Marijuana?

[user1991]

I did not consent to the state's control.

 

 

 

You do so by living here. If you don't like it, leave.

 

 

 

I was born here.

 

 

 

Look, the point here is - the government shouldn't be able to use coercion or force unless it is against someone who has used coercion or force, and has consented to be part of the system in the first place. If you don't want to be part of the system, you don't get any of the benefits of the system. It is simple.

 

 

 

If someone takes heroin in their own home and is physically forced into a cell, that is unjustifiable.

 

 

 

To be honest, the dangers of the drug are completely irrelevant to me. What is "better for society"* is irrelevant to me in this instance (not always, so don't brand me as some sort of insane individualist).

 

 

 

I own my own body. I have the right to put whatever I want into it.

 

 

 

That's pretty much it. The dangers to myself are irrelevant, the things that I could "potentially" do are irrelevant, because the actual physical act of putting heroin into my body only involves me.

 

 

 

To say that the majority/state can tell you what you can and cannot do to yourself is basically the same as saying "we own you." Quit with your arguments from consequence already. Drugs were legal for thousands of years and there were never any of these ridiculous problems people talk about. The whole thing with making them a huge deal is partly what leads to the problem.

 

 

 

 

 

* The drug war has been an epic failure so far. Lots of the problems that they use to justify it being illegal are actually caused by it being illegal in the first place.

 

 

 

1) Criminal association. If I am buying from a street dealer, there is no age regulation, and they can push harder drugs onto people too like coke and h.

 

 

 

2) In a regulated system drugs aren't cut and laced with poisons/other more dangerous drugs. In a regulated system, you know the exact potency of the drug you're taking so you can easily avoid overdose, control the type of high you are looking for. If you buy it from a dealer, you really have no idea. It could be any strength.

 

 

 

3) Drugs being illegal means that the cartels and gangs have to take more risk, which means that they can charge higher prices. This means that i) someone is more likely to resort to stealing to get money and ii) gangs can use drugs as their main source of funding for other, more serious criminal endeavors.

 

 

 

4) Police can spend their time on more important issues, which in turn will lower crime rates in other areas as well as free up billions of pounds/dollars etc in tax money that went towards futile drug laws. This money can go towards education and other more important areas as to try to educate the people properly instead of scaring them with propaganda. An educated populace is the key to getting rid of these problems.

 

 

 

5) Tax money gained from the regulated sale of drugs will give more money that can go towards more important things.

 

 

 

6) Drugs being illegal adds to social stigma which makes it harder for people with addiction and problems to speak out for fear of being judged by society. Also, the illegality means that it is hard for people to get the help they need because they fear being prosecuted.

 

 

 

7) It isn't the role of government to tell you what you can and cannot do to yourself.

[IGoddessI]

Freedom > safety

 

 

 

So your answer to my argument is.. get over it?

 

 

 

Sounds like somebody doesn't have an answer. What is the role of government? The act of physically taking the heroin doesn't impose on others' freedoms.

 

 

 

To the guy who said "oh suicide bombing should be legal then huh", no, because the act of bombing is an outward action aimed at other people and designed specifically to kill people.

 

 

 

I never consented to this government's control. The fact that they can use force and coercion against the people when we cannot use it against them is telling of the excessive power of government.

 

 

 

Goddess, quit trying to psychoanalyze everything I'm saying, "you have a problem with people telling you what to do." No, I have a problem with people in an unjustifiable position of control telling me what to do. If I'm on a plane and the pilot tells everyone to put on their oxygen masks I have no problem doing it because the pilot is in a position of justifiable authority. The government however, is not.

 

 

 

 

Freedom is nice if it does not impose the freedom of others. And that's why safety is taken because not everybody such as yourself is going to resort to peaceful measures.

 

 

 

So you're an exception to those who don't impose on other people's freedoms? Like I stated previously, go take it out on the people who give you a bad name. Although when you completely disregard that those type of people exist, it makes you look bad.

 

 

 

I never said that the role of physically taking heroin imposes on others, the actions under the effects do. Unless you want to count the emotional disturbance it imposes on others. I'm unsure whether crime rate would lower or not if it were to be legal though. You've already said several times that people can do whatever they want with their body if it does not impose the freedom of others. However, you keep denying those who impose on others after or during the effects of taking heroin.

 

 

 

I don't have an answer? I'm probably one of the very few people here who actually studied substance abuse and have worked with both victims and users of substance abuse. People like yourself and other drug users undoubtedly have some exceptional experience to share themselves. It's one thing to read from text books, it's another to be in the moment so for those who don't listen to some of your points because you're a drug user, you're missing out. Most of what I have learnt hasn't come from books but rather from people like yourself.

