# Is the war on drugs really worth it? (Latest news from Mexico and Bolivia)



## Zepp88 (Oct 5, 2008)

Drug violence kills at least 49 in Tijuana this week - CNN.com
Instabiity and widespread violence in Mexico.

Bolivia doesn't need U.S. anti-drug aid, leader says - CNN.com
Crumbling relations with Bolivia

And our issues at home with gangs fed by drug money.

Is it really worth it? All of the fighting, death, and money spent on combating a losing battle against the drug trade? 

Does anybody remember what the L.A. gangs were like BEFORE the illegal drug trade?

Open ended discussion here, no glorifications of your personal drug experiences please, lets stick to the question posed. Do you think that we would be better off if drugs like Crack/Cocaine, Heroin, Marijauna, and LSD were legal, or only certain ones? And why?


----------



## newamerikangospel (Oct 5, 2008)

Its a slippery slope when it comes to stuff like this. In my opinion, the war on drugs is only a "losing battle" because of all the gaps (bad cops taking payoffs/outs and letting it happen, inconsistent punishments ect). I think its a worth while cause, but due to the nature humanity, I doubt it will ever be "won".

Just think about how bad it would be if we just stopped patrolling/fighting it


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 5, 2008)

I wonder about that, how bad it would be if the "war" ended. I personally don't think it would be that bad with proper education. But when I see these headlines about the big drug cartels and the big gang violence all centered around controlling their drug trade I.E. MONEY it makes me wonder that if drugs were suddenly legal and freely available, would this activity plummet? Would more people develop drug problems? And if there is regulation, where do we draw the line?


----------



## newamerikangospel (Oct 5, 2008)

Zepp88 said:


> I wonder about that, how bad it would be if the "war" ended. I personally don't think it would be that bad with proper education. But when I see these headlines about the big drug cartels and the big gang violence all centered around controlling their drug trade I.E. MONEY it makes me wonder that if drugs were suddenly legal and freely available, would this activity plummet? Would more people develop drug problems? And if there is regulation, where do we draw the line?



Well, the war on drugs is essentially a battle in the overall scheme of the war on organized crime. Look at the late 1800's early 1900s when there was no "war on ___" (the new york gangs for example) and realize that we have no where near the issues that happened in those days of laxed "policing".


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 5, 2008)

newamerikangospel said:


> Well, the war on drugs is essentially a battle in the overall scheme of the war on organized crime. Look at the late 1800's early 1900s when there was no "war on ___" (the new york gangs for example) and realize that we have no where near the issues that happened in those days of laxed "policing".



Great point there, and any long time gang member will tell you that it's not going away, organised crime will stick around. But, lets look at prohibition.

In the early 1900s during prohibition the illegal alcohol trade funded the gangs then and gave them money and control over the cities much like the gangs today have with illegal drugs, when prohibition ended those gangs started to loose control and die out, but still gangs didn't completely go away.


----------



## JBroll (Oct 5, 2008)

How is it a "worthwhile cause" to take people's rights away for no reason? 

Nobody has any business to stop any behavior that isn't harming others. Period. 

Sure, you may want to argue that drugs make people more violent or prone to theft or all orders of other nonsense, but there the wrongdoing itself wouldn't be the drugs - it would be the violence or theft or whatever else may come up.

Are people these little bugs floating around just waiting to be arbitrarily governed without rhyme or reason, or are they entities capable of making their own decisions? When you answer this question with 'yes', you're not exactly acting on the second belief.

The war on drugs makes more problems than it could possibly solve, and is inherently hypocritical and incomplete. There are plenty of legal 'drugs' that are not 'safer' or 'better' or 'cleaner' - they're just 'traditional' and 'accepted' and, most of all, 'taxed'. Will it ever be won? If you consider winning to be eradicating drugs, fuck no! People get what people want, period. This only encourages drug trade by making it more dangerous - and as a result more profitable. Is it morally sound? Unless you hate the thought of people having rights and control over their own lives, not at all. Is it worth the billions of dollars spent that could be going to science, or arts, or maybe feeding billions of fucking people? Good luck saying yes and keeping a straight face there.

Jeff


----------



## JBroll (Oct 5, 2008)

newamerikangospel said:


> Just think about how bad it would be if we just stopped patrolling/fighting it



Yeah, because the people already addicted to *legal* drugs are running around looting and murdering for their fix. How often do you see gang wars over cigarettes?

Jeff


----------



## All_¥our_Bass (Oct 5, 2008)

It's stupid. You should not be able to tell someone what they can and cannot do to their body, as long as they don't hurt/bother anyone, I don't see any problem with it.
Though I do admit to having a large ammount of bitter, disgusting disdain for 'laboratory' and/or highly addictive street drugs (meth, crack, inhalents, ,heroin, etc.) but I don't have to do those if I don't want to.


----------



## hairychris (Oct 5, 2008)

Prohibition makes the rewards higher.... that's always a problem.

Not saying whether it's right or wrong but just look at how organized crime profits from it.


----------



## newamerikangospel (Oct 6, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Yeah, because the people already addicted to *legal* drugs are running around looting and murdering for their fix. How often do you see gang wars over cigarettes?
> 
> Jeff





Well, cigarettes aren't illegal in prison, and they are a bartering/currency system. 


And at your previous statement, look at say

The native american "manifest destiny" campaign
The Holocaust
The current darfur situation
The crusades
The salem witch hunts

Those are just a few of what "rational, and cognitive" people do. 

Coal mining is legal, but look at the pre-union days. It was a mob mentallity over a simple product. They killed families, black listed several workers, ect.

I beleive its a men in black quote, but its eomthing on the lines of "A person is smart, and rational. People are stupid and prone to panic". Its fun to compare sociological findings to those of psychological findings, and theories.


----------



## gaunten (Oct 6, 2008)

you know, we could discuss all we want here about the "war" being wrong or right, but just imagine the first politician suggesting that "hey guys, let's legalize all drugs!"
first imagine the reaction his fellow politicians get.
then imagine the reaction of common man, who really doesn't know anything about drugs.
then imagine how many would listen to his explanation to why (which, if he's read his homework, should be enough to convince anyone)

no matter how much it would help a country, the economy, and everything, the fact still stands that there are too many people, and politicians who just shut down their ears when you mention legalization. just because it is, and always have been "wrong" and "dangerous" and "must" be illegal with drugs, much because they've been told this since they came out of their mother...
I don't like it, but I'm afraid that's the truth... (I could be wrong of course, and maybe everyone secretly want's it to be legal, but... I doubt it.)

myself? I'm not sure of how much, if any regulations we should have, I've thought a lot about it lately, since my GF has some trouble with some lighter drugs (amfetamin, benzo, hashish) and she has finally started realizing her problems, and is currently going to some NA meetings, and will soon hopefully go to rehab for a while.
she realized this all by herself, and she has had no contact with the police or anything. which feels good, in case she wants to get a job later on...


----------



## MorbidTravis (Oct 6, 2008)

i voted yes.
drugs screw you up.
and its like that girl from last night.
its not worth it.
plus its a waste of money.
i dont think its as bad as getting high off of choking your self but still. they dont contribute anything good.


----------



## Jason (Oct 6, 2008)

See the problem is (potheads) are normally the ones who run around saying "Oh you can't tell peopel what they can and can't do" I think the should leagalize alot of drugs but do you really want anyone to be able to get meth or heroin at Cvs?


----------



## MorbidTravis (Oct 6, 2008)

well they say that now, but after a while when their kids start doing it, they dont like it. most people any way.


----------



## JBroll (Oct 6, 2008)

newamerikangospel said:


> And at your previous statement, look at say
> 
> The native american "manifest destiny" campaign
> The Holocaust
> ...



Wait, what the fucking fuck? If you think those are rational you're missing some essential part of reason. In fact, those are perfect examples of things that were popular among many people and restricted (and destroyed) lives, and were later found to be full of fail. If you're using completely borken starting points, like 'Jews are evil' and 'those people different from us need to die', maybe it's rational to proceed to those events, but the starting points are irrational and evil. 



MorbidTravis said:


> well they say that now, but after a while when their kids start doing it, they dont like it. most people any way.



Way to generalize and miss the point. If your kid is about to run across traffic, or put his hand on the stove, or anything that could possibly cause injury before the kid is able to consider all outcomes and make an informed decision, you'll stop that from happening. If someone is capable of making an informed decision, though, it is their right provided they don't hurt others.



Jason said:


> I think the should leagalize alot of drugs but do you really want anyone to be able to get meth or heroin at Cvs?



Yes. It's their choice.

If drug users don't hurt someone else, who the fuck are we to stop them?

If drug users do hurt someone else, then prosecute them for that and quit letting people try to evade personal responsibility by blaming the drugs they chose to take in the first place.

Jeff


----------



## D-EJ915 (Oct 6, 2008)

Most people who are for the legalization of drugs have never seen the hardcore stuff. I hate pot because it smells disgusting and it tars up MY system like tobacco does not because of what it does to you mentally.

I know mexico has a huuuuge problem with drug trafficking to the US and it's just utterly ridiculous so I'm not entirely sure what to say about that except it reminds me of the mob in the 30s or whenever that was.


----------



## JBroll (Oct 6, 2008)

D-EJ915 said:


> Most people who are for the legalization of drugs have never seen a meth head or heroine addict.



Hell of a generalization, sitting right on what seems to be an implied appeal to 'omgzorz we have to save them from themselves!'. I don't have any interest in using these drugs (nicotine and caffeine are enough for me) but that doesn't mean I should say nobody else can use them.

Jeff


----------



## MorbidTravis (Oct 6, 2008)

the drug user has the capability of hurting someone else and not even know it.


----------



## JBroll (Oct 6, 2008)

MorbidTravis said:


> the drug user has the capability of hurting someone else and not even know it.



Yes, and you prosecute the drug user for hurting someone else in that case. What's so hard about that?

Sober people can hurt others without even knowing it, too. They get penalized for it. It's that simple. The crime is hurting others, and nothing - drug use included - should excuse it. You're indirectly trying to blame the drugs, but using the drugs was a choice, and it is possible to use drugs without hurting others, so at the end of the day either they don't hurt someone (and then they've done nothing wrong) or they do hurt someone (and then they're in deep shit) and they only have themselves to blame in the first place.

Jeff


----------



## MorbidTravis (Oct 6, 2008)

they could also kill.
you cant bring people from the dead.
and im talking about physical hurt, not mental.


----------



## arktan (Oct 6, 2008)

MorbidTravis said:


> the drug user has the capability of hurting someone else and not even know it.



The drug user is aware of the effects the drugs cause before he takes them and mostly it's alcohol that makes people aggressive and not other stuff. 
I rarely hear about people who are high on hard stuff that hurt people.
So by your logic we should forbid alcohol aswell and history taught us where it leads.


----------



## MorbidTravis (Oct 6, 2008)

ya it should. alcohol is bad, but some alcolhol (red wine) can be good.


----------



## JBroll (Oct 6, 2008)

MorbidTravis said:


> they could also kill.
> you cant bring people from the dead.
> and im talking about physical hurt, not mental.



And so can sober people. Quit trying to blame the drugs. I'm talking about all kinds of hurt and it's not like drugs are the ONLY thing that hurt people.

Obviously banning drugs isn't stopping drug-related murders and you'll have a hard case to make if you try to argue that the war on drugs isn't ruining more lives than the drugs would, thanks to the danger of organized crime.

You're turning them into a scapegoat, when the real approach to solving the issue takes far more than pointing fingers.

Jeff


----------



## JBroll (Oct 6, 2008)

MorbidTravis said:


> ya it should.



Have you ever heard of history? That didn't work and it killed more people (who can't be brought back from the dead) than alcohol itself did.

Jeff


----------



## MorbidTravis (Oct 6, 2008)

how did history kill people?


----------



## JBroll (Oct 6, 2008)

Prohibition in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jeff


----------



## MorbidTravis (Oct 6, 2008)

please tell me, how are drugs good?


----------



## JBroll (Oct 6, 2008)

You're missing the point.

Freedom is good. Freedom is awesome. Restricting freedom arbitrarily is bad.

You're coming from the perspective of "Why should this be legal?" and I'm coming from "Why should it be forbidden?". One of these two viewpoints leads to tyranny.

