URGENT

[larghetto]

Are you saying that we can trust the common idiot on the street (and believe me most humans are NOT responsible creatures), to have a bag of heroin in there hands for £2.50 and function normally and - more importantly - not to addicted.

Yes, I do understand that most drugs are not harmful, when i replied i made no mention of drugs being harmful. However, the everyday man i doubt could live normally and have a job and have a normal life and function well in society. That isn't to say that some people could, i don't doubt that, you yourself Nullific, are living proof that this is possible. However a LOT of human beings are very mentally weak people - they could not cope if given all these drugs into their hands. I have no doubt that someone who injects H into their view when their at home wont be just as productive the next morning - however, can we trust people to do just that?

The reality is these drugs are quite addictive, (I know they are not as addictive as Nicotine) but the fact of the matter is they are still addictive, and giving drugs out at a minial price will make people want to spend their lives at home spending their money on drugs all day. Bear in mind there ARE people who eat chocolate all day and they don't even recieve that much of a high from it.

NB: You will soon find me one of the most scrupulous people when it come to facts and figures. I don't swallow government bullshit well.

However, i SERIOUSLY don't beleive that legalising drugs would stop it from going in the hands of children. I go back to my previous comment:

"Consider:
David comes in to school: "Hey guys my dad and mum were doing this drug they bought in the local shop last night [lets say heroin], I took some, dudes, it was the most amazing thing I've ever done! I mean if mum and dad are doing it can't be that bad can it?"
In the kid's psychology his parents are both doing it, so why shouldn't he? Let's not go into educating children that it's bad to take this kind of drugs - because that would result in their COMPLETE distrust in the system if over 18's are able to get it.
And there you have it; a couple of people in David's year follow suit, bearing mind that it would be VERY easy to get your hands on heroin if it was sold in shops, and there you go - youve got a lot of people addicted to heroin.

And don't tell me that it's harder to get if its regulated - tobacco is regulated - and look how many kids smoke, i daresay half you use tobacco in your joints and your not 16/18 (depending on the country). Also you'd probably see a lot of dealing to kids, who simply buy from the local shop and resell to children.

And PLEASE: lets not go into the effectiveness of health warnings here, people - Imagine "Warning Heroin/crack/meth etc. may be harmful to your mental and physcial health - only over 18's should do this drug" . AS IF kids are going to listen to that when cigerettes are more harmful and they STILL don't, including adults + these drugs are some of the mose pleasurable experiences known to man, pretty tempting for a kid to ignore those warning - tobacco isnt. "

Come on now, we would have a lot of kids getting drugs from adults here. Now, now, I think the dealer we have now would start dealing to kids.

I mean imagine children in an age like that, they come home and see their parents injecting heroin, your saying there in a big poster that drug consuption is right, and your basically advertising it to kids, and beleive me, im sure that kids would want to try it if they saw their parents doing it.

Also in your quotes, there is a lot of words like "frequently", "often", "necessarily", "sizable portion", "most" if your planning on releasing ALL drugs to the common man, your going to have a lot of the "less frequently", "less often", "less necessarily" "less sizable portion" of people becoming a big problem. - This is of course provided that the guy is completely correct about everything but im sure he is correct things he said bearing in mind he DID say "MOST".

"only about 35 percent tried it and only about 19% became addicted."

19% is a large figure if we attribute that to worldwide audiance. Granted, addiction often results in damage only due to the law, but imagine 19% being addicted in the world becoming addicted (and probably a lot higher if we're talking about something that would become socially acceptable), your talking about millions of people here, not just about a couple of hundred soldiers (who are mentally stronger than the average person) are you COMPLETELY SURE that these millions would be able to come out of their addictions >mentally< and physically (less of a concern in pure drugs) SOUND? (If they do come out of it)

However when your comparing legalizing weed to legalizing Heroin/crack/meth i think that in a COMPLETELY different ball park.