 

 

 

I agree with the excess power of the government, they do have too much power and the people do need some of it back. I've seen first hand just how corrupt police can be, you're forgetting I'm a part of the largest motorcycle gang in Australia. I hear about people disappearing, being framed, being paid off etc all the time. Not to mention the latest Gold Coast police sham. But in saying that, I also care about the well being of others.

 

 

 

I actually don't psychoanalyze anything on these boards unless somebody specifically asks me to, so please don't say that. I enjoy being myself and sharing my experiences rather than having people fear that I'm psychoanalyzing everything they're saying. It's sometimes more of a burden because people try to watch what they say around me in person and I just wish they would relax and be themselves.

 

 

 

I've just noticed that during your times on the boards, you get aggressive when people express their thoughts on what's best for other people, in particular drug use.

 

 

 

However, this isn't about who has experience, who has no idea what they're talking about, who psychoanalyzes or who get's aggressive on what topics. This is about marijuana (although side tracked to heroin etc). If you can't produce any new points other than "the government has no right to tell me what to do" for my counter-argument "the government can tell you what to do if it affects others" then it's time to agree to disagree. Going in circles brings nothing new to the table other than who wants to be right.

 

 

 

You could inject coca cola in to your body for all I care but if you impose on the freedoms of others when you take the coca cola, I do. My argument isn't really about the government and it's not about you (thank you for not being like other people, and I hope people do leave you alone) but it is about those people who abuse it and impose on others. And I'd hope that you disagree with their behaviours upon innocent people too, regardless of your stance.

[user1991]

[hide=]

Freedom > safety

 

 

 

So your answer to my argument is.. get over it?

 

 

 

Sounds like somebody doesn't have an answer. What is the role of government? The act of physically taking the heroin doesn't impose on others' freedoms.

 

 

 

To the guy who said "oh suicide bombing should be legal then huh", no, because the act of bombing is an outward action aimed at other people and designed specifically to kill people.

 

 

 

I never consented to this government's control. The fact that they can use force and coercion against the people when we cannot use it against them is telling of the excessive power of government.

 

 

 

Goddess, quit trying to psychoanalyze everything I'm saying, "you have a problem with people telling you what to do." No, I have a problem with people in an unjustifiable position of control telling me what to do. If I'm on a plane and the pilot tells everyone to put on their oxygen masks I have no problem doing it because the pilot is in a position of justifiable authority. The government however, is not.

 

 

 

 

Freedom is nice if it does not impose the freedom of others. And that's why safety is taken because not everybody such as yourself is going to resort to peaceful measures.

 

 

 

So you're an exception to those who don't impose on other people's freedoms? Like I stated previously, go take it out on the people who give you a bad name. Although when you completely disregard that those type of people exist, it makes you look ignorant instead.

 

 

 

I never said that the role of physically taking heroin imposes on others, the actions under the effects do. Unless you want to count the emotional disturbance it imposes on others. I'm unsure whether crime rate would lower or not if it were to be legal though. You've already said several times that people can do whatever they want with their body if it does not impose the freedom of others. However, you keep denying those who impose on others after or during the effects of taking heroin.

 

 

 

I don't have an answer? Who are you kidding? I'm probably one of the very few people here who actually studied substance abuse and have worked with both victims and users of substance abuse. People like yourself and other drug users undoubtedly have some exceptional experience to share themselves. It's one thing to read from text books, it's another to be in the moment so for those who don't listen to some of your points because you're a drug user, you're missing out.

 

 

 

I agree with the excess power of the government, they do have too much power and the people do need some of it back. I've seen first hand just how corrupt police can be, you're forgetting I'm a part of the largest motorcycle gang in Australia. I hear about people disappearing, being framed, being paid off etc all the time. Not to mention the latest Gold Coast police sham. But in saying that, I also care about the well being of others.

 

 

 

I actually don't psychoanalyze anything on these boards unless somebody specifically asks me to, so please don't say that. I enjoy being myself and sharing my experiences rather than having people fear that I'm psychoanalyzing everything they're saying. It's sometimes more of a burden because people try to watch what they say around me in person and I just wish they would relax and be themselves.

 

 

 

I've just noticed that during your times on the boards, you get aggressive when people express their thoughts on what's best for other people, in particular drug use.

 

 

 

However, this isn't about who has experience, who has no idea what they're talking about, who psychoanalyzes or who get's aggressive on what topics. This is about marijuana (although side tracked to heroin etc). If you can't produce any new points other than "the government has no right to tell me what to do" for my counter-argument "the government can tell you what to do if it affects others" then it's time to agree to disagree. Going in circles brings nothing new to the table other than who wants to be right.