Drugs can be good and it all depends on the user. Hell, anything can be bad, and if you'd like to contend that drugs never produce any good, I'm going to have to quote Bill Hicks at you:



Bill Hicks said:


> If you don't believe drugs have done good things for us, then go home and burn all your records, all your tapes, and all your CDs because every one of those artists who have made brilliant music and enhanced your lives? RrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrEAL fucking high on drugs. The Beatles were so fucking high they let Ringo sing a few songs.



Jeff


----------



## arktan (Oct 6, 2008)

EDIT: damn, Jeff was faster


----------



## MorbidTravis (Oct 6, 2008)

so, should burn my beethoven?outworld? because they were on drugs while recording?


----------



## JBroll (Oct 6, 2008)

Actually, Beethoven did abuse opium and alcohol. Don't know about Outworld specifically but if you took the influence of drugs out of modern music you wouldn't have anything.

Jeff


----------



## arktan (Oct 6, 2008)

MorbidTravis said:


> so, should burn my beethoven?outworld? because they were on drugs while recording?



No, but the Dime-Dean in your profile pic , Dime wasn't abstinent either.



JBroll said:


> Actually, Beethoven did abuse opium and alcohol.



Yeah, Opiumtinktur. It was quite common among doctors, artists and other dudes at that time. I think the Danish one was famous, they made it with akvavit... 

But now back on topic: The war on drugs can't be won. The reason is pretty simple: As long as humans fight it there will always be corruption. Theoretically one could win that war against drugs if the factor "human" is being taken out of the equation. War on drugs is like communism, in theory it works, in reality it's fucked up.

EDIT: Wow, this sounded just a wee bit too determined.  I don't want to block the discussion, i'm still open for other viewpoints. Who knows, maybe there is something i don't see?


----------



## MorbidTravis (Oct 6, 2008)

i dont really like dime. i love the guitar. i dont think he was abusing drugs to make a nice playing guitar.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Oct 6, 2008)

MorbidTravis said:


> so, should burn my beethoven?outworld? because they were on drugs while recording?



No, keep them. All to their own. Let people do what they want.


----------



## JBroll (Oct 6, 2008)

Actually, arktan, I think you've broken it own in a different way than I'd do it.

Some people want drugs. These people will get drugs. Period.

If you made it illegal to get hit by a bus, bus-hitting rates wouldn't go down because nobody wants that anyway - but ban drugs, sex, The Sopranos, music, or anything else that people want and at least some people will illegally get their fix anyway. Increasing legislation or resources allotted will not stop everyone. Increasing legislation or resources will, however, cause other problems down the road (costing a great deal of money and tying up jail cells and law officers, making it easier for people who have actually hurt others to slip by, and creating a dangerous black market that causes arguably more problems than the worst of drugs could ever hope to) and we can see those problems here.

Jeff


----------



## arktan (Oct 6, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Actually, arktan, I think you've broken it own in a different way than I'd do it.
> 
> Some people want drugs. These people will get drugs. Period.
> 
> ...



That's exactly what i think too... where did i break it? 
You know, i'm not a native english speaker


----------



## JBroll (Oct 6, 2008)

You said something about corruption, which to me sounds like it's a problem with government enforcement and not human nature itself. Anyway, that's the way I see it.

Jeff


----------



## MorbidTravis (Oct 6, 2008)

so you're not even looking at the fact that drugs are bad, just that we live in a free country but we aren't free to do what we please?


----------



## JBroll (Oct 6, 2008)

Fact? That's what you've been trying - and failing - to prove. I don't think they're bad. And I think you have a massive claim to prove if you're going to call that a fact.

Jeff


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Oct 6, 2008)

MorbidTravis said:


> so you're not even looking at the fact that drugs are bad, just that we live in a free country but we aren't free to do what we please?



Someone who does acid once for the experiance is really different from the guy that does it to escape his issues. Drugs are only bad if you use them for another reason other than for the XP.


----------



## MorbidTravis (Oct 6, 2008)

lowering your brain temperature, changing your blood pressue too fast isnt a good thing. no why would you do drugs to escape your issues? i play guitar and WoW to escape my issues.
and you never answered my question jeff.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Oct 6, 2008)

MorbidTravis said:


> lowering your brain temperature, changing your blood pressue too fast isnt a good thing. no why would you do drugs to escape your issues? i play guitar and WoW to escape my issues.
> and you never answered my question jeff.



Running from a problem isnt a very good way of dealing with it.


----------



## MorbidTravis (Oct 6, 2008)

how is taking drugs dealing with your problem? they have nothing to do with it.


----------



## JBroll (Oct 6, 2008)

That's not usually why they're done. People enjoy them, get positive experiences from them, and do great things with them (everything from music to mathematics), and trying to pretend that they're a bad thing just because you say they're bad is silly. You can play WoW and guitar. Merry Fucking Christmas. That doesn't mean nobody else should be able to do other things. You shouldn't decide what other people can and can't do - there's a big difference between 'you enjoy it' and 'everyone else should enjoy it and never need anything else', and that statement is just a distraction from the real issues.

So to answer your "question", yes I am looking at freedom as the key issue here and maintain that everyone capable of making responsible decisions has the right to do anything that doesn't hurt others. I thought that was fairly obvious, and your "question" only restated your assumption from the beginning while trying to paint me as the bad guy.

Jeff


----------



## JBroll (Oct 6, 2008)

MorbidTravis said:


> how is taking drugs dealing with your problem? they have nothing to do with it.



You have no idea what you're talking about. You are quite clearly unable to comprehend that other people would want to make different choices, and until that is fixed you're contributing nothing to this. Your questions have been answered but you have no more understanding of the issues than a third-grader would get from a Nixon-era propaganda film.

Jeff


----------



## MorbidTravis (Oct 6, 2008)

drugs take a toll on your body, idk about you, but i dont want to force my heart to race or force my brain temperature down for "positive expirience"


----------



## JBroll (Oct 6, 2008)

You seem to be assuming that if something has a negative effect then it can't have any positive effects.

Sex makes your heart rate go up. Guess we've ruled that out. Sleep makes your brain temperature go down. Whoops.

People should be able to choose what risks they take in their own life.

Legalizing drugs won't force you to use them. Grow up and think for once.

Jeff


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Oct 6, 2008)

MorbidTravis said:


> drugs take a toll on your body, idk about you, but i dont want to force my heart to race or force my brain temperature down for "positive expirience"



What qualifies as a positive experiance for you is different from what qualifies as a good experiance for me. Lets look at how you play WoW. I have a few friends that have dropped out of school to play more WoW  Does this mean nobody should be allowed to play WoW at all? The same thing is applicible to drug use. Sure you can use drugs casually all you want, but too much of ANYTHING is a bad thing.


----------



## arktan (Oct 6, 2008)

MorbidTravis said:


> drugs take a toll on your body, idk about you, but i dont want to force my heart to race or force my brain temperature down for "positive expirience"



You not and you don't have to. If you don't want to take drugs then you don't have to, that's absolutely fine. Look, even i wouldn't touch the hard stuff but the effects of drugs are (so it seems to me) not the key question in this thread (Zepp, please correct me if i'm wrong). And you seem to have a pretty propaganda-influenced view on this whole thing. It seems almost religious to me.

The question was if it were better to stop the war on drugs and take other measures if i'm not mistaken.


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 6, 2008)

It's not really meant to discuss pros and cons of use, but mainly to talk about the cost of controlling drugs they way that we're doing it.

I'd rather avoid the "I like pretty colors!" posts, or the "Drug users are unmotivated losers" posts.

Travis has completely missed the point unfortunately.


----------



## MorbidTravis (Oct 6, 2008)

JBroll said:


> You seem to be assuming that if something has a negative effect then it can't have any positive effects.
> 
> Sex makes your heart rate go up. Guess we've ruled that out. Sleep makes your brain temperature go down. Whoops.
> 
> ...



your looking at it the wrong way.
if you, you just listed natural, healthy ways.
when i says force, im saying that it does it faster than it should.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Oct 6, 2008)

Stealthtastic said:


> What qualifies as a positive experiance for you is different from what qualifies as a good experiance for me. Lets look at how you play WoW. I have a few friends that have dropped out of school to play more WoW  Does this mean nobody should be allowed to play WoW at all? The same thing is applicible to drug use. Sure you can use drugs casually all you want, but too much of ANYTHING is a bad thing.



 Read it travis

And i didnt realize your signature was say no to drugs.


----------



## JBroll (Oct 6, 2008)

You say that as if drugs were unnatural and had no positive health effects. You're already failing at the discussion, no use screwing it into a semantics discussion.

Long story short *nothing* is without its risks. First, you need to accept the *fact* that other people will want to do different things than you. Second, you need to stop assuming that something with bad side effects cannot be good. Third, you need to explain why something should be banned in a logical and reasonable way - keep in mind that this may require logic and reason.

Jeff


----------



## MorbidTravis (Oct 6, 2008)

its supposed to say that and have the metal against drugs logo under it.
i dont play WoW as a life style, i might play an hour aday and during nights wheni cant play guitar cuz its too late.
it helps relieve stress.
your friend how ever has a serious addiction problem.
if i play WoW once, im not going to drop out of school.
if i do cocaine once, im going to most likely get addicted to it and my heart will be beating at an unhealthy rate.


----------



## MorbidTravis (Oct 6, 2008)

JBroll said:


> You say that as if drugs were unnatural and had no positive health effects. You're already failing at the discussion, no use screwing it into a semantics discussion.
> 
> Long story short *nothing* is without its risks. First, you need to accept the *fact* that other people will want to do different things than you. Second, you need to stop assuming that something with bad side effects cannot be good. Third, you need to explain why something should be banned in a logical and reasonable way - keep in mind that this may require logic and reason.
> 
> Jeff



what good side effects do drugs have? besides your personal expiriences.


----------



## JBroll (Oct 6, 2008)

MorbidTravis said:


> if i do cocaine once, im going to most likely get addicted to it and my heart will be beating at an unhealthy rate.



Congratulations! You know nothing!



MorbidTravis said:


> what good side effects do drugs have? besides your personal expiriences.



1: I don't know what you're trying to imply, but I have no 'personal experiences' with anything but caffeine (which is a vitamin for mathematicians) and nicotine.

2: Many of them give serious benefits to creativity and productivity - we've already established quite a bit about music, for example.

Paul Erdos, one of the most important mathematicians of the 20th century, was a serious amphetamine user. He is also the most published (by paper count) mathematician in history. A colleague once bet him that he could not stop using amphetamines for a month; not only did he succeed, he later told the same colleague that he had set mathematics behind a month. And he was probably right.

Richard Feynman, one of the most important physicists of the 20th century, spoke positively of his experience with psilocybin.

If you count caffeine as a drug, the joke goes that 'mathematicians are devices that turn coffee into theorems'.

Jeff


----------



## gaunten (Oct 6, 2008)

travis, you've still missed the point of this thread, the thing is, we all know that the harder drugs such as heroin, cocaine, etc, are "bad" for you (in most aspects). the kind of people who try these drugs and get addicted to them are most likely to do so regardless of whether they're legal or not. the difference is, if it'd be legal there'd be a lot less off the gangrelated crime, dealer killings etc. because it would be easy to get your hands on it legally. then of course, governments could put more money into informing people the dangers of different drugs, and also, better rehab.
I think it'd be a lot cheaper than this controlfreak society we live in (well, most of us) and save more lives than the way it is now.
also, the more countries it's legal in, the more trouble the other countries will have with smuggling, so the best would be a worldwide legalization 
to quote some man I saw on youtube a while back, with good argumentations:
"drugs shouldn't be legalized because they're not dangerous, but because they are dangerous"

edit: it's been a blast watching this thread so far, and it'll be even more fun watching it evolve


----------



## Drow Swordsman (Oct 6, 2008)

MorbidTravis said:


> its supposed to say that and have the metal against drugs logo under it.
> i dont play WoW as a life style, i might play an hour aday and during nights wheni cant play guitar cuz its too late.
> it helps relieve stress.
> your friend how ever has a serious addiction problem.
> ...



1) Cocaine is NOT strongly addictive on the first try. Schools would be HARASSED by parents if they told you otherwise, not that I've tried it myself.

2) You mean your heart rate has NEVER increased from playing a video game? Something un-natural? When you're in a PVP, or a tough raid, and you're about to die, you don't get slightly upset? Let's face it, it happens, you get excited when you're doing good, or you get excited (negatively) when you're doing poorly and about to die. This INCREASES your heart rate, "unhealthily" as you might put it because it is your reaction to the game that is causing it, not nature.

