![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 8 to 32 of 34. Go back in thread:
Posted by oilfan on June 2, 2005, at 7:55:14
In reply to Re: Marijuana-Should they legalize it??, posted by AuntieMel on June 1, 2005, at 12:53:06
Well here's one reason they should legalize it.We all no how prohibition of alcohol worked. End prohibition end our national debt. The money they would save on b*llshit possession charge's alone.HELL in Canada our own Senate recommended to legalize it outright and make it available to anyone 16yrs or older. You can drive a car but you can't smoke a joint???
Posted by alexandra_k on June 2, 2005, at 7:55:14
In reply to Re: Marijuana-Should they legalize it??, posted by oilfan on June 1, 2005, at 13:43:30
first pop.
That would be good :-)
Posted by TamaraJ on June 2, 2005, at 7:55:15
In reply to Re: Might have more luck wit decriminalisation » oilfan, posted by alexandra_k on June 1, 2005, at 15:46:12
direction.
Posted by oilfan on June 2, 2005, at 7:55:15
In reply to Decriminalisation would at least be step in right, posted by TamaraJ on June 1, 2005, at 16:57:26
Decriminalization??? That's another tax grab. Everytime a cop smells anything he can write you out a ticket just like speeding. NO THANKS! It's time our politician's did what is good for the people and not themselve's first. Legalize it. Tax it. Control it. Just like alcohol,tobbacco, etc.....
Posted by alexandra_k on June 2, 2005, at 21:04:29
In reply to Re: Decriminalisation would at least be step in right, posted by oilfan on June 1, 2005, at 18:32:48
> Decriminalization??? That's another tax grab. Everytime a cop smells anything he can write you out a ticket just like speeding. NO THANKS! It's time our politician's did what is good for the people and not themselve's first. Legalize it. Tax it. Control it. Just like alcohol,tobbacco, etc.....
But what is the difference between decriminalising and making money off offences and legalising and making money off taxing it????
Either way they stand to gain...I just don't want a criminal record...
Posted by Nickengland on June 4, 2005, at 7:16:40
In reply to Re: Decriminalisation would at least be step in right » oilfan, posted by alexandra_k on June 2, 2005, at 21:04:29
I definately think it should be made legal.
Here in the uk last year it was down graded from a class b substance to a class c substance, so that they could focus on the harder drugs...now the goverment are talking about making it a class b substance again (pathetic)
Ecstasy, Crack, Coke, Heroin, Acid, Speed. How things stand now with current situations throughout the world these should definately be kept illegal.
Smoking weed?? lol same class as alcohol. Whats the worst that can happen, you roll around on the floor giggling eating lots of chocolate?! Or conversley, you have a really bad anxiety panic attack and feel like you are losing your mind...then you tend not to take it ever again.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 4, 2005, at 17:10:00
In reply to Re: Decriminalisation would at least be step in right, posted by Nickengland on June 4, 2005, at 7:16:40
I actually think that alchohol is worse (generally speaking) than dope.
People drink and tend to get
loud
obnoxious
pushy
violent
and then of course there is all the drinking and driving and killing (mostly of other people).
I have never ever seen or heard of someone getting violent on dope alone - if they do it is due to them drinking or using another variety of drug at the same time.And experiments have been done and it doesn't seem to have a negative affect on peoples driving ability.
I would like to see other stuff decriminalised as well.
I just think that there will be more chance of decriminalisation than legalisation first off with dope.
Sometimes gradual change is easier for people to palate.
Posted by Nickengland on June 5, 2005, at 8:12:13
In reply to Re: Decriminalisation would at least be step in right » Nickengland, posted by alexandra_k on June 4, 2005, at 17:10:00
I agree with you Alexandra, with regards to alcohol being worse because of the rebound effect it can have people - with drink driving and death, violence and many other troubles that arise from people getting "drunk"
There is one thing though about cannabis use, and that is the fact that at small number of people can have a psychotic reaction from it.
What other stuff would you like to see decriminalised?
Posted by alexandra_k on June 5, 2005, at 15:34:19
In reply to Re: Decriminalisation would at least be step in right, posted by Nickengland on June 5, 2005, at 8:12:13
Everything.
I would like to see everything decriminalised.
And to put more money into education and rehabilitation.You can be a recreational user of most things.
