect Your Health?

A. No drug is always safe for everybody, but after 150 years of scientific study, the only proven health problem from cannabis is that its smoke can be linked to bronchitis.

From: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/marijuan.htm
"The World Health Organization released a study in March 1998 that states: "there are good reasons for saying that [the risks from cannabis] would be unlikely to seriously [compare to] the public health risks of alcohol and tobacco even if as many people used cannabis as now drink alcohol or smoke tobacco."

"Tetrahydrocannabinol is a very safe drug. Laboratory animals (rats, mice, dogs, monkeys) can tolerate doses of up to 1,000 mg/kg (milligrams per kilogram). This would be equivalent to a 70 kg person swallowing 70 grams of the drug -- about 5,000 times more than is required to produce a high. Despite the widespread illicit use of cannabis there are very few if any instances of people dying from an overdose ... By comparison with other commonly used recreational drugs these statistics are impressive."

and if you also think marijuana doesn't deserve to be classified among other drugs. You're doing a bad job informing the public if you tell them it's not addictive. ANYTHING CAN BE ADDICTIVE That's a biased argument.

Marijuana is not physically addictive.

You agree that the war on drugs is a failure but you still want to prohibit other drugs? DUMB DUMB DUMB

You've never shown any evidence that gangs get most of their income when I have asked for it.

I said it probably depends on which gang. And where am I supposed to look for proof? I've gave you an article showing that marijuana makes billions for gangs. And also marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug.

"In 2006, 43.9 percent of the 1,889,810 total arrests for drug abuse violations were for marijuana -- a total of 829,627. Of those, 738,916 people were arrested for marijuana possession alone. By contrast in 2000 a total of 734,497 Americans were arrested for marijuana offenses, of which 646,042 were for possession alone."

Doesn't that sound like a HUGE waste of money?

"When examining the relationship between marijuana use and violent crime, the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse concluded, "Rather than inducing violent or aggressive behavior through its purported effects of lowering inhibitions, weakening impulse control and heightening aggressive tendencies, marihuana was usually found to inhibit the expression of aggressive impulses by pacifying the user, interfering with muscular coordination, reducing psychomotor activities and generally producing states of drowsiness lethargy, timidity and passivity." "

There's a lot more if you click on the link. http://www.drugwarfacts.org/marijuan.htm

---

At 7/19/08 03:14 PM, Creek wrote: Why would they be prescribed if they are destructive to the body? This is what confuses me.
Every drug that has medical benefits is already allowed to be used for medical use.
I have a question about the regulation. Would it be illegal for somebody to carry a drug from the more destructive variety if he doesn't have a prescription?

I don't mean prescribed as such, but rather a slip of paper saying that you are the one who is allowed to use the drug.

I'd say it would be illegal, yes, but the punishment would be not as harsh as for those found carring heroin today. Exception being for those selling them of course, they should be punished severely.

Not spend that much money on drug enforcement. Definitely reduce sentences, or send them to rehab and job training. And legalize marijuana.

Well the problem there is without spending the rules will not be all that enforced (not that that matters a jot of course); essentially you'd return to a pre-60's 'they're illegal but we don't give a damn' style. Why not simply legalise it and then benefit from it through taxation?

If marijuana becomes legal, people could get a good, safe high. And not have to deal with ghetto bullshit.

I'm not denying that marijuana should be legalised; I think it should and be regulated similarly to alcohol and nicotine. I'm just aware that any prohibition is a farce that costs us money and leads to crime problems.

Alcohol's effects are different. They DO make you act irrationally and make you beat your children or your wife. But PCP can make you throw a table on your wife instead of a couple smacks.

The difference is incremental; the point is it still leads to distinctly anti-social behaviour both in private and public. Look at the problems Britain currently faces with its youth drink culture; I myself have ben assaulted on the street rather seriously.

It can, but not as fast. Damage from Alcohol < Damage from meth.

Damage is still damage, or are you arguing that if a substance kills you (or worse leaves you an empty body that can barely function and has lost all reason to live) it's alright as long as it does it slowly?

Okay, but anytime where a person has to break the law to get drugs, it becomes a black market. If they can't get it from regular stores, or just go to their doctor and ask for a prescription for heroin or cocaine or whatever it is (which would be retarded). Then it will be sold in the black market.

Oh undoubtedly, but only to the extent of moonshining and the illegal importation of cheap alcohol/cigarettes as it stands today; which is a rather minor problem that doesn't lead to the death or ruination of innocents.

That's because the ban of alcohol was dumb. People were already addicted to it. I mean try to ban cigarettes today. Where would all these nicotine addicts get their shit from? And a lot of people did alcohol. So nobody cared about the government. Also it was cool and rebellious to do it.
It's wrong to ban alcohol. It's even MORE wrong to ban marijuana because it can benefit us much more then alcohol is. Also it's safer then alcohol.

It's quite clear you don't have a political agenda at all... Anywho yes it was stupid to outlaw alcohol, much like it is stupid to outlaw any consensual activity. The reason being is it doesn't work; if people want to do it they're going to as illustrated today with drug prohibition.

I never lived in a time where it's recreational use was accepted. And today in the media? Idk about that.

So? If you did would you still take it knowing the dangers? That has nothing to do with my point though which was society does not reflect the law; just because something is legal or illegal it does not really change what people think of it. Drugs were viewed as little more than a nuisance up until the reams of misinformation (and in the case of some drugs actual information) really started; it was then society was outraged and disgusted. The law had nothing to do with it.

As for today of course it is; it's commonly accepted that most famous people will have tried or regularly taken illicit substances. It's only when it's clear they cannot function without it that there's a media outrage.

And they are legal to use for medical purposes.