What's the difference between someone smoking a joint, having a few twinkies, and watching say "Dazed and Confused" to relieve stress for a few hours and you playing WoW for a few hours to relieve stress? As MANY have said, YOU will never have to try it as long as you don't want to, legal or not. 

You sound like a brainwashed 5th grader who just passed DARE, to be honest.

Also, whoever mentioned someone would ever use LSD to escape their problems is WAY amiss. If someone was ever in emotional stress, and used LSD, they would be too scared shitless from the experience to ever use it again, same goes for psilocybin.


----------



## newamerikangospel (Oct 6, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Wait, what the fucking fuck? If you think those are rational you're missing some essential part of reason. In fact, those are perfect examples of things that were popular among many people and restricted (and destroyed) lives, and were later found to be full of fail. If you're using completely borken starting points, like 'Jews are evil' and 'those people different from us need to die', maybe it's rational to proceed to those events, but the starting points are irrational and evil.
> 
> Jeff



My point was, technically the same group of "rational" and "non floating bugs" people, were technicians or pawns in the the game of life examples I gave you.

I personally, while never have done/plan on doing them, have no problem with "naturally occuring" intoxicants, such as "weed", peyote, or "mushrooms". But meth and acid are made with household cleaner. And im not talking about the cheap stuff, I mean all of it has some sort of chemical that is lethal to you. Look at Amy Whinehouse. I doubt she didn't get "top notch" drugs. Moonshine is illegal, some of it is fiscal (lack of ability to tax, regulate it, ect), but also because a bad batch can blind you, or kill you. 

Absinthe isn't illegal in the united states because they cant tax it, but because people were going nuts and decapitating their pregnant wifes. And im referring to "real" absinthe, not the odoules absinth you can buy, that has no wormwood in it.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Oct 6, 2008)

Drow Swordsman said:


> 1) Cocaine is NOT strongly addictive on the first try. Schools would be HARASSED by parents if they told you otherwise, not that I've tried it myself.
> 
> 2) You mean your heart rate has NEVER increased from playing a video game? Something un-natural? When you're in a PVP, or a tough raid, and you're about to die, you don't get slightly upset? Let's face it, it happens, you get excited when you're doing good, or you get excited (negatively) when you're doing poorly and about to die. This INCREASES your heart rate, "unhealthily" as you might put it because it is your reaction to the game that is causing it, not nature.
> 
> ...



What i said about LSD was that i know some people that used/use LCD to get away from there problems which only makes them worse; but then i also know people that just use it for the experience. Anyways i agree with everything your wrote.


----------



## JBroll (Oct 6, 2008)

newamerikangospel said:


> My point was, technically the same group of "rational" and "non floating bugs" people, were technicians or pawns in the the game of life examples I gave you.



The people behind those events were power-hungry bastards and mindless loons. There's no other way around it. An essential part of reason is examining every axiom and assumption and eliminating as many as possible - something strangely absent from those events.

Jeff


----------



## daybean (Oct 6, 2008)

i think it is. its not a "war" that is ever going to END but at least you can semi-control a epidemic that would get so much worse than we can even imagine.


----------



## daybean (Oct 6, 2008)

Also, on the violence thing, people will always die by the hundreds each year. Smugglers and their drug cartels fight for territory and power.


----------



## JBroll (Oct 6, 2008)

daybean said:


> i think it is. its not a "war" that is ever going to END but at least you can semi-control a epidemic that would get so much worse than we can even imagine.



Really? It may look okay in some nice places but it's the root of a great deal of organized crime much more ruthless than any chemical people buy on the black market and it causes overfilling in our prison system that puts more dangerous people than Cheech and Chong back on the streets. Nothing about it seems at all controlled, and it's impossible to ignore the damage it's done already to people who never wished to be associated with it - whereas those who would be wrecked by drugs at least had a choice to start off with.

Jeff


----------



## daybean (Oct 6, 2008)

well maybe i used the word semi-controlled loosely. my main point was that I dont think the governemt should stop trying.


----------



## JBroll (Oct 6, 2008)

But what gives them the right and order to attempt it?

Jeff


----------



## Drow Swordsman (Oct 6, 2008)

daybean said:


> i think it is. its not a "war" that is ever going to END but at least you can semi-control a epidemic that would get so much worse than we can even imagine.



With marijuana and all other kinds of drugs being legal until I believe the early 1900's, you didn't really see a recreational spike in usage until much later on, after they became illegal. Now, plenty of synthetic drugs hadn't been made yet, but most of the natural ones didn't have a lot of usage recreationally, mostly spiritually I'd say in the case of peyote with native americans.

Did making them illegal CAUSE more people to use them? It's hard to say.

EDIT: And on TOP of this, legalizing all drugs would allow serious drug users to be treated as health cases, not criminals, if they wanted to be helped. Not everyone wants to be helped, that can be seen with alcoholism all the time, and that's their choice.


----------



## daybean (Oct 6, 2008)

Lady Justice 

j/k


----------



## daybean (Oct 6, 2008)

i dont really know, zepp asked the question and i gave my twp cents. i dont think weed is a bad drug, i just think it has gotten a bad rap because of some stupid movies and stupid people.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Oct 6, 2008)

MorbidTravis said:


> how is taking drugs dealing with your problem? they have nothing to do with it.



Thanks for the neg rep travis, you really are a dick


----------



## Aaron (Oct 7, 2008)

"It's not a war on drugs, its a war on personal treatment okay, keep that in mind at all times, thank you"


----------



## El Caco (Oct 7, 2008)

The war on drugs is not working. I think some of the most intelligent recommendations on drug control I have seen have been made on this board in previous threads. I agree with Jeff regarding freedom, I'm an adult capable of making my own informed decisions, I choose not to use certain substances but I think in a free society that should be my choice not someone else's.

I would like to see the current war dropped in favour of the type of regulation suggested in previous threads. I think the government should give people the freedom to choose to do drugs but regulate and tax drugs appropriately, if they put that money back into education, medicine and law enforcement the situation can only improve.


----------



## arktan (Oct 7, 2008)

s7eve said:


> I would like to see the current war dropped in favour of the type of regulation suggested in previous threads. I think the government should give people the freedom to choose to do drugs but regulate and tax drugs appropriately, if they put that money back into education, medicine and law enforcement the situation can only improve.



Words of wisdom. 



It would be interesting to see what the drugwar costs in numbers (not only financially). Is there any official statistic that shows the expenses in lifes and other things vs the potential benefit? I searched for it but couldn't find it on a quick search and since i'm at work i can't start a full blown research on this.
Does anyone have some concrete numbers?


----------



## petereanima (Oct 7, 2008)

s7eve said:


> I would like to see the current war dropped in favour of the type of regulation suggested in previous threads. I think the government should give people the freedom to choose to do drugs but regulate and tax drugs appropriately, if they put that money back into education, medicine and law enforcement the situation can only improve.



thats a great point and the same i would say. the point why this unfortunately will never happen is the "mafia" respectively the money that is behind the whole drug-business. they will never let this happen, and as long as enough politicians are corrupt they wont have a problem.


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 7, 2008)

Aaron said:


> "It's not a war on drugs, its a war on personal treatment okay, keep that in mind at all times, thank you"



Personal *FREEDOM*, not treatment. Misquoting Bill Hicks is a sin.


----------



## gaunten (Oct 7, 2008)

as much as I agree with s7eve, arktan and Jbroll, I have been thinking of a few things lately, first off, the most used drugs today are: Taddaa, the legal ones, alcohol and tobacco/nicotine (and caffeine if you count that) probably much because they're legal.
if we were to legalize all drugs, what says that they won't be much more used?
and as always, it is as you say always your own choice, but,
the other thing I've been thinking of is this: how many normally educated and normally intelligent persons start smoking at say, 20?
not many I think, most start out at a very low age, say 14-16, when they don't really know, or care about the risks, and it mostly comes down to Peer pressure.
now, it takes about 3-10 cigarretes to get pretty much very addicted (depending on person, and circumstances) 
Imagine if all the drugs were legal, it would be much easier for kids to get their hands on it, and they aren't as much able to make an "educated" choice as we are, they go much by what they're friends tell them, and some will surely do it as some kind of rebellion against their school, parents or whatever.
sure, it aint exactly hard for kids to get their hands on drugs today either, but if we were to legalize it, think of how they would look at it, regardless of why you make it legal, they will see it as "oh, it's legal, well then it can't be that bad can it?"

just another 2C from me... I've been thinking a lot about this the latest year, and I constantly come up with different theories/solutions...
guess I wouldn't be much of a leader...


----------



## arktan (Oct 7, 2008)

gaunten said:


> as much as I agree with s7eve, arktan and Jbroll, I have been thinking of a few things lately, first off, the most used drugs today are: Taddaa, the legal ones, alcohol and tobacco/nicotine (and caffeine if you count that) probably much because they're legal.
> if we were to legalize all drugs, what says that they won't be much more used?
> and as always, it is as you say always your own choice, but,
> the other thing I've been thinking of is this: how many normally educated and normally intelligent persons start smoking at say, 20?
> ...



Dude, you make some very good points here. I didn't see it from that point of view. I only thought about legal grown ups (you know, over 18 years of age).
You gave me something to think about, i'll chime in later in this discussion again.


----------



## Aaron (Oct 7, 2008)

Zepp88 said:


> Personal *FREEDOM*, not treatment. Misquoting Bill Hicks is a sin.



Sorry, when i hear it in the tool song third eye it sounds like Treatment, thanks for correcting me.


----------



## JBroll (Oct 7, 2008)

gaunten said:


> as much as I agree with s7eve, arktan and Jbroll, I have been thinking of a few things lately, first off, the most used drugs today are: Taddaa, the legal ones, alcohol and tobacco/nicotine (and caffeine if you count that) probably much because they're legal.
> if we were to legalize all drugs, what says that they won't be much more used?
> and as always, it is as you say always your own choice, but,
> the other thing I've been thinking of is this: how many normally educated and normally intelligent persons start smoking at say, 20?
> ...



I'm not buying that. I started smoking pipes, cigars, and handrolled cigarettes at 19 and haven't gotten addicted yet. Also, it is expected that legal things will be used more - what's your point?



gaunten said:


> they will see it as "oh, it's legal, well then it can't be that bad can it?"



Anyone who thinks this deserves to get their ass beaten.

Jeff


----------



## gaunten (Oct 7, 2008)

JBroll said:


> I'm not buying that. I started smoking pipes, cigars, and handrolled cigarettes at 19 and haven't gotten addicted yet. Also, it is expected that legal things will be used more - what's your point?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
now you're sounding like travis dude, just because you can smoke without etting addicted doesn't mean everyone can. 
hell, some people want more after their second cig.
plus, my point wasn't about the cigarettes, my point was, that since legal stuff is more used now, why would it be different later if everything is legal? 
Hence, more people will likely be using harder drugs, which just can't be good, because they're even more addictive in some cases.

my point is that grown up people surely can make the choice not to use drugs, like you say, but kids who don't know better don't deserve to get their ass beaten, they're just naturally ignorant.
had the world consisted of only grown up, mature decently educated and smart people, it would be no problem legalizing drugs, but we have something called teenagers also, and... well, kids don't do like grownups SAY, they do like grownups DO, oldest rule in the book.


----------



## Jason (Oct 7, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Yes. It's their choice.
> 
> If drug users don't hurt someone else, who the fuck are we to stop them?
> 
> ...



Your implying that people who do drugs don't really commit crimes and what not. Granted people will do wrong thing seither way BUT IF say guns were available to any person who walks into the local corner store you would maybe see more issues with guns.

What I'm getting at is if certain things are illegal maybe it will make a dif maybe it won't. Noone really knows.


----------



## HamBungler (Oct 7, 2008)

I say that things should be legalized, and that the only real regulation be an age limit. I know it won't stop everything, kids still manage to get alcohol and cigarettes illegally, but most "kids" nowadays are mostly into weed, which isn't that harmful in comparison to the latter substances. The only people I've seen using harder drugs like cocaine and heroin are the people who don't give a fuck and that's all they do, they usually don't harm anyone though, unless, of course, they're trying to get their fix which happens to be hard to get ahold of. That's when crime enters and makes us waste money trying to crack down on them.