 

 

 

You could inject coca cola in to your body for all I care but if you impose on the freedoms of others when you take the coca cola, I do. Others don't need to suffer just because of your beliefs.

[/hide]

 

 

 

The things you do on the drug are irrelevant when considering the actual physical taking of the drug. So, I believe that someone has the right to do whatever they want to their body. Since you can not conclusively demonstrate that taking the drug and going on to impose on the freedoms of others necessarily go together, (obviously they don't) - I don't think you can deny people the right to do what they want to themselves simply because some people may go on to do something stupid (again, I don't see how the taking of the drug and the actual end result of the person's actions are even related in this sense when we're talking about the legality of actually taking it)

 

 

 

I'm not denying that addicts and hard drug using criminals exist. I never denied their existence. I don't mention them because quite frankly I think they're irrelevant to the matter. There are so many things that could potentially lead to imposing on the freedoms of others that it is stupid to even take them into account. The whole drug issue has been blown wayyyy out of proportion. The physical act of taking the drug itself harms noone but yourself. The effects are irrelevant after this. I know I keep saying this, but people own their own bodies.

 

 

 

Somehow it has become common practice that force and coercion are used against people who are doing something to themselves, apparently for the betterment of a system which they didn't even consent to being in in the first place.

 

 

 

I didn't know you were in a motorcycle gang. What does being in a motorcycle gang entail?

 

 

 

 

 

On topic, of course marijuana should be legal. I think a lot of the population are waking up to the fact that it isn't even nearly as dangerous as our governments would have us believe (don't get me wrong, there are dangers, but they're so much less than most of the drugs/legal OTC drugs out there).

[IGoddessI]

That's a few paragraphs more than needed to say that you don't have anything new to bring to the table. I'll reply when you actually have a new argument that isn't repetitive and has a leg to stand on. Circles are great shapes, not arguments. We don't agree, next?

 

 

 

I'm saddened to hear some of the things kids learn in school about Marijuana. There does need to be a better education system installed.

 

 

 

I answered your other question in PM.

[venomai]

"Dying from eating a wild mushroom is rare since the majority of mushrooms in the wild are not poisonous. This suggests it is okay to eat wild mushrooms."

 

Death from morphine/heroin use, wild mushroom hunting and even something as simple as crossing the street is rare. However, when it does occur, it's often the result of the individual being careless (e.g. not looking both ways when crossing the street). None of these situations are up to "random chance" -- the individual always has the ability to minimize, if not entirely remove, the risk of injury.

 

 

 

If a user is to engage in reckless mushroom hunting or heroin use with no prior experience/education, and/or no knowledge of what they are consuming, it is indeed something that should be discouraged (albeit not necessarily prohibited).

 

 

 

The prohibition and "War on Drugs" are failing to remove heroin use from society. Instead, they are removing the ability for users to fully afford and understand their heroin use. These policies have removed proper education, affordable prices, regulated doses, clean needles, etc. and, as a result, have created many of the risks that exist today with heroin use.

 

 

 

but heroin is more dangerous than alcohol

 

And so too is morphine...

 

 

 

I agree that compromises should be made on both sides, but there is a problem with our society when we turn dysfunctional addicts into (a) criminals that are despised and locked behind bars rather than helped, and (B) a false representation of all heroin users.

[venomai]

I never said that the role of physically taking heroin imposes on others, the actions under the effects do. Unless you want to count the emotional disturbance it imposes on others.

 

Heroin has a sedating effect, weakening the muscles and putting the individual into a drowsy state. Its effects rarely put others at serious risk.

 

 

 

The emotional disturbances are a result of culture-dependent social stigmas, rather than the effects of heroin. The same emotional disturbance can be seen among friends and family of cigarette smokers, zoophiles, prostitutes, etc. in the West.

 

 

 

[sorry for the nitpick, but I strongly agree with your earlier sentiment: honest education about drugs and their effects is essential.]

[Lenticular_J]

If you don't want to be part of the system, you don't get any of the benefits of the system.

 

By this, do you mean, if you want to live in anarchy, you should be able to, not having to listen to anybody, but you don't get those freedoms too? Because I personally find that idea ridiculous. I mean, without the protection of the government at the very least, who are they going to complain to when they get shot? If I completely misinterpreted that, tell me.

 

 

 

Heroin has a sedating effect, weakening the muscles and putting the individual into a drowsy state. Its effects rarely put others at serious risk.

 

But wouldn't you call the addiction, thus inciting the need to keep using, risky? I mean, I've read about heroin withdrawal systems, and they seem nasty. If I was jonesing for a fix, I know I would do damn near anything to get it.

[1_man_army]

I never said that the role of physically taking heroin imposes on others, the actions under the effects do. Unless you want to count the emotional disturbance it imposes on others.