If you could buy it legally and use it in small amounts in a safe setting it would get rid of the criminal element.
It would also not be such a 'naughty' thing to do. It would probably lose the appeal that it does have for some people.
Yup.
Everything.
Posted by Nickengland on June 5, 2005, at 18:46:43
In reply to Re: Decriminalisation would at least be step in right » Nickengland, posted by alexandra_k on June 5, 2005, at 15:34:19
>If you could buy it legally and use it in small amounts in a safe setting it would get rid of the criminal element.
That would never work in reality. Take Heroin for example, ok you take a small amount and after afew times if you enjoy it you are fully addicted. Then you no longer need a small amount as after a while you build tolorance.
The amount you then need is more..and then more, more, more and then more again. The uk is full of any drugs you want and consumption is very high. People who dabble in Heroin start off on small amounts usually smoking it...which then leads on to injecting. At this level (here in the uk) they can be spending £50-£150 pounds a day, 7 days a week.
So they then need on average £700 a week. To get this they rob, steel absoultely everything. I have a friend whos brother is a heroin addict and he even stole and pawned his mothers own wedding ring to get a fix. They have absoluterly no morals as to how they get the money for heroin.
When there not out robbing to get money for heroin, they are more or less in a coma from the effects of the drug.
So if this was made legal you think this work?..no way especially for heroin in the uk.
Also as for getting rid of the criminal element..thats very big business the profits are so big. A dealer selling heroin on the streets gets stupid amounts of profit like 600%+...all the way up the scale is the country who produce the drug, some of those countries reply on the export of the drug crop (gross per captia or something?) for basically the wealth of their country.
Something as strong as heroin will never lose its appeal, im afraid to say thats the truth..
Posted by alexandra_k on June 5, 2005, at 21:10:34
In reply to Re: Decriminalisation would at least be step in right, posted by Nickengland on June 5, 2005, at 18:46:43
> >If you could buy it legally and use it in small amounts in a safe setting it would get rid of the criminal element.
> That would never work in reality. Take Heroin for example, ok you take a small amount and after afew times if you enjoy it you are fully addicted. Then you no longer need a small amount as after a while you build tolorance.First time I took heroin I spewed my guts out. Actually, come to think of it second time I took heroin I spewed my guts out ;-)
There are occasional users out there, you know.
Anybody who REALLY wants to try it CAN try it.
But it is not the case that anyone who wants to try it can try it in a safe setting. I don't think it would 'encourage' people to use it who wouldn't otherwise. But it would be worthwhile to look after people who do take it IMO. To provide information to them so that they know about safe usage practices. So they know that addiction can be insidious and dangerous. Do they really want to risk looking like this person? It isn't so very hard to get pictures of people who are hard core users. Reduces the 'cool' aspect considerably.
> The amount you then need is more..and then more, more, more and then more again.If you want some more as soon as you start to come down and you take some more, and then take some more etc etc. But some people have a hit once a week. Or once a month. Or once every couple of months. Or a few times a season. It simply isn't the case that you are obliged or compelled to take more solely because you had one hit. In fact, your first hit will probably make you spew. Like starting smoking one has to be persistant BEFORE one becomes addicted.
> So they then need on average £700 a week. To get this they rob, steel absoultely everything. I have a friend whos brother is a heroin addict and he even stole and pawned his mothers own wedding ring to get a fix. They have absoluterly no morals as to how they get the money for heroin.
Yeah. Some people do the same for alchohol. Or... Similar. It is just that alchohol tends to be cheaper and a little easier to come by.
I'm just saying that if alchohol is available...
Why not the other drugs.
How are they different.
At the moment there is the crime and prostitution association because where the hell else are you going to be making that kind of money????
Make it cheaper to get a hold of (in a safe setting)
Put some of those profits from sales into rehabilitation and education
And I dare say the situation would be better
(for addicts, occasional users, and those who are against drugs)
I think the situation would be better for EVERYONE.Excepts the major dealers who understandably make major profits because they are risking their life and liberty to bring you that next hit...
> Something as strong as heroin will never lose its appeal, im afraid to say thats the truth..
Thats exactly right.
Thats why managed use is better
Than illicit and unrestrained
IMO
Posted by Nickengland on June 6, 2005, at 8:08:56
In reply to Re: Decriminalisation would at least be step in right » Nickengland, posted by alexandra_k on June 5, 2005, at 21:10:34
Some of what you say does make sense..
