Drug War

[fafalone]

For the first time ever, I now have a new icon

[NSX]

What is that/

[fafalone]

it's the Drug Enforcement Agency logo with a big red X through it. because they're an evil propaganda machine who go around ruining hundreds of thousands of lives per year of people who believe they should be free to put whatever chemicals they want into their own body, spreading misinformation and their own heavily biased interpretation of studies that actually support the opposite of current drug policy in the US. they refuse to send agents to formal structured drug debates because their own debate manual admits they lose every time.

[JaKiri]

The DEA has been a big failure, but don't hate the message duders.

[fafalone]

The message is the entire problem. Consenting adults should not be barred from putting certain chemicals (that, mind you, are generally far safer and linked to less long term effects than alcohol and tobacco (with the possible exception of long-term dissociative use creating holes in the brain)) into their own bodies in their own homes.

 

The DEA's message is that if you use drugs you'll either die or turn into a violent junkie... this simply isn't true.

[JaKiri]

fafalone said in post # :

The message is the entire problem. Consenting adults should not be barred from putting certain chemicals (that, mind you, are generally far safer and linked to less long term effects than alcohol and tobacco (with the possible exception of long-term dissociative use creating holes in the brain)) into their own bodies in their own homes.

 

The DEA's message is that if you use drugs you'll either die or turn into a violent junkie... this simply isn't true.

 

I'd say the message was 'Drugs are bad', which they certainly are in comparison with NotDrugs.

 

You also make it sound as if they're criticising poor little chemicals that never hurt anyone. That's just factually inaccurate. The only drug anywhere near legalisation in this country (which in some respects is just a more liberal america) is Cannabis, and even that's been linked to neural problems.

 

You also get the the additional problem that people tend to smoke it with tobacco, which ups the risk immensely.

[fafalone]

Ok, and alcohol and tobacco should be completely legal and people doing small amounts of other drugs should have their lives ruined by a drug conviction why?

[greg1917]

Because when people take heroin, they get addicted very quickly and in the majority of cases cant afford the cost of said drug. They often result to petty crime and drug dealing themselves.

 

In conclusion, any body that beats the living daylight of heroin dealers has my vote.

[fafalone]

Nicotine is more addictive than heroin; it's a scientific fact.

 

Not all people who take it get addicted, and alcohol-related violence is a millionfold more prevalent than heroin-related violence.

[JaKiri]

fafalone said in post # :

Ok, and alcohol and tobacco should be completely legal and people doing small amounts of other drugs should have their lives ruined by a drug conviction why?

 

Ignoring all the other arguments (alcohol is pretty benign for the most part, and baccy has the backing (hahaha) of an enormous industry, which would dissuade criminalisation), it's a matter of addictiveness and risk.

 

Plus, it's entirely optional on their part; they don't HAVE to take illegal drugs, do they? As consenting adults, they're assumed by the state to have the ability to make their own decisions.

[JaKiri]

fafalone said in post # :

Nicotine is more addictive than heroin; it's a scientific fact.

 

Not all people who take it get addicted, and alcohol-related violence is a millionfold more prevalent than heroin-related violence.

 

I like the way you're invoking science then abusing statistics.

[fafalone]

Benign? Do you have the good fortune of not knowing any agressive alcoholics?

 

Addictiveness and risk: There are no deaths linked solely to marijuana, LSD, DMT, and some other drugs. All three of the previously mentioned drugs are not physically addictive, and hallucinogens are not held to be psychologically addictive.

 

Cocaine is not physically addictive unless extremely heavy dosages are frequently taken (withdrawal is treated with trazodone, have you heard of it? not alot of people have); it is however very psychologically addictive; however risk is low as occaisonal recreational use does not create problems.

 

Heroin is physically and psychologically addictive, but no more so than cigarettes. Irresponsible use leads to health problems.. alot like alcohol. People who want it are going to get it no matter how hard the DEA tries.

[YT2095]

I`de agree with that for the main part, herion dealers are out to make as much cash as possible by exploiting the adicts, that`s a given.

the crap they cut it with is not for beleiving either! they should be shot! I agree.

However it`s NOT the Herion that`s the problem, it`s the crap the base is cut with and the lack of PROPER support by the .gov

 

one may live to a ripe old age on pharmacutical(sp?) herion without problems.