I think we should go back to puffing on blunts rather than IVing H. However I do respect you Nul, and you are (as i said previously) living proof that people CAN take hard (as people like to call them) drugs occassionally. But CAN is a word that is only respective a few, and those with a good mind (which most humans don't).

[Nullific]

Well put argument I must say, gonna have to smoke a bowl for this one and gather my thoughts.

Are you saying that we can trust the common idiot on the street (and believe me most humans are NOT responsible creatures), to have a bag of heroin in there hands for £2.50 and function normally and - more importantly - not to addicted.

Well lets consider, most of these common idiots on the street already have access to heroin, coke, virtually whatever drug they want in the cities. I live in northeastern USA, the price of heroin was as low as $4(£3) a bag in many areas here with a purity of up to 95%. Hell, in America we trust common idiots on the street with firearms and even allow many to carry them on their person...concealed.

However a LOT of human beings are very mentally weak people - they could not cope if given all these drugs into their hands. I have no doubt that someone who injects H into their view when their at home wont be just as productive the next morning - however, can we trust people to do just that?

The reality is these drugs are quite addictive, (I know they are not as addictive as Nicotine) but the fact of the matter is they are still addictive, and giving drugs out at a minial price will make people want to spend their lives at home spending their money on drugs all day.

Like I said in my previous post, you never know how pure drugs on the street are and cocaine and heroin these days is purer than ever. Imagine if you liked to drink in moderation, but all that was available to you was hard liquor. It would might it pretty hard not to pass off as an alcoholic. What if drugs, being legal, were found in new forms that werent availalbe on the street...say transdermal patches, sustained release pills or even chewing gum that slowly released the drug into the user so as to ease withdrawals or cause an ever so slight alteration.
This is nothing new, the natural method of using cocaine is to chew the leaves of the coca plant which only contains less than 1% cocaine. Cocaine gum has been suggested to ween cravings and provide stimulation equivalent to a few cups of coffee. When used this way it is both safe and not addictive.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/cocaine/cocagum.htm
When a heroin addict can support their habit it would be hard for even those close to them to know about their drug use. It would be a lot easier to use responsibly if you got pharmaceutical grade heroin or other opioids, even if you had to get it by doctors prescription.
Of course you'll never here about the addicts who can support themselves and never got into trouble, there is nothing on the news about that.

The British Columbia report also noted: "We found most of the addicts very likeable people. On the whole, they were friendly, cooperative, interested and eager to talk freely and frankly about themselves. Many of them have sensitive minds, are interested in their own psychological reactions and in philosophical problems generally. They were, on the whole, not self-conscious, were self-possessed, courteous and helpful."

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/...Anchor-12-3800
http://www.totse.com/en/drugs/legal_.../lgheroin.html

"Consider:
David comes in to school: "Hey guys my dad and mum were doing this drug they bought in the local shop last night [lets say heroin], I took some, dudes, it was the most amazing thing I've ever done! I mean if mum and dad are doing it can't be that bad can it?"
In the kid's psychology his parents are both doing it, so why shouldn't he? Let's not go into educating children that it's bad to take this kind of drugs - because that would result in their COMPLETE distrust in the system if over 18's are able to get it.
And there you have it; a couple of people in David's year follow suit, bearing mind that it would be VERY easy to get your hands on heroin if it was sold in shops, and there you go - youve got a lot of people addicted to heroin.

First I would like to note that legalization or all drugs certainly wouldn't mean everybody would be doing all these drugs, if kids or adults for that matter wanted any kind of drugs they are just a phonecall away or a walk down the alley. Also when marijuana was decriminalized in 11 US states there was nothing to suggest an increase in use.
http://www.nationalfamilies.org/publ...ia/decrim.html
I do think that hypothetical situation is a bit exaggerated, most people have alcohol in their homes with children. Any responsible parent would keep these substances away from their children. (Maybe people arnt responsible, i'll get to that)

And don't tell me that it's harder to get if its regulated - tobacco is regulated - and look how many kids smoke, i daresay half you use tobacco in your joints and your not 16/18 (depending on the country). Also you'd probably see a lot of dealing to kids, who simply buy from the local shop and resell to children.