You say how is heroin different from alcohol? The two are in a completey different class, with regards to the level of addiction and withdrawal symtoms.
People i've seen take heroin, start off by smkoking it and the "majority" have ended up either dead, in and out of prison or just people you would not want anything to do with at all.
The majority of people who I know who drink, none of them ended up dead or in and out of prison because of alcohol.
Its fair to say that yes, some professional people do take heroin, some are doctors etc.. Out of all the people who use the drug though in developed countries, the majority have completley ruined their lives (i'm talking about long-term users) and also the lives of the people most close to them. Just because it would be legal and you could buy it in a shop, wouldn't mean that all the damage from the drug would stop over night, I think the damage would only increase more for those users at most risk from the drug.Alcohol and drink driving offences continue to rise...if alchol was illeagal would they be still rising at the rate they are now?
Smoking related diseases continue to rise, if smoking was illeagal, would they continue to rise at the rate as though they were legal?
What i'm saying is by keeping heroin illegal stops the rates at which herion effects people lives negatively. Making it legal would open a whole new can of worms and the downs sides to this would weight out any good.
It would be interesting to see what happens if heroin was made legal, personally I think it would cause far more desruction to society than it would benefit. If people today, want to take heroin they can, and they can take it in a safe setting if they choose to. Also the price of heroin has dropped massively over here in the uk for as little as 5 or 10 pound a hit.
There have been reports of dealers handing it out to school children for as little as 2 or 3 pounds.
If it was made legal the tax man over here would tax the hell of it and the price would increase dramictally...meaning that addicts would need further increases of money to fund their habit which would increase crime rates even more to fund the drug.
For example a packet of 20 cigarettes costs here 5 pounds which is stupidly expensive and 80%+ of that cost is tax.
Perhaps in the future all drugs will be legal, as don't get me wrong in some respects I think they should be, just with the timing now in todays world it simply would not work, this would take years to implement so that it would actually benefit society.
The first issue, is in my opion to tackle organised crime related to drugs such as heroin cocaine cannabis etc.. This has to be a global effort and really the polititions who are closest to this effort are mostly corrupt...
How do you stop this? how do you stop columbian cocaine drug war lords? or Afgan heroin smugglers...because at the moment their profits and their empire is on the rise and its multi-billion $ business - and while they keep rising, the idea of making all drugs legal sinks even more...
Posted by alexandra_k on June 6, 2005, at 23:59:12
In reply to Re: Decriminalisation would at least be step in right, posted by Nickengland on June 6, 2005, at 8:08:56
> You say how is heroin different from alcohol? The two are in a completey different class, with regards to the level of addiction and withdrawal symtoms.
Nicotene. Nicotene is more addictive than opiates with respect to the percentages of how many people successfully give up.
The PHYSICAL withdrawal symptoms from opiates are no worse than a severe case of the flu. The PSYCHOLOGICAL withdrawal is worse for nicotene than it is for opiates.Opiates were given to people fighting in vietnam.
Most successfully kicked the habit upon return to the US.
> People i've seen take heroin, start off by smkoking it and the "majority" have ended up either dead, in and out of prison or just people you would not want anything to do with at all.I guess that is your experience.
Mine is different.
I know a number of people who used to be hard core and are now occasional. And a number of people who are solely occasional.> The majority of people who I know who drink, none of them ended up dead or in and out of prison because of alcohol.
Yeah. But the laws are different there. I know people who have died of alchohol related (caused) illnesses. Same with tobacco related. With respect to prison - thats because the laws are different. I do know someone in jail presently for drunk driving..
> Its fair to say that yes, some professional people do take heroin, some are doctors etc.. Out of all the people who use the drug though in developed countries, the majority have completley ruined their lives (i'm talking about long-term users) and also the lives of the people most close to them. Just because it would be legal and you could buy it in a shop, wouldn't mean that all the damage from the drug would stop over night, I think the damage would only increase more for those users at most risk from the drug.I'm not sure about that.
I think the damage comes because of the criminal association.
And I'm not sure that the majority of users are physically / psychologically addicted.> Alcohol and drink driving offences continue to rise...if alchol was illeagal would they be still rising at the rate they are now?
I think so.