I know a few of you have said "Think of the kids!" or whatever, but legalizing the drugs really takes the "zing" out of doing something illegal, which is why most teens do illegal drugs anyway, they either think they're daring or hot shit. If you're really concerned about your kids, teach them the truth of the drugs, not say "Hey, don't do that!", because that just adds to the "recklessness". Give them freedom to make their own decisions and show em' you care if you're concerned.


----------



## El Caco (Oct 7, 2008)

HamBungler said:


> I say that things should be legalized, and that the only real regulation be an age limit.



I think it should be highly regulated and taxed. It should be regulated to keep the industry as clean as possible and to keep it unadvertised and exclusive. It should be taxed because there is a cost involved with drugs. Legal or illegal there are law enforcement costs, education costs and massive health and social expenses. Local governments possibly should have the power to choose if substances are permitted in their area because there are areas who's values differ depending on their demographic. Also if different areas took different approaches they could be compared to see which approach worked best.


----------



## HamBungler (Oct 7, 2008)

s7eve said:


> I think it should be highly regulated and taxed. It should be regulated to keep the industry as clean as possible and to keep it unadvertised and exclusive. It should be taxed because there is a cost involved with drugs. Legal or illegal there are law enforcement costs, education costs and massive health and social expenses. Local governments possibly should have the power to choose if substances are permitted in their area because there are areas who's values differ depending on their demographic. Also if different areas took different approaches they could be compared to see which approach worked best.



Gah, I forgot the taxed part too haha. I totally agree with you though.


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 8, 2008)

s7eve said:


> I think it should be highly regulated and taxed. It should be regulated to keep the industry as clean as possible and to keep it unadvertised and exclusive. It should be taxed because there is a cost involved with drugs. Legal or illegal there are law enforcement costs, education costs and massive health and social expenses. Local governments possibly should have the power to choose if substances are permitted in their area because there are areas who's values differ depending on their demographic. Also if different areas took different approaches they could be compared to see which approach worked best.



I agree with this COMPLETELY! Especially the bit about putting the power in the hands of the state


----------



## Drow Swordsman (Oct 8, 2008)

gaunten said:


> as much as I agree with s7eve, arktan and Jbroll, I have been thinking of a few things lately, first off, the most used drugs today are: Taddaa, the legal ones, alcohol and tobacco/nicotine (and caffeine if you count that) probably much because they're legal.
> if we were to legalize all drugs, what says that they won't be much more used?
> and as always, it is as you say always your own choice, but,
> the other thing I've been thinking of is this: how many normally educated and normally intelligent persons start smoking at say, 20?
> ...





Let's test your theory in action: alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine (coffee) have been an acceptable part of society for hundreds of years, of course they're going to be the most used drugs.

Let's try your theory with legal drugs that HAVEN'T been socially acceptable for hundreds of years.

Ever heard of 2CE? The hallucinogenic variant of 2CB, which is illegal? 2CE is a legal alternative. Very few ever use it.

How about salvia? Legal and unregulated, but does anyone bother ordering it off the internet? Very few (in comparison to say, marijuana or alcohol), just to try it out. 

DXM (Robitussin) is relatively popular in use because its cheap and easy to get a hold of, but most kids would rather shell out the money for some marijuana. 

If all drugs were legalized, I don't think they [freely] would tax or regulate something like heroin or crack for social use. It'd be one of those things where some obscure websites (or possibly obscure stores) would have to have permission to sell it (and with permission will come taxes) to those 18 and older. Those interested in getting it might as well buy it that way then going through a dealer, which they would most likely do anyway if it were illegal, and this way they would not be subject to the "black market" of illegal drugs. Most drug users commit crimes relating to purchasing the drug, or drug dealers having illegal firearms for whatever reasons. These problems wouldn't be as large if there was no reason for people to go to black market dealers, and people wouldn't be dragged into it and start selling the drug themselves to afford their habit. 

Mainly, education must be improved. Health classes today often teach their students that marijuana can be very dangerous, and that psilocybin and LSD are very dangerous. This gives the impression that these drugs are on the same level as heroin, or crack cocaine, or methamphetamines, and I've certainly heard many conservative young people say things like "I'd try things like marijuana and heroin right before I die", as if they were on the same level. It was the drug education that allowed them to think they were on a similar level, just because both were illegal.


----------



## Uncle Remus (Oct 8, 2008)

I think I agree with Jeff on this one...

People should be able to take responsibility for their own ass and the government trying to keep drugs away from them is not helping.

Using a vague example : If a mother takes a dummy (or w/e ) off a child, nost times, it is going to go out of its way to get it back ie. Gang wars, organised crime. 

The only thing that concerns me though is that if hard drugs were more readily available do you not think in some cases people who were depressed would turn to them (uneducated/uncaring) and end up hurt or dead whereas if they are illegal these law abiding people wouldnt take the risk of getting "class A" drugs for fear of being arrested...

i suppose its still their responsibility and choice and in a way these are the only type of people i can think of that the the government are protecting from themselves.

Just a thought


----------



## gaunten (Oct 8, 2008)

Drow Swordsman said:


> Let's test your theory in action: alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine (coffee) have been an acceptable part of society for hundreds of years, of course they're going to be the most used drugs.
> 
> Let's try your theory with legal drugs that HAVEN'T been socially acceptable for hundreds of years.
> 
> ...


 

yea, sure, that's of course one way to look at it, and I was just giving a theory, but when for example LSD was legal, up until 68-69 or so, it was also more or less socially accepted. 
so, ok if you were to legalize drugs today, they wouldn't suddenly be accepted, but the use would gradually increase, and they would be more accepted as time went by.

of course, I might be completely wrong here, and maybe everyone would go cold turkey on drugs, because it wouldn't be "cool and illegal" anymore... who knows? no one, we can only speculate


----------



## HamBungler (Oct 8, 2008)

gaunten said:


> yea, sure, that's of course one way to look at it, and I was just giving a theory, but when for example LSD was legal, up until 68-69 or so, it was also more or less socially accepted.
> so, ok if you were to legalize drugs today, they wouldn't suddenly be accepted, but the use would gradually increase, and they would be more accepted as time went by.
> 
> of course, I might be completely wrong here, and maybe everyone would go cold turkey on drugs, because it wouldn't be "cool and illegal" anymore... who knows? no one, we can only speculate



I honestly think the use wouldn't increase substantially or anything, and most of the harder/dangerous drugs would continue to be used by those addicted to them, but they'd eventually fizzle out, while the safer ones, such as marijuana and LSD might see an increase in use over time like tobacco and alcohol, and perhaps tobacco sale would decrease with marijuana being better available. I don't see anything wrong with drugs being socially accepted, as tobacco and alcohol are accepted and are quite a bit more harmful than some illegal drugs.


----------



## oompa (Oct 8, 2008)

assuming that actions self-represent, saying people who use drugs are irresponsible dont have a clue about how the world, people, or drugs work. you simply haven't seen or experienced enough to be qualified to say that. assuming everyone is constantly sane and have control of their emotions throughout their lives also shows little understanding, and believing that feeling no hope for 20 years doesnt do things to your head and values is the same. 

this is where accessability plays in, and it does have negative effects. if i were to send about one fix of heroin to every person in a country along with instructions, would anyone who wasnt already a user, use? i can think of about 1-2 times in my life where if i had heroin in my pocket i'd use it, and i dont, by any measurement, consider myself irresponsible. 

i think smoking a joint isnt a big problem for me. i still wouldnt want everyone to be able to, wich may sound pretty lame, but i know a bunch of guys who if i introduced them to weed would become deep junkies almost without a doubt. the difference between me and them is impossible to put on paper, so im ok with the law against it. i dislike the use of heavy chemicals, but the same idea applies. there are some who can use chems and be ok and they might want to legalize it. some would screw up, probably including me (see above accessability example).

on topic tho, wether fighting a war on drugs is good or not also comes down to what type of society you have. how drugs work on one person is psychology, wich is irrelevant here, how it works when its available to a population makes it bordering to sociology, and suddenly alot of things are different. in a socialist structure drugs are worse, cus society pays the whole bill, in many countries including the hospital bills. its kinda like how you get fined for not wearing a seatbelt, it doesnt hurt anyone else, but a population not wearing seatbelts generate higher hospital bills for the government, so they gotta get the money back.

in a capitalist structure, you are supposedly paying for yourself, wich is different. its easier to assume its ok when you pay for your own hospital bills, but then there is a shitload of other crap that comes with it. crackaddicts with a rough background of domestic abuse who stabs someone over purse money because 20 years of no future has densensitized them makes it someone else's problem, and he is not gonna pay for it.

i still dont think it's worth fighting any "war" over it tho, assuming the "war" tag means it costs a load of resources, not because i want to legalize it, but because i guess the money is better spent elsewere (fighting hunger for example, like someone wrote).


----------



## Pauly (Oct 8, 2008)

Enjoying this thread, I'm definitely more on the liberal side. I've not tried anything yet (partly due to not really knowing who made it/where it's come from/what's really in it), but after reading the science and then reading Doors of Perception by Huxley, as well as stuff by Lilly and Leary, I can say stuff like LSD and Ketamine interests and intrigues me.

Also this site is quite good if you want reasonably unbiased information about various drugs, their effects, dangers and all that:
The Good Drugs Guide


----------



## MikeH (Oct 8, 2008)

I'm going with undecided. I have alot of close friends who use drugs. Even my dad smokes pot. I really don't have a problem with it unless it's causing problems towards my relationship with the person. My friend Alex smokes on a daily basis, but he never tries to force it on me or anything. He's completely fine with my choice. On the other hand, my friend Cody will smoke and call me a "pussy" or a "bitch" if I don't hit the joint he smokes. It's really annoying.

On a bigger scale, I think drug control needs to step up. Not so much on petty things such as pot or salvia (even though it's legal) or even shrooms. But the harder stuff such as meth, cocaine, heroin, etc. needs to be better controlled. I lost a close family member because of heroin. And seeing the look on my family's faces is something I never want to see again. The number of drug-related deaths per year is completely insane. And for some reason I think the world would be a much better place if the feds put more control on it.

This is just a 16-year-old's opinion. I know I'm not as educated as most of you on here, but this is just my POV.


----------



## Naren (Oct 9, 2008)

No, you're right. Heroin has ruined a lot of people's lives. I think that some drugs could be legalized without any real trouble, but it would be just plain stupid to legalize some of these drugs. LSD and Heroin are both examples of extremely dangerous drugs. Marijuana is just slightly more dangerous than cigarettes (no filter means that you are more likely to get cancer from the same amount of smoke and marijuana can also cause mild brain damage), but in some ways can be comparable to alcohol. Many musicians have died from heroin and other such drugs.

So, I can't say "no, it's not worth it" or "yes, it is worth it" in reference to all drugs. I've always been interested in drugs and have done a lot of research on them throughout high school and college. Drug addicts enjoy the high and then claim that whatever drug they enjoy is unrightfully illegal and really couldn't hurt anyone. Then they get overly addicted and die.  So, not a simply "yes" or "no" answer for me.


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 9, 2008)

I think the greatest weapon against drug abuse is education, not prohibition. Drug education is rather good in this country, although much of it is scare tactic type stuff, you can find information readily. If you still choose to use heroin with all of the education and information posed to you, so be it, you'll face the consequences of your actions, and I refuse to feel sorry for that person.

I beleive we should have that choice, and it's not like you cannot get those type of drugs now any way.


----------



## HamBungler (Oct 9, 2008)

Naren said:


> No, you're right. Heroin has ruined a lot of people's lives. I think that some drugs could be legalized without any real trouble, but it would be just plain stupid to legalize some of these drugs. LSD and Heroin are both examples of extremely dangerous drugs. Marijuana is just slightly more dangerous than cigarettes (no filter means that you are more likely to get cancer from the same amount of smoke and marijuana can also cause mild brain damage), but in some ways can be comparable to alcohol. Many musicians have died from heroin and other such drugs.
> 
> So, I can't say "no, it's not worth it" or "yes, it is worth it" in reference to all drugs. I've always been interested in drugs and have done a lot of research on them throughout high school and college. Drug addicts enjoy the high and then claim that whatever drug they enjoy is unrightfully illegal and really couldn't hurt anyone. Then they get overly addicted and die.  So, not a simply "yes" or "no" answer for me.