Heroin isn't and either way that has nothing to do with it; the fact remains people were aware of the dangers and had been from about the 19th century onwards but it wasn't outlawed till the early 20th. When they were aware of the dangers people still took it. Then it was outlawed and people took it. Now there's an entire war on the damn things and still people take it. Law does not change anything.

:Can you link me to the studies you read please?

Enjoy.

I've already said the taxes invested to it are too much. I don't support that. The effect of the drug isn't being debated, I know, I wasn't debating the effect of the drug. I was saying there would be an increase in use of the drug, and mentioning those drugs are harmful.

But by your own admission you have no proof of that position and by its very nature cannot therefore your arguement cannot be discussed beyond 'I think this' and 'I disagree because history has shown us that this is not the case when it comes to prohibition' or 'I disagree because it is not law that affects whether people take a substance but availability and what the person knows about that substance' or 'I disagree because the use of drugs has not really decreased following prohibition and therefore are not going to increase'.

It cannot be proven. But it can be discussed as a possibility.

If it cannot be verified I cannot count it as evidence for your arguement and must therefore dismiss it.

Why can't it be said for other drugs? It can still increase even if there is real harm. It's just gonna be worse for people. Also they are addictive.

It can't be said for the harmful drugs becase we all know they're harmful. In the same way we know responsible cannabis intake is largely harmless.

So the black market isn't going anywhere. Anything given at a pharmacy/clinic is given for medical purposes right? And every drug with medical benefits is already legal for medical use. (Except medical marijuana is being debated. I don't see why, if it treats people effectively, the government tries to take it away from them). So those who want drugs meant for abuse will still go to the dealer.

Well then, perhaps you could think outside the box for a moment and visualise a world in which these pharmacies and clinics are licensed to sell substances that aren't medically beneficial. Was that so difficult?

The first paragraph in this post: " think that we should replace our current education with an honest, objective education. And our current policies we all know they're harmful.

I see your point but frankly it strikes me as hypocritical to support some aspects of prohibition but not others; after all it's the same idea just on a different scale.

---

At 7/19/08 03:39 PM, Creek wrote: Your argument was that we shouldn't deregulate amphetamines because the black market for amphetamines isn't that serious because production and distribution of amphetamines is controlled by the government, not by criminals. And that is true for prescription medications only. Other, non-medical forms of amphetamines such as ecstasy and meth, are sold in the black market.

So you want to legalize it without deregulation? That wouldn't change a thing. That's status quo.
This is why I'm confused.

By "deregulation" I mean that we shouldn't sell drugs like MDMA and methamphetamine the same way that you would sell, say, tortilla chips.

The reason these drugs are sold and produced on the black market is because there's no legitimate means of production on an industrial scale. Clandestine labs are all well and good, but a plant will kick their ass any day.

If we legalized the drugs, then changed them to a prescription basis (or some form of regulation) then we'd still have the associated abuse problems to some extent, but we wouldn't have the problem of gang ownership of production and distribution.

Like I said, at the base level, elimination of Schedule I is what's needed.

At 7/19/08 03:51 PM, Creek wrote: nononono don't get me wrong, I don't mooch. If we buying then I pitch in. But almost all the time somebody offers to smoke everyone out, and I give back also with other stuff. You see, free. Sharing :)

I get what you mean, but it's still not "free"

Not really. If he's referring to the price in grams, he's probably referring to crystalline methylenedioxymethamphetamine (which is not the same thing as your medicine at all), which makes $75 a decent estimate.

Mine is mixed amphetamines. Dextro, Dioxy bunch of that shit combined. I really don't know what the difference with all the amphetamines are. I mean I would like to know. Because they all do pretty much similiar things. Increase the dopamine production in your brain and are stimulants.

They're chemically similar in structure, but not in action. MDMA has a five-membered ring with two oxygens in it attached to the phenyl ring. That's the only factor that distinguishes it from methamphetamine, but it creates a major difference in action and effects. For example, MDMA has

Also, part of the point about prices was that you quoted a price per pill, while he said a price per gram. Pills aren't 100% active ingredients, there's a lot of filler in them to keep them in a nice pill shape. They also weigh substantially less than a gram.

As a reference, a garden-variety adderall pill has roughly 15 mg of active ingredients (which is why pills are dirt cheap).

Crystalline MDMA, on the other hand, is trickier to find and worth a lot more than pressed pills. Advantages include the fact that it tends not to be adulterated with other drugs (such as mixed amphetamines) like pills often are, and you know roughly what dose you're taking.

---

I love how somehow this went to "are drugs okay for you as a person" Instead of the original point "the war against drugs does nothing but waste money."

*sigh*

---

At 7/20/08 10:25 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: I love how somehow this went to "are drugs okay for you as a person" Instead of the original point "the war against drugs does nothing but waste money."

*sigh*

What do you expect? It is obvious that the prohibition is a waste of money so instead adherents must argue from an emotional level.

---

At 7/21/08 06:36 AM, Pontificate wrote: What do you expect? It is obvious that the prohibition is a waste of money so instead adherents must argue from an emotional level.

Again, it's the standpoint that they're bad, so legalizing them means we endorse bad things. That's not the case at all. Legalization simply means that, even though we know they're bad, having the government regulate its use is much better than letting criminals do so. At least the government can be held accountable to some extent.

The government's job isn't to save us from ourselves, it's to protect us from violence and crime. Making drugs illegal creates an enormous amount of both.

---

The government's job should also not be regulating the drugs. Look at the high price of pharmaceuticals because of all that regulating and licensing. Regulating is just like prohibition, it does not educate the citizens. The American Legacy Foundation educates people with their melodramatic plays.

---

It's just like alcohol Prohibition. Sooner or later, people will realize it's not worth it.