> Smoking related diseases continue to rise, if smoking was illeagal, would they continue to rise at the rate as though they were legal?
I think so.
> Also the price of heroin has dropped massively over here in the uk for as little as 5 or 10 pound a hit.???
Then why are people ruining their lives by porning possessions etc for money for the next hit?? Is it that the price is reduced to start with in the attempt to create more regular customers???
Posted by Nickengland on June 7, 2005, at 10:05:00
In reply to Re: Decriminalisation would at least be step in right, posted by alexandra_k on June 6, 2005, at 23:59:12
>Nicotene. Nicotene is more addictive than opiates with respect to the percentages of how many people successfully give up.
The PHYSICAL withdrawal symptoms from opiates are no worse than a severe case of the flu. The PSYCHOLOGICAL withdrawal is worse for nicotene than it is for opiates.Are you saying the two are not in the same class??
If someone quits smoking, sure they go through some pretty bad psychological withdrawal symptoms...I think overall though the heroin user goes through worse withdrawal symtoms lol..have you seen Trainspotting?! The heroin user who relies on burgling peoples houses and mugging people, selling every posession they have, proves this case - as people who quit smoking do not go to such extream lengths to feed there habit. Regardless of whether heroin is legal or not, the drug remains the same.
I think ours views are somewhat different about the effects that drugs have on people, shows that New Zealand is better off than the UK with regards to the crime, scale and consumption of drugs used. From the C.I.A website of country profiles:
New Zealand
Disputes - international:asserts a territorial claim in Antarctica (Ross Dependency) [see Antarctica
(no mention of drugs)
In the UK however...
Illicit drugs:
producer of limited amounts of synthetic drugs and synthetic precursor chemicals; major consumer of Southwest Asian heroin, Latin American cocaine, and synthetic drugs; money-laundering centerAs you can see Drugs, and their problems are far worse here than in your country and so if you lived here and saw the destruction they have done then maybe your views would be different? Just goes to show how opinons can differ depending on where you live in the world i guess..
>I think the damage comes because of the criminal association.
I think the damage comes from the drug its self.
> Alcohol and drink driving offences continue to rise...if alchol was illeagal would they be still rising at the rate they are now?
I think so.
> Smoking related diseases continue to rise, if smoking was illeagal, would they continue to rise at the rate as though they were legal?
I think so.
So you have answered you're own question, with regards to some of the damage these drugs cause, would still continue to rise if heroin would be made legal.
>Yeah. But the laws are different there. I know people who have died of alchohol related (caused) illnesses. Same with tobacco related. With respect to prison - thats because the laws are different. I do know someone in jail presently for drunk driving..
I was talking about prison, with regards to the crime involved in obtaining money to feed a heroin habit eg 80 or 90% of burglaries over here are commited by heroin & crack addicts. (new zealand maybe different)
>Then why are people ruining their lives by porning possessions etc for money for the next hit?? Is it that the price is reduced to start with in the attempt to create more regular customers???
Yes masively reduced prices to start with to get you hooked. Sometimes the first samples will not even cost a penny..but as you want more the prices increases etc.. There was a report of given out freebies to school kids too if I remember corectly.
Overhere this is why I think if the goverment could tax heroin, we would undoubtly have the most expensive heroin in the world!..with regards to tax. Ciggarette smuggling here is BIG buesiness, people much prefer to buy cigarettes "illegally" for £2.50, through crime, than rather pay £5.00 and pay the tax man...it would be the same for smack too im sure. Tax here is a joke lol.
I wonder if for some countries it would better to stay illegal than it would others to make them legal? I mean like a poor African country compared to America?
Like I said before though, I'm not saying that perhaps all drugs should be kept illegal.Its how you get to the stage of making them legal is the toughest thing.
Re: my statement
The first issue, is in my opion to tackle organised crime related to drugs such as heroin cocaine cannabis etc.. This has to be a global effort and really the polititions who are closest to this effort are mostly corrupt...
How do you stop this? how do you stop columbian cocaine drug war lords? or Afgan heroin smugglers...because at the moment their profits and their empire is on the rise and its multi-billion $ business - and while they keep rising, the idea of making all drugs legal sinks even more...
Also with this, the current global situation is that goverments are trying to burn down and destroy coca fields, burn down and destroy opium crops. Why??..because surely they are trying to eradicate the drug from its source?..is this becuase they think the drug causes more harm in the world than it does good?