And PLEASE: lets not go into the effectiveness of health warnings here, people - Imagine "Warning Heroin/crack/meth etc. may be harmful to your mental and physcial health - only over 18's should do this drug" . AS IF kids are going to listen to that when cigerettes are more harmful and they STILL don't, including adults + these drugs are some of the mose pleasurable experiences known to man, pretty tempting for a kid to ignore those warning - tobacco isnt. "

This is one of my favorite anti-drug defenses, because it sounds like a good point. Yet again, drug dealers don't check ID. Currently kids just need to go through a friend, or a friend of a friend or in the extreme case simply walk down the street to get any addictive drug they want. If I want some crack I'll I have to do is go to the table next to mine at lunch.
Are there people willing to buy minors tobacco and alcohol? There sure as hell are.
Will some people be willing to buy minors other substances assuming they were available over the counter? Of course, but there is no reason to suggest it would be any easier to get than it is now.

I mean imagine children in an age like that, they come home and see their parents injecting heroin, your saying there in a big poster that drug consuption is right, and your basically advertising it to kids, and beleive me, im sure that kids would want to try it if they saw their parents doing it.

Most people who are injecting heroin are doing so because it gives them the most bang for their buck. When dope is more easily available most will insufflate or smoke it. After all plenty of people drink around their kids.
With a new policy on drug use of course education must reform as well to teach about substances in a similar way to how most school system teach sex education. Abstenance being the best policy of course, but if you're going to use you might wanna know about the drug first...im sick of the lies. They could have been honest with me in health, they didnt need to tell me in elementary school that 'acid stays in your body forever'.
Plus im really sick of loosing personal freedom for the sake of the children, wont somebody save the children! Fuck them.
[quote]Also in your quotes, there is a lot of words like "frequently", "often", "necessarily", "sizable portion", "most" if your planning on releasing ALL drugs to the common man, your going to have a lot of the "less frequently", "less often", "less necessarily" "less sizable portion" of people becoming a big problem. - This is of course provided that the guy is completely correct about everything but im sure he is correct things he said bearing in mind he DID say "MOST". [quote]
Most as in a majority of.
Frequently/often - more so than. I don't see the problem. If you're going to release all drugs to the common man it does not mean everyone will be using every drug and certainly not that they will become addicted to them all. The common man will still have negative views about drugs, they can be free to explore their curiosity. What is the problem with that? If you're an irresponsible lawless individual who wants to do drugs you're going to do them even if they are illegal. If you're a law abiding citizen who does not use drugs because they are illegal it shows some sort of responsibility and maybe if you do use you will be more responsible about the use in the first place.

19% is a large figure if we attribute that to worldwide audiance. Granted, addiction often results in damage only due to the law, but imagine 19% being addicted in the world becoming addicted (and probably a lot higher if we're talking about something that would become socially acceptable), your talking about millions of people here, not just about a couple of hundred soldiers (who are mentally stronger than the average person) are you COMPLETELY SURE that these millions would be able to come out of their addictions >mentally< and physically (less of a concern in pure drugs) SOUND? (If they do come out of it)

You assume the entire world is going to go out and use heroin if it is legalized, and that 19% of them will indefinately become addicted. Ending the War on Drugs would not involve telling everybody to use them, rather that the negatives outweigh the positives and persecution of drug users must stop. In a society more accepting of drug use it would be much easier for an addict to seek help.
I would also like to compare with alcohol again, only a minority of those who use alcohol are consider 'alcoholics'.
Furthermore there is little reason to believe addicts cannot live normal lives, with transdermal patches or sustained release tablets to fight withdrawal at work and then come home to do their drug of choice.