 

Heroin has a sedating effect, weakening the muscles and putting the individual into a drowsy state. Its effects rarely put others at serious risk.

 

 

 

 

When high on heroin people can't do much to others but when they're craving the next hit, many junkies will do anything to get it. That is where the effect on others comes in.

[Erk02]

I've actually changed my position on Marjuana recently, while I still hold the belief that it does lead to other drugs (I've seen it happen right in front of my eyes) I believe it will save the life of those defending this country. I could care less if you choose to do it, nor do I care if you're safe. Ramos and Compean were two jailed border patrol agents, who were given 10+ years for shooting an illegal who was smuggling drugs (marjuana to be specific). I personally would not have cared less if they shot him dead in the head, but he lived and they got into trouble for not reporting it, the illegal testified, they got their sentence while he went free. They were recently pardoned (well, their sentences were commuted, thank god)

 

 

 

I believe there would be no need for illegals to smuggle marijuana into this country, if if was legal. that illegal would've been some other place, possibly smuggling other drugs. I'm not a drug guy, I don't care to do drugs, I have done them, but I'm a cleaner guy now. I care about the agents more so than the users of the drugs. And I am still fully against the legalization of other drugs (harder). Yeah go ahead, whine and complain about how I'm an evil controlling right winger while you tell me what cars and light bulbs I can't have :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

Also, before you call me a raaaaaaaaaaycist, I'm a mexican, I like my people, just hate illegals.

What are you trying to say? Illegals are less than people?

[JIM]

If you don't want to be part of the system, you don't get any of the benefits of the system.

 

By this, do you mean, if you want to live in anarchy, you should be able to, not having to listen to anybody, but you don't get those freedoms too? Because I personally find that idea ridiculous. I mean, without the protection of the government at the very least, who are they going to complain to when they get shot? If I completely misinterpreted that, tell me.

 

 

 

Governments shouldn't be intrusive though, they should protect our natural rights. We as people don't need government for anything else. Protect the rights and freedoms of all, that's it. These basic rights are your natural inalienable rights and should not be for anyone else, even government to bestow upon us.

 

 

 

There shouldn't be a "system". Only free people living together as they please with the only "LAW" being that you don't infringe on the rights of others. That's it in a nutshell. No prohibition 'laws' (read:statutes), no getting fined for putting your rubbish bins out on the wrong day (GF England :roll:) and no getting arrested for taking innocent pictures of policemen. In such a system, if I choose to take Heroin, providing I don't infringe on the rights of anyone else, no problem! But, if I rob an old lady in order to procure some skag then I should rot in jail. This is the point I want to stress; my actions are what would be at fault. I robbed an old lady, what does it matter why I did it? The issue is that I am a person who is willing to (and did) infringe on the rights of someone else for my personal benefit. This is what I would be charged for, I made the decision to mug an old lady, not Heroin. Heck, I wasn't even ON Heroin when I did it. If I started robbing people in order to get money to buy shoes, would you blame the shoes and illegalise them? Shopping is a recognised addiction too.

 

 

 

People are hugely diverse, I would wager that the amount of Heroin users who don't resort to illegal activities to fund their habit greatly outweighs those that do...

 

 

 

"Hello this is 123 News, early this week a man identified as John Smith, London, worked 60 hours peeling potatos at a farm in order to use the money to purchase Heroin for personal use in the privacy of his own home. We join John Doe at the scene...".

 

 

 

Doesn't sound newsworthy does it? People do different things at different times for different reasons. If someone I've never met goes out and commits a crime in order to buy ANYTHING, what business does Government have banning that thing for me or anyone else?

 

 

 

I am not a child and do not require big-daddy government to hold my hand whilst crossing the road of life.

[Lenticular_J]

I don't really give a damn about that. I mean, I found True's quote (and how I think he meant it) interesting. I certainly agree that it should be true, but I just don't understand why someone would want it, or how it would even work in practice. I mean, it sounds like the teenager's dream when they run away and use that as leverage for living completely free, with no responsibilities from their parents or life in general (I quote George Lopez a lot. Carmen was a birch.).

 

 

 

But would it be? Who would pay for these anarchists? Would they live the same, just above the law or something? Does that mean anyone could walk up and kill them or something? I just want that explained.

 

 

 

I wonder if, had George Orwell been killed early in life, people would be as paranoid about some big daddy government. Not trying to point you out in particular, but I find it's relatively common in people who want drug legalization.

[baron8000]

 

Governments shouldn't be intrusive though, they should protect our natural rights. We as people don't need government for anything else. Protect the rights and freedoms of all, that's it. These basic rights are your natural inalienable rights and should not be for anyone else, even government to bestow upon us.