For example what does man-kind benefit from Crack?..Does crack make the world a better place and so the government should be telling people and our children that its right to smoke crack?...making something legal gives the message its ok as opposed to something that illegal is not ok.
How would you like to see crack made legal, the age limit for smoking here is 16, would this be the same for crack?
Posted by alexandra_k on June 8, 2005, at 3:37:15
In reply to Re: Decriminalisation would at least be step in right, posted by Nickengland on June 7, 2005, at 10:05:00
> >Nicotene. Nicotene is more addictive than opiates with respect to the percentages of how many people successfully give up.
> The PHYSICAL withdrawal symptoms from opiates are no worse than a severe case of the flu. The PSYCHOLOGICAL withdrawal is worse for nicotene than it is for opiates.
> Are you saying the two are not in the same class??I'm saying that there is a lot of hype about how 'bad' opiate withdrawal is. Its simply not that bad.
> If someone quits smoking, sure they go through some pretty bad psychological withdrawal symptoms...I think overall though the heroin user goes through worse withdrawal symtoms lol..have you seen Trainspotting?!Yes. And how was that worse than a severe case of the flu???? The flu is nasty, don't get me wrong. But it isn't the end of the world.
>The heroin user who relies on burgling peoples houses and mugging people, selling every posession they have, proves this case - as people who quit smoking do not go to such extream lengths to feed there habit.
People who quit smoking do not have to go to such extreme lengths to feed their habit.
Same with obtaining alchohol.
If they did...
I think they would.>Regardless of whether heroin is legal or not, the drug remains the same.
Sure. I guess I just don't think it is all that bad.
> >I think the damage comes because of the criminal association.> I think the damage comes from the drug its self.
Hmm.
> > Alcohol and drink driving offences continue to rise...if alchol was illeagal would they be still rising at the rate they are now?
> I think so.
> > Smoking related diseases continue to rise, if smoking was illeagal, would they continue to rise at the rate as though they were legal?
> I think so.My point there is that if you have a social problem resulting from a substance then making that substance illegal isnt' going to solve that social problem. In fact... IMO making it illegal is going to make that social problem worse because then you have the criminal element (and the associated crimes) to deal with too..
> So you have answered you're own question, with regards to some of the damage these drugs cause, would still continue to rise if heroin would be made legal.
No. I'm sorry but that doesn't follow from what I said at all. I was making a claim about the ineffectiveness of making something that is legal illegal in order to solve the social problem. That doesn't say anything at all about what will happen if you have a social problem with something that is illegal and you think you can solve the social problem by making it legal.
I think that making it legal AND providing more funds (via taxes on the substances) for education and rehabilitation will help with the social problem. That is the claim that I would like to make.
> I was talking about prison, with regards to the crime involved in obtaining money to feed a heroin habit eg 80 or 90% of burglaries over here are commited by heroin & crack addicts. (new zealand maybe different)And if heroin was more easily available then addicts would not have to resort to burglary
> Yes masively reduced prices to start with to get you hooked. Sometimes the first samples will not even cost a penny..but as you want more the prices increases etc.. There was a report of given out freebies to school kids too if I remember corectly.Yeah. Thats where if you legalise it there can be a standardised price. The tax from there can go into really cracking down on the illegal market. And there won't be such a demand for the illegal market if the substances are freely available legally anyway.
> Cigarette smuggling here is BIG buesiness, people much prefer to buy cigarettes "illegally" for £2.50, through crime, than rather pay £5.00 and pay the tax man...it would be the same for smack too im sure. Tax here is a joke lol.
Sure.
Thats a bit steep... We pay around $10NZ for a pack of 20's. I thought that was a bit steep...
> Its how you get to the stage of making them legal is the toughest thing.Yeah.
> For example what does man-kind benefit from Crack?..Does crack make the world a better place and so the government should be telling people and our children that its right to smoke crack?...making something legal gives the message its ok as opposed to something that illegal is not ok.
Breaking your promises is legal - but society does not think it is acceptable
Sleeping with everybody you meet is legal - but society does not think it is acceptable
F*rting in public is legal - but society does not think it is acceptable.Just because something isn't legal doesn't mean it is socially acceptable.