I'd agree with you, but I'd say do some more research first. LSD, while hallucinogenic and can be dangerous to stupid/potentially psychotic people, is relatively safe compared to a lot of stuff. I have done it, and done research on it as well, so I know how dangerous it is. It won't kill you if you do it (unless you take over 1000 regular doses, which is stupid). 
Studies have also been done on Marijuana, and there is no brain damage associated with it, and the risk of cancer is much less than that of cigarettes, and may even prevent cancer to an extent due to your cells being coated by THC, and will even kill some cancer cells associated with Leukemia.
Erowid this website is great for looking up anything on any drug out there, and anyone who is interested in drugs, or wants to try a drug, should go here first and do thorough research.
Sorry for being all preachy, but I like to put the facts out there, y'know?


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 9, 2008)

Every drug has a side effect, everything you put into your body has a risk attached to it. 

Everyone always cites Erowid, but how credible is thier information and what do they use to back it up? (Just wondering)


----------



## HamBungler (Oct 9, 2008)

Zepp88 said:


> Every drug has a side effect, everything you put into your body has a risk attached to it.
> 
> Everyone always cites Erowid, but how credible is thier information and what do they use to back it up? (Just wondering)



If you look at the FAQs on in each section they cite all of their sources at the end. The one on Marijuana is especially good, it has lots of information on not just marijuana, but the hemp plant in general, uses and other useful info. 
Here it is if you wanted to check it out Erowid Cannabis Vault : Cannabis FAQ


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 9, 2008)

I've been on Erowid quite a few times, I was just unsure of the validity of their information. Thanks 

What nags me more is not the health risks posed, but the aspects of personal freedom and education.


----------



## Naren (Oct 9, 2008)

I have done a lot of research on this and I'm sure that further research would just get me more of the same information that I already know.



HamBungler said:


> I'd agree with you, but I'd say do some more research first. LSD, while hallucinogenic and can be dangerous to stupid/potentially psychotic people, is relatively safe compared to a lot of stuff. I have done it, and done research on it as well, so I know how dangerous it is. It won't kill you if you do it (unless you take over 1000 regular doses, which is stupid). ?



LSD is incredibly addictive and it is extremely dangerous. If you are a _regular_ LSD user, you have a high chance of seriously hurting yourself or even killing yourself.

Don't try to play down how dangerous it is. It just seems like a "I do it and it hasn't killed me yet. It's okay" kind of excuse. I know that you are admitting to it being very dangerous, but I would suggest doing more research on LSD. 



HamBungler said:


> Studies have also been done on Marijuana, and there is no brain damage associated with it, and the risk of cancer is much less than that of cigarettes, and may even prevent cancer to an extent due to your cells being coated by THC, and will even kill some cancer cells associated with Leukemia.
> Erowid this website is great for looking up anything on any drug out there, and anyone who is interested in drugs, or wants to try a drug, should go here first and do thorough research.
> Sorry for being all preachy, but I like to put the facts out there, y'know?



 "Prevent cancer"? I assume you're getting your information from very biased pothead sources. I would suggest using more scientific sources that have no interest in proving one way or another.

The reason why most places say the risk of cancer in marijuana is much less than that of cigarettes is because they are using examples of someone who smokes something like 5 joints a week compared to someone who smokes 5 packs of cigarettes a week. One marijuana joint has many many many more carcinogens than one cigarette. It makes perfect sense. Cigarettes have filters in order to reduce the amount of carcinogens getting into your lungs. Marijuana does not. 

I guess you could say "Yeah, but no one smokes as much marijuana as they do cigarettes," but it doesn't change the facts. People have been looking for a cure to cancer for so long and it was marijuana the whole time. 

Anyway, like I said, marijuana is only slightly more dangerous than cigarettes.


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 9, 2008)

Hey Naren, could you supply me some reading material on LSD? I haven't read many reports of it being very addictive or dangerous, but knowledge is power.

What would really bother me about LSD being legalized would be another Haight street..

EDIT:

Also wasn't there something recent about THC latching onto cancer cells? I haven't read much into it personally.


----------



## lefty robb (Oct 9, 2008)

LSD is most definitely not addictive, I did it like 4 times when I was in my teens, I was never addicted to it at all, nor have I ever known anyone who has done it to ever become addicted to it. I mean, seriously, have you ever heard of someone going to rehab for there LSD addiction? No.




Hey, if any one of you guys live in Mass, PLEASE vote yes on question 2!!

Welcome! | Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 9, 2008)

[action=Zepp88] notices that this thread doesn't look like a soapbox...[/action]


----------



## JBroll (Oct 9, 2008)

Naren, while I wouldn't aim to downplay the danger of drugs I fail to see why people should be protected from themselves.

Jeff


----------



## Scootman1911 (Oct 9, 2008)

Naren said:


> I have done a lot of research on this and I'm sure that further research would just get me more of the same information that I already know.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



LSD is not addictive. It can be dangerous if you start freaking out but otherwise it's you should be fine. My friend has done LSD at least 20 times and he's not addicted. Hell, he did it four times last weekend doing 4-5 hits each time and he's perfectly fine.


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 9, 2008)

That sounds pretty excessive, you sure he's not just a bit fried?


----------



## Naren (Oct 9, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Naren, while I wouldn't aim to downplay the danger of drugs I fail to see why people should be protected from themselves.
> 
> Jeff



Yeah, that is a good point and I don't really have an answer for it. I do think it's crazy how someone can be put in prison for a long time for doing certain drugs, even though that person hasn't hurt anyone but themself. 



lefty robb said:


> LSD is most definitely not addictive, I did it like 4 times when I was in my teens, I was never addicted to it at all, nor have I ever known anyone who has done it to ever become addicted to it. I mean, seriously, have you ever heard of someone going to rehab for there LSD addiction? No.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes. 

LSD Treatment LSD Addiction LSD Rehabilitation LSD Facts LSD Help LSD Information Narconon Europe Acid

Most heavy LSD users get addicted. I'll admit that it isn't as addictive as a lot of other drugs such as Heroin, but I hardly think that "I've done LSD 4 times and I didn't get addicted" as evidence that it's not addictive. I've smoked at least 4 cigarettes by now and I'm not addicted to cigarettes, so cigarettes aren't addictive either, right?

If LSD wasn't addictive, there wouldn't be rehabilitation clinics and treatment clinics specifically for LSD.

The main cause of addiction for LSD is that the user wants the same experience as before, but he needs more and more LSD to reach that experience again. So, the main addiction is more psychological than physical. And, as the dosage increases, so does the risk.


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 9, 2008)

Isn't anything potentially addictive? Lets say your body has grown accustomed to a certain substance, lets say peanut butter since Naren is in danger of this, and suddenly your body doesn't get it, you're going to have a withdrawl, which makes you want more peanut butter. Correct me if my logic is flawed.

Based on that logic, yes LSD is addictive, especially if you're taking 4 to 5 hits 4 times a day, that's insane and that's a lot of acid. 

People seem to forget what happened on Haight street in the '60s, LSD is a danger when used in such a manner that's dangerous.


----------



## Naren (Oct 9, 2008)

Zepp88 said:


> Isn't anything potentially addictive? Lets say your body has grown accustomed to a certain substance, lets say peanut butter since Naren is in danger of this, and suddenly your body doesn't get it, you're going to have a withdrawl, which makes you want more peanut butter. Correct me if my logic is flawed.



That logic is pretty flawed, I'd say. I'm a huge peanut butter fan, but I don't just keep escalating the amount of peanut butter I intake until soon I'm consuming 2 jars of peanut butter a day. The amount of peanut butter I eat fluctuates, but it stays at pretty much the same amount because I can still get the same enjoyment from the same amount. If I had some illness where I couldn't taste peanut butter unless I ate an entire jar and then 2 entire jars and then 3, then I would have a serious problem.

With LSD, the amount of LSD needed to experience a "trip" increases as you continue taking it, because your body builds up resistances to the LSD and gets used to it.

On a similar subject, alcohol CAN be addictive, as well.


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 9, 2008)

Ever the litteral...

I was using peanut butter as a humorous placeholder for a potentially addictive substance. I have a feeling there is an agreement in here somewhere....


----------



## daybean (Oct 9, 2008)

i heard people in the 60/70s were eating the cats from the alleys when they were on LSD, thats where i would step in say "dont you think youve had to much acid.......oh and can you stop eating the fucking cats!"


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 9, 2008)

daybean said:


> i heard people in the 60/70s were eating the cats from the alleys when they were on LSD, thats where i would step in say "dont you think youve had to much acid.......oh and can you stop eating the fucking cats!"



I've never heard of that, but a lot of weird shit happened in that area, people were high on LSD 24 hours a fucking day, it's insane. They had no clue what they were doing to themselves.


----------



## daybean (Oct 9, 2008)

Zepp88 said:


> I've never heard of that, but a lot of weird shit happened in that area, people were high on LSD 24 hours a fucking day, it's insane. They had no clue what they were doing to themselves.



it was on vh1, it was called the drug years. they talked to people on the streets that were high on acid and said they would do it. and the proof was that there were no cats in the streets and alleys for months.


----------



## lefty robb (Oct 9, 2008)

Naren said:


> So, the main addiction is more psychological than physical.




bingo...anything can be psychologically addictive, you like it, you want more, clear and simple, with this logic playing guitar can be addictive.  and even worse if your OCD. 

right from that website:



> LSD is not considered an addictive drug since it does not produce compulsive drug-seeking behavior as do cocaine, amphetamine, heroin, alcohol, and nicotine.


There is nothing chemically addictive with LSD, and that "treatment" center is nothing more than a counseling center run by Scientologists.


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 9, 2008)

I must mention that this train of discussion has occured here before in a few threads, can we steer away from it a bit? I know it's inevitable to bring this sort of thing up though.


----------



## gaunten (Oct 9, 2008)

Naren said:


> With LSD, the amount of LSD needed to experience a "trip" increases as you continue taking it, because your body builds up resistances to the LSD and gets used to it.
> 
> On a similar subject, alcohol CAN be addictive, as well.


 
if you were to take a trip the day after a trip, you'd need about the double amount to experience a similar strenght, however if you wait a few days, you're back to normal, regardless of how much you've taken.

LSD is not in any way physically addictive, only "addiction" you could get in is because of the "nice" feeling, you want to do it again, known as a psychological addiction, but I think the boys cleared that up already.

yes, alcohol can be addictive, a lot more so than many illegal drugs, and also leaves permanent damage to the liver etc.


----------



## lefty robb (Oct 9, 2008)

gaunten said:


> if you were to take a trip the day after a trip, you'd need about the double amount to experience a similar strenght, however if you wait a few days, you're back to normal, regardless of how much you've taken.
> 
> LSD is not in any way physically addictive, only "addiction" you could get in is because of the "nice" feeling, you want to do it again, known as a psychological addiction, but I think the boys cleared that up already.
> 
> yes, alcohol can be addictive, a lot more so than many illegal drugs, and also leaves permanent damage to the liver etc.


----------



## Naren (Oct 9, 2008)

gaunten said:


> if you were to take a trip the day after a trip, you'd need about the double amount to experience a similar strenght, however if you wait a few days, you're back to normal, regardless of how much you've taken.
> 
> LSD is not in any way physically addictive, only "addiction" you could get in is because of the "nice" feeling, you want to do it again, known as a psychological addiction, but I think the boys cleared that up already.
> 
> yes, alcohol can be addictive, a lot more so than many illegal drugs, and also leaves permanent damage to the liver etc.



Yeah, I researched LSD quite a bit, so I already knew all the info that has been mentioned. I was using addiction in the same way that one would use "alcohol addiction." I've never heard of a "guitar addiction," but if there was such a thing, it probably wouldn't be mentioned because it logically wouldn't be dangerous or damaging, while an LSD or alcohol addiction can both be quite damaging and even life-threatening (LSD more than alcohol, but alcohol poisoning has killed quite a few people, as has the whole choking to death on vomit 'n' junk).


----------



## arktan (Oct 9, 2008)

Zepp88 said:


> I must mention that this train of discussion has occured here before in a few threads, can we steer away from it a bit? I know it's inevitable to bring this sort of thing up though.



I second this, we're quite offtopic here


----------



## lefty robb (Oct 9, 2008)

Naren said:


> I've never heard of a "guitar addiction," but if there was such a thing, it probably wouldn't be mentioned because it logically wouldn't be dangerous or damaging



I guess you've never heard of G.A.S. Then!


----------



## arktan (Oct 9, 2008)

lefty robb said:


> I guess you've never heard of G.A.S. Then!