 

 

 

 

Out of interest, what do you mean by natural rights? I thought all natural lawyers died out somewhere around 1700?

[JIM]

 

Governments shouldn't be intrusive though, they should protect our natural rights. We as people don't need government for anything else. Protect the rights and freedoms of all, that's it. These basic rights are your natural inalienable rights and should not be for anyone else, even government to bestow upon us.

 

 

 

 

Out of interest, what do you mean by natural rights? I thought all natural lawyers died out somewhere around 1700?

 

 

 

Are you referring to Natural Law? I just meant the rights we are all born with as equal human beings really, not any of the so-called "rights" that have bestowed on us Brits by the EU or anything.

[baron8000]

 

Governments shouldn't be intrusive though, they should protect our natural rights. We as people don't need government for anything else. Protect the rights and freedoms of all, that's it. These basic rights are your natural inalienable rights and should not be for anyone else, even government to bestow upon us.

 

 

 

 

Out of interest, what do you mean by natural rights? I thought all natural lawyers died out somewhere around 1700?

 

 

 

Are you referring to Natural Law? I just meant the rights we are all born with as equal human beings really, not any of the so-called "rights" that have bestowed on us Brits by the EU or anything.

 

 

 

This is what I want you to define, that sounds dangerously like natural law to me. Provided you realise that these rights are nothing more than social constructs then we have not problem. Believing in natural rights that are intrinsic from birth and exist supra-law is, on the other hand, problematic to the point of being incorrect.

[IGoddessI]

Heroin has a sedating effect, weakening the muscles and putting the individual into a drowsy state. Its effects rarely put others at serious risk.

 

 

 

Please feel free to nit-pick, I enjoy a debate that actually requires facts rather than opinions, it gets somewhere and people learn something. I disagree, I would have to say it imposes many risks, however, more often than not the violence occurs during the chosen method of obtaining the funds to feed addiction.

 

 

A representative sample of 354 male heroin addicts living in the Baltimore metropolitan area was traced from onset of opiate use to time of interview to ascertain any changes in the frequency or type of offences committed during their years at risk. Five basic measures of criminality were employed: crime-day theft, crime-day violence, crime-day dealing, crime-day con games and crime-day other offences. A sixth measure -- composite crime day -- incorporated all five crime-day measures. Crime rates per year were derived from these six measures. It was found that the start of addiction was associated with a high level of criminality (255 composite crime-days per year), and that this high rate continued over numerous subsequent periods of addiction. Theft of property was the most common type of crime, followed by drug sales, other offences, con games, and violent offences. In contrast to the addiction periods, criminality decreased over successive non-addiction periods. Thus, the composite crime rate (82 composite crime-days per year) for the first non-addiction period was only 32% of the rate of the first addiction period and this lower rate of criminality decreased markedly thereafter.

 

 

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6653385

 

 

 

Edward Preble & John. J. Casey suggest in "Taking care of business - The Heroin user's Life on the street" that the "typical" or generalized addict is not driven primarily by a need for the drug but "by the need to find meaning, a need to have an occupation that has a beginning, middle and end, by a need to find rewards in life, without rewards". "Hustling" is common in the heroin user, which means that the addict is more often than not driven by the desire to maintain their life-style as well as their habit; Diamond rings, flashy cars, gorgeous women.

 

 

 

They need to get the money somehow. You can almost pin point your local heroin user in the slums by the way they walk, with their fast and purposeful stride but don't go around making accusations. Although admittedly, "beatings", "taking care of business" (murder) that occur on the streets for "cheating the user" could be controlled with legalization. That goes without saying they (heroin users) will still take care of business for many other facets that comes with dealing, whether legalized or not. In fact, according to many researchers "taking care of business" is commonly used in the every day life of a heroin addict. For example "How are you today?", where "taking care of biz" is the common abbreviation. An even older phrase is "ripping and running".

 

 

 

There is a myth that lower class users take heroin to escape their lives and although true for very few, what they are actually seeking are the fundamentals of a quality life. And quite rarely use for the state of mind that heroin produces for them, but rather to achieve gratifications from challenging tasks, every day of the week. Once again synchronizing with the need for theft. Those who used as teenagers quite often lack in work experience or the skills required to obtain work, thus also resort to crime. Critically thinking though, legalization could lower the street value and purity, reducing the need for theft and over dosing. This goes without saying that the assumption still exists that if widely available crime rate may actually rise for the higher demand even if met and there will still be over doses regardless of stance.