> How would you like to see crack made legal, the age limit for smoking here is 16, would this be the same for crack?Our smoking limit went up to 18
Our drinking limit is 18
At 18 you can get married without parental consent
Voting age is 18
Casino - 20.
I guess I'd say 18
To bring it into line with everything else...Except the casino... Which suprises me a little.
Posted by Nickengland on June 8, 2005, at 4:37:41
In reply to Re: Decriminalisation would at least be step in right » Nickengland, posted by alexandra_k on June 8, 2005, at 3:37:15
So governments around the world would first have to stop the war on drugs i.e stop buring opium and coca crops and stop the multi billion criminal drug business.
Then goverments would be re-growing the crops..Enter the world of Corporate Business as with the billions of dollars/pounds involved surely they would want there chunk of this. Then it would be floated on the stock exchange..hmm the thought of people investing in crack, so people can buy it, pay tax on it, then so the tax money can help to pay them detox from it? If thats the case why not just work to eradicate crack in the first place. I dont think i'd like my children to grow up where crack would readily available from the government and companies. However I think the governemnts can still afford the same detox treatment centres, they dont need the tax from the drug just to pay for that.
A quote from Albert Einstein springs to mind...
We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.
In America for example, would they then market Crack?...would it have a new brand name and adverts on tv for the finest smooth smoking crack rocks?Would you then get brand name accessories for a new crack pipe? How about a brand name strap for tieing round your arm for injecting heroin - this would have to come with a governnment warning that if you repeatedly inject the same vein, this vein will no longer work..in the most extream case some men resort to injecting their own penis!
Its just a switch, the criminals are no longer the drug dealers, the government and privite companys become the drug dealers...Would politians get the vote for this?..I think not and I guess that is why things like heroin and crack are illigal throughout the world.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 11, 2005, at 6:45:22
In reply to Re: Decriminalisation would at least be step in right, posted by Nickengland on June 8, 2005, at 4:37:41
> Enter the world of Corporate Business as with the billions of dollars/pounds involved surely they would want there chunk of this. Then it would be floated on the stock exchange..hmm the thought of people investing in crack, so people can buy it, pay tax on it, then so the tax money can help to pay them detox from it?
Heh heh. Yeah, I guess thats the general drift :-)
>If thats the case why not just work to eradicate crack in the first place.
Oh. Because it doesn't seem to be working, thats why. Even in countries where people risk capital punishment or a lifetime in prison it simply isn't working to deter people. So... I thought it might be time for a plan B...
>I dont think i'd like my children to grow up where crack would readily available from the government and companies. However I think the governemnts can still afford the same detox treatment centres, they dont need the tax from the drug just to pay for that.
Well... It isn't just about detox. Proper treatment programs are quite expensive. And education. A lot more money could be spent on that. On prevention of addiction and on information so that people can make more of an informed decision to use or not to use. And there are associated health risks. I figure us smokers are paying for our health insurance with the taxes we pay! If the govt is going to whinge about paying out to treat my cancer or whatever in however many years time they should think about how much smoking tax they have collected out of me over the years. The drugs should pay their own way with respect to education, research, detox, treatment, and associated health problems.
> In America for example, would they then market Crack?...would it have a new brand name and adverts on tv for the finest smooth smoking crack rocks?Thats not part of my idea. How is the tobacco industry doing over there? Are they still allowed to advertise?? We aren't allowed tobacco ads here in NZ. There used to be tobacco company sponsored events / sports etc too - but not anymore. I don't think advertising should be allowed. But education should be free. We have ads on TV and heaps of pamphlets and stuff on how to give up smoking, call the quitline, how to obtain gum and patches etc etc quitting tips. Take it outside so you don't force your children to inhale smoke passively.
Ads on binge drinking. NZ / Australia has a binge drinking culture. Thats probably why our drinking age is so low... And to be fair thats why we tend to go out in 'packs'. You rely on your mates to keep you safe and keep an eye on the drink spikers. Its a bit of a problem over here at the mo...
I'm not a drinker.
Drink driving ads
DRINK - DRIVE - DIE
The message is starting to get through
And even more effective
THEY DRINK - THEY DRIVE - WE DIEThe companies should have to pay for them.
The drugs should have to pay for themselves.I think we would have more luck controlling the social problem than trying to eradicate it.