G.A.S. is dangerous and should be avoided at all costs! It can ruin your relationship, your private life and it can leave you without food for the rest of the month so that you die of hunger 
G.A.S. is deadly! Teach that to your children, guys! 

Sorry, i just had to 




Now on a serious note: We still haven't seen some numbers to talk about the economic aspect if war on drugs is still sustainable...

On a quick search i found this: War On Drugs Clock
They list their source as this: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/04budget/index.html

Take it with a grain of salt, i'm still not 100&#37; satisfied by those numbers. 
I'm going to do some thourough research this evening if i can get off work before 20.00.

Nonetheless, i get the feeling that war on drugs is way to expensive to be justified economically.... but that's only my first impression.


----------



## lefty robb (Oct 9, 2008)

Yeah, the Clock just seems a bit high (hah!, no pun intended), at least for state spending. I know Mass is looking to save 30 million if the decriminalization act is passed, thats a far cry from the 23 billion on the clock.


----------



## Naren (Oct 9, 2008)

lefty robb said:


> I guess you've never heard of G.A.S. Then!



 I would say that that's not an addiction to guitars (which would be characterized by playing guitars a lot), but an addiction to purchasing new music equipment (or in a wider sense in just "spending money").

And, yeah, an impulse to spend money (which is an issue that a lot of women struggle with) can be pretty unhealthy and damaging. Especially the people who buy whatever they want with credit cards without thinking about the consequences.


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 9, 2008)

Wow that war on drugs clock is telling!

lefty robb, where are you getting the Mass numbers from?


----------



## Pauly (Oct 9, 2008)

This was on a while ago, informative if you have an hour or so spare...


----------



## arktan (Oct 9, 2008)

Pauly said:


> This was on a while ago, informative if you have an hour or so spare...



Thanks, i'll watch it.


----------



## HamBungler (Oct 9, 2008)

Naren said:


> Yeah, I researched LSD quite a bit, so I already knew all the info that has been mentioned. I was using addiction in the same way that one would use "alcohol addiction." I've never heard of a "guitar addiction," but if there was such a thing, it probably wouldn't be mentioned because it logically wouldn't be dangerous or damaging, while an LSD or alcohol addiction can both be quite damaging and even life-threatening (LSD more than alcohol, but alcohol poisoning has killed quite a few people, as has the whole choking to death on vomit 'n' junk).



Have you checked the Erowid link I sent you? Did you read all the FAQs they have on there and checked the sources for yourself? If you read any reliable source (meaning anything tested that was not funded by the government, which is mostly biased horseshit) you would find out that LSD is one of the least harmful substances you can put into your body. Once you're done with a trip, all of it is out of your body, LSD metabolizes way too fast to cause harm, and the amount you need to take to induce effects is minuscule. LSD is not life threatening unless, as I stated earlier, you somehow overdose (you would need to be able to synthesize acid yourself to do this, as it is hard to get ahold of that much acid) or you're stupid and don't stay in a safe area. I've had a friend who has fallen off of a bridge while on acid and lived to tell the tale, and he admits he wish he hadn't been so stupid, because he likes LSD but can't trust himself on it. Its self control. And how you say its addicting, no, its not. After you've used LSD, if you want to dose again the next night, you'd have to double your dose, which most people wouldn't shell out the money for, plus it is physically taxing after the trip, so you really don't feel the need to do it. Most people who do it frequently do it once a week, and even then that's a stretch. I have buddies who have done quite a bit, and don't feel the need to do more than 1 or 2 hits because they get the same effects as they would be on somewhere around 3 or 4 at this point, which is the most you'd want to do anyway. I realize this is becoming a rant, and that I would rather you look at this Erowid LSD Vault : FAQ as well as the second FAQ they have on there. Its good information.


----------



## gaunten (Oct 9, 2008)

Pauly said:


> This was on a while ago, informative if you have an hour or so spare...


 
I saw this on tv a few months back in sweden, very informative indeed


I like the fact that they've included alcohol and cigarettes in the list.
hopefully gives people a hole new view on the matter


----------



## lefty robb (Oct 9, 2008)

Zepp88 said:


> lefty robb, where are you getting the Mass numbers from?




both in here

Welcome! | Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy

and the actual handout from our State on proposition 2, which is checked for accuracy by the State before handed out. (Its actually 29.5 mil, I just rounded up) Of course we are just talking about Marijuana, but I still can't see the state spending billions upon billions on everything else, unless the Big Dig is slang for drugs 

Unless they are talking about all 50 states combine, that would make more sense, in fact I think they are.


----------



## Pauly (Oct 9, 2008)

HamBungler said:


> stuff



Yeah, the thing with something like LSD is taking it you should be highly considerate of the classic 'set' and 'setting'. It's not a 'fun' drug, it's an experience, and shouldn't be taken lightly, as with all the psychedelics. There's delicious irony to be had with the constant media war against drugs considering that cocaine is massively popular within the industry itself, which itself dumbfounds me because, like smoking with teenagers, it's more a status thing amongst them than anything to do with cocaine being a superior stimulant.


----------



## HamBungler (Oct 9, 2008)

Pauly said:


> Yeah, the thing with something like LSD is taking it you should be highly considerate of the classic 'set' and 'setting'. It's not a 'fun' drug, it's an experience, and shouldn't be taken lightly, as with all the psychedelics. There's delicious irony to be had with the constant media war against drugs considering that cocaine is massively popular within the industry itself, which itself dumbfounds me because, like smoking with teenagers, it's more a status thing amongst them than anything to do with cocaine being a superior stimulant.



Exactly, it makes me angry when stupid teenagers try to do acid and think it will be the greatest thing ever, and then they're stupid and create huge messes. I'm a user, and while I'll say it can be fun and enlightening in a social aspect if you stay in a safe area and relax, don't take too much, etc, but it can turn on you. And the other drugs used as a status symbol, it is indeed nuts, and can't honestly see why they would think its "in".


----------



## Drow Swordsman (Oct 9, 2008)

Naren said:


> If LSD wasn't addictive, there wouldn't be rehabilitation clinics and treatment clinics specifically for LSD.



Wrong. Marijuana is not physically addictive and there are rehabilitation clinics for marijuana.

ANYTHING can be psychologically addictive, and that's a different story.

EDIT: And with the current economical situation, we don't need to spend billions of dollars stopping drug use. Drug use (as I recall, might be wrong) normally goes UP in times of economic crisis and depression, no amount of money is going to change that. What we need is at least decriminalization to SAVE money so we can SAVE real jobs that real people need more than we need to criminalize drug users.


----------



## HamBungler (Oct 9, 2008)

Drow Swordsman said:


> Wrong. Marijuana is not physically addictive and there are rehabilitation clinics for marijuana.
> 
> ANYTHING can be psychologically addictive, and that's a different story.



This is also true, plus the potential to gain money from people's stupidity is also logic used by many of these clinics. I'm not saying they're all bad, the ones for Cocaine, Alcohol and Heroin addictions are musts I say, but something like an LSD or Marijuana recovery clinic, that's stupid, and its a waste of state and private money which could be used to fund the former clinics.

EDIT: Just saw your ninja edit haha. I agree with that as well too, we don't need to be spending money trying to stop something that will happen regardless.


----------



## Metal Ken (Oct 9, 2008)

Naren said:


> The reason why most places say the risk of cancer in marijuana is much less than that of cigarettes is because they are using examples of someone who smokes something like 5 joints a week compared to someone who smokes 5 packs of cigarettes a week. One marijuana joint has many many many more carcinogens than one cigarette. It makes perfect sense. Cigarettes have filters in order to reduce the amount of carcinogens getting into your lungs. Marijuana does not.



Are you taking into account that you dont necessarily have to _smoke_ it? You can vaporize it (Use a machine to run steam through it to pull out the THC) or just put it in brownies? Whoever got cancer from a pack of enhanced betty crocker's?


----------



## Pauly (Oct 9, 2008)

HamBungler said:


> Exactly, it makes me angry when stupid teenagers try to do acid and think it will be the greatest thing ever, and then they're stupid and create huge messes. I'm a user, and while I'll say it can be fun and enlightening in a social aspect if you stay in a safe area and relax, don't take too much, etc, but it can turn on you. And the other drugs used as a status symbol, it is indeed nuts, and can't honestly see why they would think its "in".



Ha, I was just looking on Erowid and found a trip report by a guy I know from another forum, pretty much just a copy/paste from when he made the thread about it, but an interesting read and the sort of thing that makes me curious. 

Erowid Experience Vaults: Devices - Mind Machine, Nutmeg, Salvia divinorum (10x extract), LSD & Nitrous Oxide - Into the Ganzfeld - 70438 It's a bit long but he's a good writer, as one would expect from a philosophy student.


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 9, 2008)

YO!

This isn't about your personal experiences, we've already discussed this here.


----------



## estabon37 (Oct 12, 2008)

We don't really have a "war on drugs" to speak of in Australia. As far as I can tell, the USA the only place this concept exists in the format we're discussing. To the best of my (limited) knowledge, Australia and Canada(?) at the very least list a great many drugs as being illegal, but then do very little to police the ones they see as being "harmless". I live in a relatively small town. You'll only get busted for marijuana if you have enough of the stuff to supply Los Angeles.

This being the case the legal and financial problems stemming from drug use are fairly low. This means (in my experience) that helping people with the related social problems becomes much easier.

Then again I've had a few friends smoke so much weed that it has permanently affected their lives and/or caused permanent psychological damage. The causes in every case were the result of personal tragedy and shit happening - these people found weed a better friend to them than I was. This is my fault - not theirs - not drugs'.

Fuck the war on drugs. Put that money into helping people who need it, educating the people who are uninformed and give the rest to Joss Whedon so he can make a sequel to Serenity. I haven't really come to any conclusions here have I?


----------



## El Caco (Oct 12, 2008)

Qld and especially where I live has a war on drugs and pot is one of the major ones they go after. It's probably not like it is in the US but they do constant raids here and usually revisit people who are known to the police about every 3 months. I've worked with people who have massive habits and according to them it's had a big impact on the supply and price.


----------



## S-O (Oct 12, 2008)

The war on drugs should be on ALL drugs, or no drugs.

So either make alcohol and cigarettes and the like illegal, or make it all legal.

Or change the name to "the war on some drugs" or "the war on untaxed drugs"

I do not do any drugs. Save for the occasional aspirin once or twice a year. I don't poison myself with shit, but I think it's perfectly ok to choose to. By making more available, crime can be cut back on. It may be a battle of morals to some, having crack sold in the corner store, but it could stop crimes like drug deals gone bad that leave 3 dead and the neighbor girl on her bike to witness it.

I have seen what it cando to people, my brother was a heroin addict, while he is sober, he will always be an addict. He did some fucked up things to get it. I support his choice to do it, but I will kill him if he ever does some of the shit he did to get it. It's your choice to do drugs, but if you harm someone to get it, you are worthless to me and belong in jail like the criminal you are.

/rant


----------



## mnemonic (Oct 12, 2008)

daybean said:


> i heard people in the 60/70s were eating the cats from the alleys when they were on LSD, thats where i would step in say "dont you think youve had to much acid.......oh and can you stop eating the fucking cats!"



thats because LSD occurs naturally in cat brains, they were probably trying to get a high without having to go buy some.


or is it DMT that occurs naturally in a cats brain? i think its LSD, but i forget. i wrote a report on hallucinogenic drugs and the 60's back freshman year of college, but that was a while ago.

also LSD isn't addictive and is safer than tylonol physically, but if you alredy have pre-existing psychological disorders (like if your schizophrenic or bipolar or something) it can kind of fuck you further. thats what happened to syd barret.

also with most things, you have to make sure you're getting a good batch.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Oct 12, 2008)

estabon37 said:


> We don't really have a "war on drugs" to speak of in Australia. As far as I can tell, the USA the only place this concept exists in the format we're discussing. To the best of my (limited) knowledge, Australia and Canada(?) at the very least list a great many drugs as being illegal, but then do very little to police the ones they see as being "harmless". I live in a relatively small town. You'll only get busted for marijuana if you have enough of the stuff to supply Los Angeles.
> 
> This being the case the legal and financial problems stemming from drug use are fairly low. This means (in my experience) that helping people with the related social problems becomes much easier.
> 
> ...



Yeah in canada they dont say anything either.