 

 

 

A common problem for social class heroin users is gambling. Users use a method known as "sharking" which means having a huge win and then gambling that bet "black or red" 3 times in a row correctly. This makes the win 500-1. Other than gamblers who know this method, you will find the "typical" heroin user bragging about how much they won at x club or casino at x time, usually it exceeds $1000.00 AUS because of the ridiculously high bets. Although this method is flawed because some users become higher out of pocket in an extremely short amount of time and then will have to commit extra crimes to gain the money back. However, on big wins the user won't have to resort to crime that week, unless they become greedy and keep sharking with their winnings.

 

 

 

Another common problem is loan sharking. Many users apply for loans at these places (usually pawn brokers) for ridiculously high amounts of interest because little identification and proof of income is needed. More often than not users get trapped because they can't pay the debt back in time which the interest rate then hits the roof. For a simple $200.00 aus loan installed in 4 weekly payments, the typical user will be $60.00 - $100.00 out of pocket if the loan is paid on time. However typically when it has not, they have been charged anything up to $100.00 per missed payment or have even come to the point where their assets have been ceased. This resorts to more crime. Usually no questions are asked, thus making the user embarrassment and/or guilt free, making loan sharking a "safe" place to be.

 

 

 

The psychological effects that stem from gambling such high amounts or owing debt is devastating. Users lie to their family and friends, become depressed and may even resort to suicide. Others become blinded with rage and take it out on innocent people. Although this goes without saying some users take a few big loans and re-group quite quickly.

 

 

 

1961 - present. There used to be large amounts of social cohesion between users on the streets but now the demand and prices that have caused struggles usually leave addicts looking out for one person, themselves. However within saying that, it is quite common to find addicts who hang around in "pairs", after all, sometimes it's much more effective to move stolen goods with an extra pair of hands or with a "look-out". Heroin users are often heard to say "Friends? I have no friends, only associates". Another victim of heroin stated "I beat him today, he'll beat me tomorrow. That's the name of the game", another addict stated "I beat them every chance I get, which is all the time" (R. Coombs, L. Fry, P. Lewis, Socialization in drug abuse).

 

 

 

One reason that I do support legalization of heroin is "down line cutting" which involves each of the distributors to make an extra "cut" to make pure profit. More often than not the people up the top hire "salesmen" 16-18 year old school kids who don't have a criminal record and don't use. Less likely to draw attraction to the police or bash/kill/steal from the distributor. Personally, I have a huge problem with that. Usually these kids are just after extra money to buy clothes.

 

 

 

Here is a table which illustrates and simplifies the process [edit - trying to get the image working]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(The Heroin Market - Chain of supply, Adulteration Process & Payment)

 

 

 

And I'm just warming up - Don't get me started ;) Regardless of what true thinks, I do have answers, plenty of them. I'm just extremely busy with moving house and don't have much time to write. I also don't enjoy writing things like this unless I know the respondent is likely to read it (yourself), not disregard it all together. It's time consuming.

 

 

 

The prohibition and "War on Drugs" are failing to remove heroin use from society. Instead, they are removing the ability for users to fully afford and understand their heroin use. These policies have removed proper education, affordable prices, regulated doses, clean needles, etc. and, as a result, have created many of the risks that exist today with heroin use.

 

 

 

That is why I'm against the "War on Drugs" and whole-heartedly welcome the "Harm minimization" approach that reduces the risk in drug users because it accepts that drugs will always be in the community and provide such places as needle exchanges. As a result the rate in heterosexual HIV numbers have decreased more than other countries who are still at war with drugs and refuse this method.

[JIM]

 

Governments shouldn't be intrusive though, they should protect our natural rights. We as people don't need government for anything else. Protect the rights and freedoms of all, that's it. These basic rights are your natural inalienable rights and should not be for anyone else, even government to bestow upon us.

 

 

 

 

Out of interest, what do you mean by natural rights? I thought all natural lawyers died out somewhere around 1700?

 

 

 

Are you referring to Natural Law? I just meant the rights we are all born with as equal human beings really, not any of the so-called "rights" that have bestowed on us Brits by the EU or anything.

 

 

 

This is what I want you to define, that sounds dangerously like natural law to me. Provided you realise that these rights are nothing more than social constructs then we have not problem. Believing in natural rights that are intrinsic from birth and exist supra-law is, on the other hand, problematic to the point of being incorrect.

 

 

 

Isn't pretty much everything a social construct? :)

 

 

 

If you're looking for a definition: Common Law Rights.

[baron8000]

[hide=]

 

Governments shouldn't be intrusive though, they should protect our natural rights. We as people don't need government for anything else. Protect the rights and freedoms of all, that's it. These basic rights are your natural inalienable rights and should not be for anyone else, even government to bestow upon us.

 

 

 

 

Out of interest, what do you mean by natural rights? I thought all natural lawyers died out somewhere around 1700?