 

I see both sides of the argument here, why should I be classified as a criminal if I choose to administer "X" sudstance to myself, why? because the .Gov says so!?? Hell no! who the hell do they think they are telling ME what to do! and making me a criminal on THEIR say so! I think NOT!

 

and so, as you say booze and cigs are legal, and ya know why? it`s Taxable! and they get money from it, nothing else, it`s all MONEY, and they`re no better than the drug dealers they try to condem.

 

anyway, `nuff said

[fafalone]

MrL_JaKiri said in post # :

 

I like the way you're invoking science then abusing statistics.

 

3% of violent criminals in state prisons were under the influence of crack or powder cocaine at the time their crime was committed, and only 1% were under the influence of heroin (1999, National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (CASA))

[fafalone]

oh and alcohol is up at 25-30% (NIDA website)

[fafalone]

The government should be focused on HELPING addicts, not locking them up along with recreational users.

 

59.6% of inmates are in for non-violent drug offenses, 2.7% are in for ALL violent offenses (see the previously given breakdown of this), it's not hard to see that the cost of maintaining the exploding number of prisoners and the DEA's budget (which, by the way, is much larger than the Department of Education's budget) is clearly far more of a burden to society than dedicating resources to helping addicts and making the INEVITABLE use of drugs safer.

[YT2095]

lol, and "locking them up" is a joke in itself, I can get drugs more freely in prison than I can on the streets!

a few aquantainces got banged up in the nick, it`s virtualy FREE there!

 

jail is not the answer, and drugs are not the cause, it`s the LAWS.

 

</rant mode off>

[JaKiri]

fafalone said in post # :

 

3% of violent criminals in state prisons were under the influence of crack or powder cocaine at the time their crime was committed, and only 1% were under the influence of heroin (1999, National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (CASA))

 

fafalone said in post # :

oh and alcohol is up at 25-30% (NIDA website)

 

That's what I mean about abusing statistics you oaf. Those figures are meaningless unless it's per user, because you can't otherwise get a comparative measure of 'risk' (for want of a better term).

 

If one person took a substance, and was the only user of that substance, and died as a result, that would make it 100% deadly. According to you, because only one person died, it's less deadly than alcohol, or the others.

 

Since I suspect that there's more than 30 times the number of people who drink than use heroin, or 10x the number who use cocaine, your figures support MY point, NOT yours.

[JaKiri]

YT2095 said in post # :

lol, and "locking them up" is a joke in itself, I can get drugs more freely in prison than I can on the streets!

a few aquantainces got banged up in the nick, it`s virtualy FREE there!

 

jail is not the answer, and drugs are not the cause, it`s the LAWS.

 

</rant mode off>

 

Yeah, those pesky laws, always telling us what to do.

[fafalone]

Thread split off from the unrelated parent thread for more debate in a main-page forum. It qualifies for this forum because "Drugs and Behavoir" is a psychology course I happen to be taking next semester (starts next tuesday)

[fafalone]

My point was that drug use causes less deaths, which is true; the deaths per users is not currently being discussed because the burden on society is measured by quanitity, not percentage.

[fafalone]

and even then, IV heroin is probably the only drug with a higher death rate among its users than alcohol and tobacco (one of the leading causes of death)

 

Do you know how hard it is to die of an overdose of cocaine? You would need 1000mg of PURE cocaine (street samples are about 50% pure) taken within ONE HOUR (the liver metabolizes it quite quickly).

 

The death rate among users of only hallucinogens (LSD, DMT) is ZERO.

[JaKiri]

fafalone said in post # :

My point was that drug use causes less deaths, which is true; the deaths per users is not currently being discussed because the burden on society is measured by quanitity, not percentage.

 

That doesn't make sense, given that if you legalised it, the numbers of users would rise.

[fafalone]

Here we go, please provide some non-anecdotal evidence to support that claim.

[JaKiri]

fafalone said in post # :

and even then, IV heroin is probably the only drug with a higher death rate among its users than alcohol and tobacco (one of the leading causes of death)

 

Do you know how hard it is to die of an overdose of cocaine? You would need 1000mg of PURE cocaine (street samples are about 50% pure) taken within ONE HOUR (the liver metabolizes it quite quickly).

 

The death rate among users of only hallucinogens (LSD, DMT) is ZERO.

 

Again, this is an oversimplification, given that, for example, LSD can cause (although not death) extreme psychological problems. I'd personally view those as harmful.

 

You're looking at individual areas then misapplying the statistics duder.