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 12, 2008)

mnemonic said:


> thats because LSD occurs naturally in cat brains, they were probably trying to get a high without having to go buy some.
> 
> 
> or is it DMT that occurs naturally in a cats brain? i think its LSD, but i forget. i wrote a report on hallucinogenic drugs and the 60's back freshman year of college, but that was a while ago.
> ...



DMT. It occurs naturally in our brains too apparently.


----------



## All_¥our_Bass (Oct 12, 2008)

mnemonic said:


> thats because LSD occurs naturally in cat brains, they were probably trying to get a high without having to go buy some.
> 
> or is it DMT that occurs naturally in a cats brain? i think its LSD, but I forget. i wrote a report on hallucinogenic drugs and the 60's back freshman year of college, but that was a while ago.
> 
> ...


 
I think it's DMT, which also naturally occours in human brains as well. At much lower level than if you use it as a drug. Many people think it contributes to dreaming.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Oct 13, 2008)

I think you can also buy dmt and it makes you dream while your awake or something like that.


----------



## All_¥our_Bass (Oct 13, 2008)

^ basically yeah. It's pretty intense though (or so I've heard). I really dig All Watts' 'instructions' for using DMT.

"Load universe into cannon.
Aim at brain.
Fire."


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 13, 2008)




----------



## All_¥our_Bass (Oct 13, 2008)

<sarcasm>
Derailing happens. Deal with it.
</sarcasm>


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 13, 2008)

It's also posted in The Lounge, and I also made it clear that I don't want another discussion about this sort of thing. Just discussion about whether the war on drugs is worth it from an economic, moral, etc, standpoint.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Oct 13, 2008)

Yeah hes right, back on topic we go!


----------



## Pauly (Oct 13, 2008)

S-O said:


> The war on drugs should be on ALL drugs, or no drugs.
> 
> So either make alcohol and cigarettes and the like illegal, or make it all legal.
> 
> Or change the name to "the war on some drugs" or "the war on untaxed drugs"



This pretty much, they'd make a killing if everything was legal, I guess it's just because drinking and smoking have been done since time immemorial it's socially acceptable, even though in this country we clearly have a problem with my generation's reliance on excessive drinking to have a good time when they're out. 

It'd be easy just to say 'ban ze alcohol!' but as illegal drugs demonstrate, if people want it, they'll get hold of it. Education is key, I was brought up to recognise alcohol isn't anything amazing and my parents never stopped me from trying things in my teens. Obviously I've been drunk and occasionally really drunk, but for 95% of the the time I can go out, drink enough to get the benefits of the drug (i.e. the social lubrication) and I just maintain that. When you see people staggering about and throwing up, getting aggressive and all that, to me, that's being irresponsible with drugs, and is far worse than taking something like a single MDMA pill, both physiologically and from a moral standpoint.


----------



## arktan (Oct 14, 2008)

Here are some human losses due to the war on drugs.
Drug War Victims

Some good reads on this topic (with pro's and con's!):
Should illegal drugs be legalized?

A very good read too:
How America Lost the War on Drugs : Rolling Stone

I ordered this movie:
American Drug War: The Last White Hope - War on Drugs
Maybe some of you watched it...

This movie should also bring a bit more info, watch it if you can
Damage Done: The Drug War Odyssey: The Cops



This documentary is also a good source for information: 
War on drugs: the prison industrial complex 
(it's on google video so i posted the link. Mods, please remove it if it shouldn't be here)
prison industrial complex - Google Video
The first few minutes are in Dutch, the rest is in English.


I just ask myself also the question: In the Prisons (not only US !!!) there are almost everywhere problems with drug abuse. If the state can't control what's going on in it's prisons, how the hell can it control what's going on among the population? Isn't that a lost battle?
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/17438347/how_america_lost_the_war_on_drugs


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 14, 2008)

Thanks for that post man! I'll take the time to read over it all.


----------



## arktan (Oct 14, 2008)

You're welcome, mate 

It would be nice though if someone could post some reads and facts that are PRO the drug war. I'm really eager to read some of that too to make a bigger picture and to compare the arguments and results.


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 14, 2008)

That would be good too, but as the poll shows the mass majority of members here are against it. What would be more interesting to me is a poll of a bigger population.


----------



## ILdÐÆMcº³ (Oct 15, 2008)

The majority of users here are musicians and artists, so as far as sweeping generalizations go. The results make sense.

It would be interesting to see the opinion of the general public. It's not a topic I strike up with random people so I have no idea what the results would be around where I live. 

People tend to be fairly liberal in Minnesota so I'm guessing they would at least be for legalizing Marijuana. Especially give the taxing effect it has on our prison systems and for unjustly leading to the imprisonment of people who didn't deserve it.

Although my neighbor sent his son to rehab for smoking pot so I guess I know his views on it. I also know he isn't very smart lol.


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 15, 2008)

Rehab for smoking pot? Was he like a heavy smoker, smoking way too much?


----------



## ILdÐÆMcº³ (Oct 15, 2008)

No, just a kid experimenting. His dad was dumb, he caught him with one joint and sent him to rehab lol. For one it's not physiologically addictive and two rehab give you access to worse drugs and people that are used to taking them. I was surprised they would take him. If I were them I would have laughed a lot.

Ignorance and fear is what drives the war on drugs. When other alternatives would be more appropriate and less damaging to the people involved.


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 15, 2008)

Parents still take issue with their kids doing drugs, and depending on how old the kid is I wouldn't blame him. While I beleive drugs should be legalized I also beleive that they should be regulated with age restrictions and the like. How old is this kid?


----------



## ILdÐÆMcº³ (Oct 15, 2008)

I agree with age restrictions too. In this case I would say it was relatively normal, most kids go through that. Personally I would have just had a talk with him. Sending him to rehab could put him in a lot more danger. I think he was 17 maybe 16.


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 15, 2008)

Rehab is overboard, but that's a case of a parent who doesn't know how to parent. Thinking that your kid won't experiment with drugs and alcohol is naive, but you must know how to handle it.


----------



## shredzilla509 (Oct 15, 2008)

Well legalizing all the drugs is'nt a good idea because they can't be summed all up as just that. cause like Marijuana is sort of difficult to compare to hard drugs like Heroine and cocaine, etc. But I feel that once one thing is legalized it then opens the horizon for another substance to trickle into the moral position of one of the other drugs, like methadone is the new weed or something of that nature. So as succesful as the war is going as I have seen.. I can't tell you how many bands I have had to back out of and how many excellent musicians have fucking pissed their time away on meth or anything else like that. there, Musical Opus. So I guess if the person can support a hard drug habit and a band, and life, then congrats, but it is'nt very good band chemistry.

Nirvana did'nt kill metal, Meth did.


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 15, 2008)

I see your point completely, do I really want to see Cocaine being sold in stores? No, I really don't. But I also don't think we should restrict personal choice. In my opinion the best weapon against drugs is education, and the way things are now we really need to reach more people and educate them. 

But regardless of education some people will still have the urge to experiment, they have a right to, but they must be able to stand up to the consequences, being personal or affecting others or both. There should be drug laws, similar to what we have with alcohol, but prohibition isn't the answer for me.


----------



## ILdÐÆMcº³ (Oct 15, 2008)

Even if drugs like that were legalized I don't think it would be responsible to sell them in stores. They would have to be prescribed by doctors who would explain the risks, dosages that were appropriate, and proper use so people would at least be making an informed decision when they took them. 

The only problem I could see is that might violate the Hippocratic Oath. However, since people get them anyway and the drugs they get can be laced with things and impure. And since they usually are persuaded by peer pressure and don't get the info about the risks and proper use I think it would be doing less harm than currently is being done.


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 16, 2008)

It would be very odd to go to a doctor for a non-medicinal drug (agruable on marijuana, but lets say this is purely recreational for arguments sake). I do think that things should be regulated, with licensed producers and vendors to protect customers, because a lot of street drugs can be quite a game of roulette if you don't know where it's coming from.

I could understand consulting a doctor before use, maybe even encouraging that practice, but for a doctor to prescribe someone LSD would be bizarre.

FDA approved recreational drugs is kind of an odd idea as well though.


----------



## gaunten (Oct 16, 2008)

Zepp88 said:


> I could understand consulting a doctor before use, maybe even encouraging that practice, but for a doctor to prescribe someone LSD would be bizarre.


 
bizarre yes, but the question is, wouldn't it be better?
who would be better suited to sell legal drugs, than a non-profit doctor/organization, who would also be obligated to give an educated heads up on the risks for the ignorant? now matter how bizarre or weird anything feels, if it's a better solution, then it is.

if drugs were to be sold legally, it would pretty much have to be trough some kind of government organization, and without any "drugcommercials" of course (pretty much exactly how it works with alcohol in sweden today, except they have commercials and ads on the risks of drinking)

sure, you could go the amsterdam way, with the haschbars and everything. I don't have a clue as to how much drugrelated healthproblems and crime they have down there though, so I won't go into that. (I don't know if the heavier drugs are legal down there either, I only know that they make a difference between lighter and heavier drugs, and also that they see it as a public healthcare problem rather than a police matter.)


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 16, 2008)

Could you enlighten me a bit on how things work in Sweden? I really wouldn't want _our_ government controlling all of it.

I personally prefer the licensed dealer option versus making a doctor visit for your next spirit quest.


----------



## gaunten (Oct 16, 2008)

well in sweden the only legal way to get any alcohol (except a pub of course) above 3.5&#37;
is through "systembolaget" (roughly translated to "the systemcompany")
systembolaget is completely run by the government, and liquor is pretty heavily taxed.(about 32$ for a 70cl absolut vodka, 2.7$ for one smirnoff ice 275cl, etc.)
(luckily, I live close to denmark, where you can buy any liquor at any cornerstore as long as you're above 16 years of age, (it used to be 15) and it's a hella lot cheaper, I think you get a full litre of vodka there cheaper than the 70cl in sweden, about 27$ or so)
in most regular cities (5-25000 citizens or so) there's only one systembolag, or maybe two, and it's open between 09:00-18:00 every weekday, and somewhere they have open saturdays around 10:00 to 14:00.
you have to be 20 to buy anything at systembolaget but,
to go to the pub and drink yourself shitless, you only have to be 18 luckily, but there it's even more expensive. (around 6-8$+ for a 50cl beer, a cider, a smirnoff ice or a 4 cl 40% shot)
Also, beer and cider with 3.5% or less is available just about everywhere. (but good luck getting drunk on that without pissing 246 gallons)

well, I think that covers the most. but as with the drugs, I think the taxes should be set at a level where it would not be profitable to make it yourself, because now, we have a hell a lot of "moonshiners" in sweden, making their own booze, I drank quite a lot of the stuff back in the day though, so I shouldn't complaint  (luckily, I didn't go blind)

edit: also, in sweden it is legal to drink at the pub, legal to be drunk pretty much anywhere (except behind the wheel...) but illegal to drink in a public place. which is pretty much bullshit I think. in denmark you drink wherever the fuck you want, and noone can say shit. (just think of the difference, here I am, 22 years old, and just this summer a F*cking cop made me pour out a newly opened bottle on the ground when we where at kind of a beach party, meanwhile, a fucking 16 year old could sit legally in central copenhagen and drink his brains out.)


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 16, 2008)

Those laws seem pretty strict, I'm surprised!


----------



## JBroll (Oct 16, 2008)

If you want something to be done right, don't tell the government to do it.

That may be a foreign concept for those outside the States. I will repeat that in slightly different words.

Our government fails. The last thing we should be doing is giving it more shit to fail at.

Jeff


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 16, 2008)

Our current government would screw things up invariably, we're not optimistic people when it comes to our government butting into affairs too much.


----------



## gaunten (Oct 16, 2008)

heh, I aint surprised... even though I'm not to pleased with swedens government in all aspects, they do a decent job most of the time... then again, they only have about 9 million people to look after.
about the strict rules, yes, it is rather strict, but sweden is also full of the "doublemoraled" shitheads, who looks down on someone who is maybe a bit drunk somewhere in a city, then they sit and have their fancy homedinners and drink a hella lot themselves...

naah, I like denmarks philosophy better, they drink pretty much every day there, and as I've heard it, it is a lot more healthy to drink a little each day, than to drink immense amounts on weekends, and nothing on weekdays. something about the body readjusting. I think they mention this in the documentary posted a few pages back.