 

 

 

Are you referring to Natural Law? I just meant the rights we are all born with as equal human beings really, not any of the so-called "rights" that have bestowed on us Brits by the EU or anything.

 

 

 

This is what I want you to define, that sounds dangerously like natural law to me. Provided you realise that these rights are nothing more than social constructs then we have not problem. Believing in natural rights that are intrinsic from birth and exist supra-law is, on the other hand, problematic to the point of being incorrect.

[/hide]

 

 

 

Isn't pretty much everything a social construct? :)

 

 

 

If you're looking for a definition: Common Law Rights.

 

 

 

Depends entirely on your view of law if I'm honest, there are still a few natural lawyers about (although few in the west, and most loony theologians). You must be careful to not mislabel common law rights as natural rights - they are two very different things; if one were to ascribe to natural law, you could justify a "government must not interfere" stance, but with the common law as it is, the Government is right to intervene with statute when it finds the common law to be lacking or incorrect.

[JIM]

[hide=]

 

Governments shouldn't be intrusive though, they should protect our natural rights. We as people don't need government for anything else. Protect the rights and freedoms of all, that's it. These basic rights are your natural inalienable rights and should not be for anyone else, even government to bestow upon us.

 

 

 

 

Out of interest, what do you mean by natural rights? I thought all natural lawyers died out somewhere around 1700?

 

 

 

Are you referring to Natural Law? I just meant the rights we are all born with as equal human beings really, not any of the so-called "rights" that have bestowed on us Brits by the EU or anything.

 

 

 

This is what I want you to define, that sounds dangerously like natural law to me. Provided you realise that these rights are nothing more than social constructs then we have not problem. Believing in natural rights that are intrinsic from birth and exist supra-law is, on the other hand, problematic to the point of being incorrect.

[/hide]

 

 

 

Isn't pretty much everything a social construct? :)

 

 

 

If you're looking for a definition: Common Law Rights.

 

 

 

Depends entirely on your view of law if I'm honest, there are still a few natural lawyers about (although few in the west, and most loony theologians). You must be careful to not mislabel common law rights as natural rights - they are two very different things; if one were to ascribe to natural law, you could justify a "government must not interfere" stance, but with the common law as it is, the Government is right to intervene with statute when it finds the common law to be lacking or incorrect.

 

 

 

Thanks, I'm aware of the distinctions I was just in the flow and terms I use on a daily basis with friends etc tend to slip in. :)

 

 

 

It's a matter of opinion whether Government is right to intervene in matters of common law. Well.. I suppose I can think of instances where it would be/has been necessary to do so but HOW it intervenes is the issue for me really.

[baron8000]

[hide=]

 

Governments shouldn't be intrusive though, they should protect our natural rights. We as people don't need government for anything else. Protect the rights and freedoms of all, that's it. These basic rights are your natural inalienable rights and should not be for anyone else, even government to bestow upon us.

 

 

 

 

Out of interest, what do you mean by natural rights? I thought all natural lawyers died out somewhere around 1700?

 

 

 

Are you referring to Natural Law? I just meant the rights we are all born with as equal human beings really, not any of the so-called "rights" that have bestowed on us Brits by the EU or anything.

 

 

 

This is what I want you to define, that sounds dangerously like natural law to me. Provided you realise that these rights are nothing more than social constructs then we have not problem. Believing in natural rights that are intrinsic from birth and exist supra-law is, on the other hand, problematic to the point of being incorrect.

[/hide]

 

 

 

Isn't pretty much everything a social construct? :)

 

 

 

If you're looking for a definition: Common Law Rights.

 

 

 

Depends entirely on your view of law if I'm honest, there are still a few natural lawyers about (although few in the west, and most loony theologians). You must be careful to not mislabel common law rights as natural rights - they are two very different things; if one were to ascribe to natural law, you could justify a "government must not interfere" stance, but with the common law as it is, the Government is right to intervene with statute when it finds the common law to be lacking or incorrect.

 

 

 

Thanks, I'm aware of the distinctions I was just in the flow and terms I use on a daily basis with friends etc tend to slip in. :)

 

 

 

It's a matter of opinion whether Government is right to intervene in matters of common law. Well.. I suppose I can think of instances where it would be/has been necessary to do so but HOW it intervenes is the issue for me really.

 

 

 

I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to justify that opinion - the judiciary's role has always been one of enforcement of legislative/executive intent (explicitly through statute, or tacitly through common law). The common law is still the law of the Government, but rather than being made explicitly through their words it is made by the courts with the implicit approval of the Houses. It seems to me there are no occasions when it is right to prevent the democractically elected power from overruling the unelected judge - to do so would make our judges into princes and kings.