Posted by Nickengland on June 11, 2005, at 13:57:54
In reply to Re: Decriminalisation would at least be step in right » Nickengland, posted by alexandra_k on June 11, 2005, at 6:45:22
Well some very interesting points on both sides of the argument...
It would take alot of guts for a country to try the idea of making all drugs legal, do you think New Zealand would do this in the near future?
I'm pretty sure over here they wouldn't have crack and heroin legal and ecstasy either. They down graded cannabis, its more or less ok to have it for personal use here now....but now there are some discussions going on about whether or not to up-grade back how it was before due to reports of psychosis links.
I think we've both made some pretty valid points...do you think you're ideas will happen for any given country in our life-time?
Kind regardsNick
Posted by alexandra_k on June 11, 2005, at 19:43:34
In reply to Re: Decriminalisation would at least be step in right, posted by Nickengland on June 11, 2005, at 13:57:54
> Well some very interesting points on both sides of the argument...
Yeah.
I haven't talked about this with anyone aside from my druggie mates who (fairly unsuprisingly) were all for it. It was an interesting conversation :-)
> It would take alot of guts for a country to try the idea of making all drugs legal, do you think New Zealand would do this in the near future?Yeah. It would take a lot of guts. I think decriminalisation on dope should be first. And... As a general strategy decriminalisation first - then think about the costs / benefits of legalisation. I don't think NZ will do this in the near future. We are still arguing about our present drinking age which was lowered to 18 and we are still looking at the mixed stats as to whether it is better there or how it was before at 20. Presently dope is a criminal offense. The cops fairly much turn a blind eye on personal use. Anything exceeding one ounce is considered to be dealing, though and things are a little harsher there.
I'd like to say that dope will be decriminalised here in the near future. But I don't know whether it will happen or not.
It was big on the agenda for the green party (environmentalists) last election. This is an election year, though, and I haven't heard much on it yet.
> I'm pretty sure over here they wouldn't have crack and heroin legal and ecstasy either.
Ecstasy was class B over here. Till people started dying of dehydration at dance parties. And dying of vomiting water at dance parties. Then it was upgraded to class A.
NOS is pretty big. There are NOS nightclubs. It is legal at present (no cases of death due to NOS). But one (fairly conservative) politician is wanting to crack down on that and make it illegal.
Our biggest drug problem is crystal meth. P. You can't even get speed anymore cause everyone is making P. And trips are hard to come by. They are controlling pseudoephedrine (dunno how to spell that) cold and flu tabs etc because people were making P out of them.
Ecstasy is big in Australia. It is pretty popular here too, but we pay a lot more for it.
>They down graded cannabis, its more or less ok to have it for personal use here now....but now there are some discussions going on about whether or not to up-grade back how it was before due to reports of psychosis links.
Ah. But usually psychosis occurs in people with pre-existing dx of psychotic disorders. Or in people with a family history of psychotic disorders. It is hard to know whether dope 'brings it out' or whether it would have come out by itself anyways.
Thanks for an interesting discussion :-)In our lifetime...
I hope to see dope legalised.
Or decrimanalised at the very least.
Posted by Nickengland on June 12, 2005, at 11:04:28
In reply to Re: Decriminalisation would at least be step in right » Nickengland, posted by alexandra_k on June 11, 2005, at 19:43:34
You are most welcome for the discussion :-)
I must thank you too, I very much enjoyed talking with you about a very interesting topic...I too have not really discussed this with other people, so it was very nice to talk about this with (from what I see) a highly intelligent person :-)
Its quite funny in a sense, it wasn't long ago that I was using more or less every drug under the sun on a regular basis LOL..i'm sure I would have wanted everything legalised then too!
Thanks again for a great discussion :-)
Take care
Nick
Posted by cockeyed on June 12, 2005, at 22:50:30
In reply to Marijuana-Should they legalize it??, posted by oilfan on May 31, 2005, at 20:24:08
legalize it! Then TAX the heck out of it... just like booze and ciggies. Nothing wrong with a fun tax and maybe...ah, just a pipe dream, maybe some good could be done. But then I'm a cockeyed optimist and a sucker for low puns. cockeyed.
Posted by Tom Twilight on June 13, 2005, at 11:52:29
In reply to Re: Decriminalisation would at least be step in right, posted by Nickengland on June 7, 2005, at 10:05:00
Hey Nick and Alexander
I have just read your debate, which is really interesting.