In conclusion, of course there are people who are going to drink or use drugs irresponsibly and those that do so will do so regardless of the law. There are people who will eat too much and those that seem to have too much sex. Why should the actions of some people cause all of us to loose our rights, our right to freedom of consciousness and to do what we want with our bodies. Of course there are idiots, then there are those who have used drugs and led successful lives, John F. Kennedy used amphetamines, Sigmund Freud and queen Victoria cocaine, Bill Gates, John Lennon, Timothy Leary and Alex Grey used LSD.
How many people need to be imprisoned, arrested, humiliated due to the War on Some Drugs? How many people need to get HIV and other diseases from sharing needles because their state did not allow needle exchange programs? How many need to die of drug overdoses or be murdered by gangs and terrorist organizations funded by drug money?
What drug laws do is make a crime of something that is not, why should the punishment be more detrimental than the crime?

[larghetto]

Damn you NUL you always manage to come back with the facts!

I gotta give it to you, you manage to make a very point. All these ideas, very good indeed.

"In conclusion, of course there are people who are going to drink or use drugs irresponsibly and those that do so will do so regardless of the law. There are people who will eat too much and those that seem to have too much sex. Why should the actions of some people cause all of us to loose our rights, our right to freedom of consciousness and to do what we want with our bodies."

Unfortunately, the governments of today seems to think that its better to protect the underlined people rather than to give you freedom - if there were a way to guarantee responsible people could use these drugs then it would be a different matter - but in a world like today full of protective christians, and lots of the underlined people you arnt going to get this.

(Lights up a blunt) - passes it to Nul. "Something we can both agree on."

[dazedandcontributing]

i agree with edgar the legalization of all drugs is the way to go.But first we start with marijuana.the reason i agree is because if heroin and other drugs were legalized each junky would go through a step process to get them off the addiction factor of i need it now to more of a i need a fix.all junkys would become civilized humanitarians in my eyes because they are no longer outlaws and could receive help,also there would be designated places or clinics instead of the stair well of my apartment building for them to use there rugs and with them buying from the system it would be clean help stop the flow of aid and hiv through our country's if you just think about it a=on all levels you may also agree

[dazedandcontributing]

sorry fill in the blanks to high bad spelling

[F L E S H]

THere's a little problem with your statistics, Null... You were writing about Heroin use in the Vietnam war, and you said that 35% of the soldiers used heroin, and 19% got addicted.

Now, that's open to interpretation. If it's only 19% of the 35% (a total of just under 7%), then it is a small number, as you are trying to imply. However, the stats could also be saying that of the 35%, 19% got addicted, meaning more than half the people who used heroin got addicted. That's a much bigger number, and a cause for worry....

Could you enlighten me, please?

[Nullific]

This is from Drug War Crimes: The Consequences of Prohibition

I am pretty sure the author means that 19% of the 35% that tried it became addicted. Since I don't know the exact numbers lets say there were 10,000 soldiers and 35% of them tried herion. Thus 3,500 of them tried heroin, and of that 19% got addicted or 665 of the 10,000. Check my math if you want:
10000 * .35 = 3500
3500 * .19 = 665

[F L E S H]

This is from Drug War Crimes: The Consequences of Prohibition

I am pretty sure the author means that 19% of the 35% that tried it became addicted. Since I don't know the exact numbers lets say there were 10,000 soldiers and 35% of them tried herion. Thus 3,500 of them tried heroin, and of that 19% got addicted or 665 of the 10,000. Check my math if you want:
10000 * .35 = 3500
3500 * .19 = 665

I'm not doubting your math, I'm just pointing out that those stats can be interpreted in two very different ways, and depending which way the author means makes a big difference.

The other way of looking at it is
10,000 * .19 = 1,900

That's three times more than 665. I wonder how the author meant it, seriously...

[Mojavpa]

I think if all drugs were legalized then chaos would not ensue. The people who wanted to do heroin in the first place would still do it and those who dont care for it still wouldnt. If cocaine started being sold at the corner store, I really doubt everyone would start running there. I think all drugs should be legalized, and a portion of all the sales could go to education programs on drug abuse.

[Nullific]

I wonder how the author meant it, seriously...

He had to have meant 19% of the 35%. Other statistics show that of those who try heroin about 23% get addicted.
http://www.tobaccofreedom.org/issues/addiction/