----------



## Daemoniac (Nov 19, 2008)

Wow im late to this party 

I agree with why they are trying to ban drugs, but i also believe its a rather naive look at drugs.

Honestly, i believe they'd have more success with the war if there was more education about them, without the fear-mongering people push on you. If you're going to tell a teen "No you cant do it, its terrible for you and will ruin your life" of course they are going to fucking do it. 

I honestly believe people make far FAR better, more rational, and less naive decisions when they are actually educated _properly_ (none of this fear bullshit) on a subject, especially one such as this.

Fact is, regardless of whether they legalise drugs or not, there will be illicit 'dealers' selling it cheaper, break-ins on chemists and pharmacies, and massive addiction. When dealers lose out, then shit will turn nasty and they start taking it out on _everyone_. That being said, with the legalisation of drugs, it means there should technically be a far better way of controlling the sales and distribution, and more easily available information.

Catch-22 imho.


----------



## JBroll (Nov 19, 2008)

We tried having education already, and that still didn't work - doesn't stop drinking, doesn't stop smoking, doesn't stop anything.

Again, the question is "Why the hell should the government be able to spend our money on being a nanny we don't need?"

Jeff


----------



## Choop (Nov 19, 2008)

I had a drug abuse class last semester in college for my personal health credit, and I completely agree 100% with JBroll on this topic. My professor was equally against the war on drugs, and I learned a lot more in that class than in any other class that I took that semester. 

I can agree with prosecution for drug-related violence, but it makes no sense to incarcerate people for nonviolent drug usage. All throughout the past the image of drugs has been manipulated and altered by uses of fear tactics and otherwise misrepresentation...to demonize them and anyone who may use them. We would rather put nonviolent drug addicts in jail rather than get them help. We would rather see nonviolent drug users in jail wasting away rather than contributing to society. 

Drug usage requires responsibility, as with most anything else. Why would we rather see people flooding prisons (also adding to a multitude of problems involving taxes, room in prisons, etc), instead of allowing these people to function socially?

I mean really.


----------



## JBroll (Nov 19, 2008)

Drug related violence?

Why is that even brought up at all? Violence is violence is violence is violence is wrong. The sources or causes are irrelevant, the prosecution should deal with the fact that violence took place, not because Jim Bob's acid trip went wrong and ohshitsomeonediedweshouldblameitondrugs.

Jeff


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Nov 19, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Drug related violence?
> 
> Why is that even brought up at all? Violence is violence is violence is violence is wrong. The sources or causes are irrelevant, the prosecution should deal with the fact that violence took place, not because Jim Bob's acid trip went wrong and ohshitsomeonediedweshouldblameitondrugs.
> 
> Jeff



This.

It pisses me off when people use alcohol or drugs as an excuse for violence, especially the people acting violent.


----------



## estabon37 (Nov 19, 2008)

Demoniac said:


> Wow im late to this party
> 
> Honestly, i believe they'd have more success with the war if there was more education about them, without the fear-mongering people push on you. If you're going to tell a teen "No you cant do it, its terrible for you and will ruin your life" of course they are going to fucking do it.



Along these lines, what do you think of the current "war against alcohol" here in Oz? Don't know what it's like in your area, but there's some real double standards here.

Our main street has 5 large pubs within 2 blocks of each other, another 4 pubs and 2 clubs within walking distance, and at least another 12 pubs covering the rest of town. We have one cinema and two bowling alleys. If you don't like drinking or bowling, THERE'S NOTHING TO DO!

Earlier this year the government raised the tax on pre-mixed alcoholic drinks to the extent that I was paying $10 for a can of Jim Beam in an attempt to fix "anti-social behaviour". If you don't like bowling there is FUCK ALL to do in this town other than drink. Put a thousand people aged 18-30 in the same area and get them all wasted - things are going to go wrong.

I don't know what happening in the USA, but if we class alcohol as a drug then the Australian Government is actually MAKING MONEY THROUGH A WAR ON BOOZE THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO END. The US Federal Government is spending $20 billion to stop drugs - are they making that money back?


----------



## Daemoniac (Nov 19, 2008)

estabon37 said:


> Along these lines, what do you think of the current "war against alcohol" here in Oz? Don't know what it's like in your area, but there's some real double standards here.
> 
> Our main street has 5 large pubs within 2 blocks of each other, another 4 pubs and 2 clubs within walking distance, and at least another 12 pubs covering the rest of town. We have one cinema and two bowling alleys. If you don't like drinking or bowling, THERE'S NOTHING TO DO!
> 
> ...


 
The tax did fuck all. I can say that for a fact, cos i worked _In a bottleshop, in the middle of surfers, over schoolies, indy and xmas hols..._

All it did, was change what the tradies doing 12 hour days drank, instead of a six pack of jim beam and a sixer of bundy, theyd get one bundy and a sixpack of beam, or along those lines.

The kids who this problem was supposed to stop are still drinking cos they have nothing better to do with their money, or they get given moeny by their fucking parents. Add to that the fact that its cheaper now to get a bottle of liquor, and more unsafe cos you dont "know" how much you pour into each glass, and you've got more of a problem than before. All the tax is doing is hurting the people who have shit to pay for and just need a drink sometimes/after work. 

As for the drug issue, there is information around i know, i just feel like it all has that fear-pushing feel to it which honestly i dont think does any good. Its rare that ive seen ANYTHING on drugs that is really objective, the Wiki articles are pretty good, and if you _search_ for it you can find it, but how mnay kids will?


----------



## Choop (Nov 19, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Drug related violence?
> 
> Why is that even brought up at all? Violence is violence is violence is violence is wrong. The sources or causes are irrelevant, the prosecution should deal with the fact that violence took place, not because Jim Bob's acid trip went wrong and ohshitsomeonediedweshouldblameitondrugs.
> 
> Jeff



Not really drug-induced violence, as much as using a drug irresponsibly to the point where it may cause others harm (IE: driving drunk). I'm saying that the government needs to ignore cases of drug use that don't effect other people negatively. Sorry for my poor phrasing =[.


----------



## JBroll (Nov 19, 2008)

I'm going a step further and saying that the government needs to ignore drug use and handle infractions against others as they are - just infractions against others. Using the drugs requires responsibility, and even considering drug use in a trial can only do two things - it can either be used to excuse someone who couldn't handle themselves and thought hiding behind drugs would save them, or it can be used to make a crime seem more heinous because the perpetrator was a drug user. The crime should not be the drug - hurting others is wrong, and should be prosecuted as its own crime with all other nonsense thrown out the window.

Jeff


----------



## noob_pwn (Nov 20, 2008)

i think it should be legal, if people are fucking dumb enough to get hooked on crack that's their own problem, although it may be seen as immoral and condoning bad stuff, the law won't protect a citizen from their own stupidity, if someone wants to go get baked its not too hard,
I would expect there would be a reduction in crime if this shit was made legal, look at the amount of problems the prohibition caused, its the same thing. At least if some illicit drugs were made legal there would be some sort of standardisation, the law doesnt effect people's actions nearly as much as community feelings do.


----------



## JBroll (Nov 20, 2008)

Legalization of drugs promotes drug use only in the way that freedom of speech promotes stupidity.

Jeff


----------



## forelander (Nov 20, 2008)

Demoniac said:


> The kids who this problem was supposed to stop are still drinking cos they have nothing better to do with their money, or they get given moeny by their fucking parents. Add to that the fact that its cheaper now to get a bottle of liquor, and more unsafe cos you dont "know" how much you pour into each glass, and you've got more of a problem than before. All the tax is doing is hurting the people who have shit to pay for and just need a drink sometimes/after work.



I'm dead serious when I add that home brewing of spirits has increased in under age drinkers as well.


----------



## gaunten (Nov 20, 2008)

mmmm dunkabr&#228;nnvin


----------



## Choop (Nov 20, 2008)

JBroll said:


> I'm going a step further and saying that the government needs to ignore drug use and handle infractions against others as they are - just infractions against others. Using the drugs requires responsibility, and even considering drug use in a trial can only do two things - it can either be used to excuse someone who couldn't handle themselves and thought hiding behind drugs would save them, or it can be used to make a crime seem more heinous because the perpetrator was a drug user. The crime should not be the drug - hurting others is wrong, and should be prosecuted as its own crime with all other nonsense thrown out the window.
> 
> Jeff



But if a person were to be driving drunk and killed another person in a collision, could you ignore the fact that he was drunk? Had he not been drunk that incident may not have happened.


----------



## Zepp88 (Nov 20, 2008)

Choop said:


> But if a person were to be driving drunk and killed another person in a collision, could you ignore the fact that he was drunk? Had he not been drunk that incident may not have happened.



P e r s o n a l
R e s p o n s i b i l i t y

People should have the responsibility, and the brains really, to not drink and drive. A drunk driving death is not because of alcohol, it's because of the fucktard behind the wheel.


----------



## Choop (Nov 20, 2008)

Zepp88 said:


> P e r s o n a l
> R e s p o n s i b i l i t y
> 
> People should have the responsibility, and the brains really, to not drink and drive. A drunk driving death is not because of alcohol, it's because of the fucktard behind the wheel.



Exactly my point. I think legalization of drugs is okay, but irresponsible usage should still be taken to point. There is a time and a place for everything.


----------



## JBroll (Nov 20, 2008)

Choop said:


> But if a person were to be driving drunk and killed another person in a collision, could you ignore the fact that he was drunk? Had he not been drunk that incident may not have happened.



The driver's inebriation - or lack thereof - doesn't make the victim any less dead. Driving while incompetent for any reason is risky, and involuntary manslaughter charges are certainly no fun - in Texas (and, I'm sure, some other states) 'intoxication manslaughter' is the charge pressed if someone operates a vehicle (or, according to Wikipedia, assembles a mobile amusement ride... damn drunken carnies) while intoxicated and winds up killing someone, and if this were extended to include any kind of lethal incident where a driver was unable to drive (drugs or no drugs) it would stick pretty well.

Jeff


----------



## Choop (Nov 20, 2008)

JBroll said:


> The driver's inebriation - or lack thereof - doesn't make the victim any less dead. Driving while incompetent for any reason is risky, and involuntary manslaughter charges are certainly no fun - in Texas (and, I'm sure, some other states) 'intoxication manslaughter' is the charge pressed if someone operates a vehicle (or, according to Wikipedia, assembles a mobile amusement ride... damn drunken carnies) while intoxicated and winds up killing someone, and if this were extended to include any kind of lethal incident where a driver was unable to drive (drugs or no drugs) it would stick pretty well.
> 
> Jeff



lol @ drunken carnies

That's an interesting way to look at it. It's almost too black & white for me. (i like to keep an open mind to unknowns) but I'd like to see this go into effect and find out what happens.


----------



## Pauly (Nov 20, 2008)

Not sure if this was brought up but I think it's terribly stupid how they're going round Afghanistan burning all the poppy fields that could be harvested (at the least for medicinal usage), and which is one of the only things the natives can actually sell and trade at the moment. Way to help the locals!


----------



## JBroll (Nov 20, 2008)

Choop said:


> lol @ drunken carnies
> 
> That's an interesting way to look at it. It's almost too black & white for me. (i like to keep an open mind to unknowns) but I'd like to see this go into effect and find out what happens.



There's a difference between 'black and white' and 'wrong'. One of those is to be avoided wherever possible, and the other is to be cherished whenever found.

Jeff


----------



## wannabguitarist (Nov 23, 2008)

I dunno if this is true or not but someone was telling me that at one point 30%+ of China's population was addicted to Opium and it was actually hurting the countries economy (there was also some stuff in there about the British controlling the Opium trade and what not, history I don't know). He said legalizing drugs in the US would cause the same problem



JBroll said:


> There's a difference between 'black and white' and 'wrong'. One of those is to be avoided wherever possible, and the other is to be cherished whenever found.
> 
> Jeff



I like that


----------



## JBroll (Nov 23, 2008)

Clearly, if alcohol were legal nobody would feel like working because they'd just sit around and get drunk!

Jeff


----------



## Zepp88 (Nov 23, 2008)

No, I don't think that would happen, when WE got the Chinese addicted to opium they didn't know the risks.

Here's another buzzword....E D U C A T I O N


----------



## JBroll (Nov 23, 2008)

Oh, balls, that means we might actually have to start educating... oh well, maybe pot will help with that.

Jeff


----------



## Zepp88 (Nov 23, 2008)

Yes, it will.


----------