I have to say I think if it were up to me I would have every drug legal but controlled.
Nick made two points which I would like to respond to.
Firstly that 'Speed' (by which I assume you mean amphetamine) is a hard drug.
I personaly don't know if I would put stimulants in the same catagory as opiates.
Amphetamines can be addictive obviesly, but I took Dexedrine over a period of several months (with frequent days off) and didn't get addicted at all.
I fact I was able to discontinue with no taperMost doctors in the UK seem to assume that stimulents are addictive, but in my experience this does not have to be the case.
Secondly Nick mentioned several incidents of drug addicts doing terrible things to get fixes.
The problem with this is that in my opinion its not an argument for making drugs illegal; rather it shows that they should be made legal.
If the drugs that addicts crave were more easily available they would not have to resort to such desperate measures to obtain them.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 13, 2005, at 18:11:01
In reply to Legalise it all! (probably), posted by Tom Twilight on June 13, 2005, at 11:52:29
Hiya Tom :-)
> Firstly that 'Speed' (by which I assume you mean amphetamine) is a hard drug.
> I personaly don't know if I would put stimulants in the same catagory as opiates.
> Amphetamines can be addictive obviesly, but I took Dexedrine over a period of several months (with frequent days off) and didn't get addicted at all.
> I fact I was able to discontinue with no taperBut that is a mild form. This is (relatively) pure amphetamine. You get a bit about the size of a match head. You can mix it with glucose or whatever to make speed (apparantly) to snort it or shoot it, but typically people smoke it. A hit lasts about 8 hours. Then you start to feel flat and then down. Thats when you start to want to take another hit... People take it for a couple of days. You can't sleep on it. After about a week you show symptoms that are indistinguishable from paranoid schizophrenia. People have been known to attack others out of paranoia. It is fairly addictive - though not as addictive as crack apparantly.
I used to take a fair bit of speed. We'd get a bag and take some every eight hours until it was all gone. It would last us a couple days. But then: thats all folks, we would not get another bag for a month or two. The withdrawal took 3 or 4 days. Runny nose, constipation, feeling flat and down and drained. Bit like a bad cold. I guess what is so hard about physical withdrawal is that you know that all symptoms will cease upon taking just one more hit...
> If the drugs that addicts crave were more easily available they would not have to resort to such desperate measures to obtain them.
I agree :-)
Posted by alexandra_k on June 13, 2005, at 18:11:48
In reply to Re: Marijuana-Should they legalize it??, posted by cockeyed on June 12, 2005, at 22:50:30
> ...ah, just a pipe dream,
:-)
Good one.
Posted by ed_uk on June 13, 2005, at 20:23:13
In reply to Re: Decriminalisation would at least be step in right, posted by Nickengland on June 12, 2005, at 11:04:28
Hi Nick!
>.........do you think you're ideas will happen for any given country in our life-time?
As far as I know, it's legal to possess any drug in Portugal - but it's not legal to sell them.
'Until July 1, 2001, drug use, possession, and acquisition in Portugal were punishable by penalties up to 3 months in prison or a fine for small quantities. For amounts that exceeded a three-day supply, the penalty was up to a year in prison or a fine. Then in April 2001 a Regulation Decree was adopted and led to the implementation of the November 2000 law, Law 30/2000. On July 1, 2001, Law 30/2000 took effect in Portugal, decriminalizing drug use, possession and acquisition for the "casual" user as well as the addict.
While drug use, possession, and acquisition are still illicit activities in Portugal, these acts have been decriminalized. Acts that could once bring a prison sentence of three months to a year will now result in the confiscation of the illicit substance and a referral, not to a trial, but to a three-person commission to evaluate the offender. Under this new law, non-addicts may receive monetary fines or other penalties, while addicts will only receive non-monetary penalties. The three-person commission will most likely consist of a lawyer, a doctor, and a social assistant to evaluate the individual's level of addiction and recommend treatment options with the goal of rehabilitating the offender. Administrative sanctions may be used, but are not the primary objective of this new law. This new law did not legalize drug use, but removed criminal penalties for use, possession, and acquisition for all illicit drugs in quantities up to a 10-day supply.'
Kind regards,
Ed.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.