 

 

 

Of course, making the argument the Government is interfering on an incorrect basis is perfectly valid -that is a moral or social question, but the Government overruling the Judiciary is certainly not an illegal, or unjust thing - that is a settled question of law.

 

 

 

PS - this will be my last post of the night, but will check back tomorrow.

[Nomrombom]

Pros: Short term: Relax, have fun, feel good, get high, feel cool in general

 

Long term: None

 

Cons: Short term: Slowed reaction time

 

Clothes, breath, hair, smell bad

 

red eyes

 

coughing

 

trouble breathing is possible

 

Long Term: (here we go, takes big deep breath)

 

Brain damage (a small amount) not EXTREMELY serious

 

Gateway drug, increases chances to use harder drugs like cocaine or heroin

 

Very delayed reaction times

 

Cancers of various parts of the body

 

anxiety

 

psychosis

 

depression

 

heart attacks and strokes increased chance of happening

 

various other health problems

 

In short, I really don't care if people use it or not, just go to MA (I live here) and it's been decriminalized. The police just basically give you a slap on the wrist :roll: My town is actually nicknamed (by druggies and drug dealers etc.) "Drugsbury" Yeah. :shock:

[dongleberry]

There is no reason that marijuana should be criminalized. Right now criminalizing it causes more harm to society than it would if it was legalized. I cannot find the article but recently an MIT professor wrote on how anything pushed to the black market makes it more dangerous than if it's openly traded. The situation you encounter if a sale goes bad is this, you are [bleep]ed. There aren't many safe ways to fix a bad sale, you can't ask the BBB to blacklist that dealer, you can't ask the police to arrest them for stealing your money. Because of driving it to a black market there is a huge crime syndicate formed. Guns are used in major (and to a smaller extent) minor transactions. When is the last time you brought a firearm to a car sale?

 

 

 

As it stands, there haven't been any proven long term affects to the physical condition. Short term you experience fatigue, and minor loss of motor coordination. If you can consider the munchies a con that's fine. I think many of you need to find the difference between causation and correlation. Just because pot smokers get depressed doesn't mean it caused it, not all pot smokers are depressed, or get cancer.

 

 

 

Plus the whole gateway drug is a misnomer. Do yourself a favor, and look at scientific studies if you have access to different journals, and read up on erowid it can be a bit biased but they do their best to present science, while explaining it on a layman's level.

 

 

 

For my case, I don't smoke weed or do other drugs. It's illegal, and since I get drug tested for work I would get caught. I do drink since it's illegal, and for those of you who argue that it would interfere with your work it'd be simple to create a policy like every other employer where they don't allow intermingling of drugs and work. Like they currently don't allow you to be drunk and working.

 

 

 

 

 

I goddess I, your name is familiar do you remember who I am?

[Erk02]

Why don't we just change the topic name to Heroin? Seriously, this is the Marijuana topic, make your own heroin topic, kiddos. In the mean time, I'm going to go roll a joint.

[IGoddessI]

I agree that the talk on heroin is off topic and would suit it's own topic, if anyone wants to open a thread, or bump an existing drug thread, I'm more than happy to contribute. I'm probably older than you are though, so please don't call me kiddo. I hate that word in general, it's degrading when it's not considered literally. I just wanted to inform people properly after others commented on it.

[MoodJuice]

No, Why? well, Brain damage, Lung damage, other stuff that is assorted to smoking that crap.

 

 

 

I think it should only be used in medical reasons.

 

 

 

I just think marijuana is just a peice of crap that screws up our society.

 

Im done ranting.

 

 

 

Brain damage? Please.

 

 

 

Respiratory damage can be mitigated by the use of vaporizers, and there have been no conclusive links between marijuana and cancer--in fact, many believe that tetrahydrocannabinol actually has anticarcinogenic properties.

[Zierro]

Right now criminalizing it causes more harm to society than it would if it was legalized. I cannot find the article but recently an MIT professor wrote on how anything pushed to the black market makes it more dangerous than if it's openly traded.

 

 

 

Not only that, but imagine the number of people in jail for marijuana. Putting people in prison costs money and effort that should be used for real criminals - robbers, murderers, rapists, etc.

 

 

 

I agree that compromises should be made on both sides, but there is a problem with our society when we turn dysfunctional addicts into (a) criminals that are despised and locked behind bars rather than helped, and (B) a false representation of all heroin users.

 

 

 

Yes, those are problems that need fixing. Honestly I think drug users should only be put in jail if they are committing a crime while under the influence. Prison should be restricted to the nihilistic members of society. Rehabilitation seems nice but one problem is that many heroin users who do have problems will not want to give their consent to be put into rehab - some don't even admit they have a problem. This is where I think the government should step in and either give them the choice of rehab or jail. But either way, I think measures should be taken and lines should be drawn.