Drinking/Drugs

[masmipsCoar]

This really answered my drawback, thanks! I look forward to more here at forum.tip.it!

[TrueBeaver]

I love getting sloppy drunk, waking up the next morning not knowing what the hell happened, then regrouping with some hair o' the dog. Although I've toned it down a bit since a few years back.

 

I smoke weed when it's offered but I don't enjoy it nearly as much as alcohol so I don't seek it out and I don't do any other drugs, although I'm not necessarily against the idea.

 

I think all drugs should be legalized and drug tests should be mandatory for any sort of government assistance.

[marcustullius]

The ACLU is doing a month of the failed war on drugs, here are the first two articles for your enjoyment:

 

 

The 40 Year War on Drugs: It's Not Fair, and it's Not Working

June 2011 has the unfortunate distinction of marking the 40th anniversary of President Richard Nixon's declaration of a "war on drugs" — a war which has cost $1 trillion but produced little to no effect on the supply of or demand for drugs.

 

The war on drugs has been a war on communities of color. The racial disparities are staggering: despite the fact that whites engage in drug offenses at a higher rate than African-Americans, African-Americans are incarcerated for drug offenses at a rate that is 10 times greater than that of whites.

 

In 2001, I represented dozens of African-Americans who were charged and convicted of bogus, very low-level cocaine offenses in a small Texas town called Tulia. The only evidence against them was the uncorroborated testimony of one corrupt law enforcement officer, Tom Coleman. That didn't stop my clients from receiving sentences of 20, 40, 60 and even 90 years. While the ending was ultimately a happy one, my clients spent four years in prison for crimes they did not commit while we worked to clear their names against a stubborn backdrop of entrenched racial bias and fear-driven crime and drug war policies that fueled the drug sweep and ensuing convictions.

 

The war on drugs has sent millions of people to prison for low-level offenses, and seriously eroded our civil liberties and civil rights while costing taxpayers billions of dollars a year, with nothing to show for it except our status as the world's largest incarcerator. There are 2.3 million people behind bars in this country — that is triple the amount of prisoners we had in 1987 — and 25 percent of those incarcerated are locked up for drug offenses. Taxpayers spend almost $70 billion a year on corrections and incarceration. A far more sensible way to deal with a public health problem like drug addiction is to provide treatment, which study after study has shown is more effective than incarceration. Texas, for example, has implemented a number of reforms in recent years that prioritize drug treatment over incarceration, and its crime rate has dropped to its lowest rate since 1973 as a result.

 

Through advocacy and litigation, the ACLU has been seeking an end to this failed war on drugs and our costly addiction to incarceration for decades. For example, in the last legislative session, the ACLU of Maryland testified in favor of two bills that would work toward minimizing the practice of incarcerating individuals convicted of nonviolent drug offenses, offering treatment as an alternative.

 

Today we are increasingly joined by state lawmakers, judges, advocates, conservative and liberals alike, in recognizing that something is seriously wrong with our criminal justice system. Even U.S. drug czar Gil Kerlikowske admits the drug war strategy hasn't worked, telling the AP: "In the grand scheme, it has not been successful ... Forty years later, the concern about drugs and drug problem is, if anything, magnified, intensified."

 

Most recently, in Brown v. Plata, the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that our policies of overincarceration have produced a crisis in California prisons, where extreme overcrowding has resulted in unconstitutional conditions. California is not alone in having a bloated prison system, but thankfully states around the country have already recognized what California now must: that it is "possible to reduce the prison population 'in a manner that preserves public safety and the operation of the criminal justice system'" and also preserves the Constitution.

 

To reflect on the dubious occasion of the 40th anniversary of the drug war, and underscore the wide-reaching and devastating impact of drug policies over the last four decades, the ACLU is launching a month-long blog series dedicated to the need to end the war on drugs. Check back daily throughout June for posts about the drug war, its victims and what needs to be done to restore fairness and create effective policy.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform-racial-justice/40-year-war-drugs-its-not-fair-and-its-not-working

 

 

Retroactivity - The Path to Fairness

June 2011 marks the 40th anniversary of President Richard Nixon's declaration of a "war on drugs" — a war that has cost roughly a trillion dollars, has produced little to no effect on the supply of or demand for drugs in the United States, and has contributed to making America the world's largest incarcerator. Throughout the month, check back daily for posts about the drug war, its victims and what needs to be done to restore fairness and create effective policy.

 

Considering the unequivocal failure of the war on drugs, it is critical that we use its 40th anniversary as an opportunity to reevaluate our country's drug policy.

 

An example of not only identifying a flaw in the our criminal justice system but making the effort to remedy this flaw is the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA), which was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama last year. The FSA represents a decade-long, bipartisan effort to reduce the racial disparities caused by draconian crack cocaine sentencing laws and to restore confidence in the criminal justice system — particularly in communities of color.

 

In order to implement the FSA, the United States Sentencing Commission (the independent agency responsible for setting sentencing policies for the federal courts) has restructured the federal sentencing guidelines to decrease the disparity between mandatory minimum sentences for certain quantities of crack and powder cocaine and to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for possession of small amounts of crack cocaine.

 

The commission has now turned its attention to the issue of whether this new sentencing structure should be applied retroactively to individuals sentenced under the old law and held a public hearing on June 1, 2011 to examine the issue. The ACLU's very own Senior Legislative Counsel, Jesselyn McCurdy, testified at the hearing and urged the commission to apply the new guidelines retroactively in order to fully realizing the FSA's intent of "restor[ing] fairness to Federal cocaine sentencing." In her testimony, Jesselyn explained, "The underlying concerns with racial equality and proportionality that motivated Congress's two significant changes to crack cocaine sentences…apply with equal force to old sentences as to new ones."

 

By applying the new sentencing structure retroactively, the Sentencing Commission would right a terrible injustice and give approximately 12,040 individuals who were sentenced under the previous sentencing regime the opportunity to have their sentences reduced. With the 40th anniversary of the war on drugs upon us, now is the perfect time for the Sentencing Commission to take a key step in promoting fairness in our criminal justice system.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform-racial-justice/retroactivity-path-fairness

 

 

and drug tests should be mandatory for any sort of government assistance.

Funny.

[Furah]

I'd like to take a moment, in commemoration of the 40th anniversary, to thank the US government for the fact that the war on drugs has been ensuring that my country's dollar rises even higher above theirs, and that my drugs become even cheaper and less cut.

 

I think all drugs should be legalized and drug tests should be mandatory for any sort of government assistance.

People can side-step that by taking drugs you can legally obtain such as morphine and DXM. The only time I can see drug testing as useful is for people such as pilots and people working with heavy machinery. Maybe the army. Even then, only testing for the drugs that would have serious negative effects in their ability to work.

[marcustullius]

I think all drugs should be legalized and drug tests should be mandatory for any sort of government assistance.

 

That would just criminalize/hurt the poor even more, and if you think all drugs should be legalized then it's just illogical. Also, when the people who require assistance are working, they are paying into welfare and such. That's why it's there.

[TrueBeaver]

People can side-step that by taking drugs you can legally obtain such as morphine and DXM. The only time I can see drug testing as useful is for people such as pilots and people working with heavy machinery. Maybe the army. Even then, only testing for the drugs that would have serious negative effects in their ability to work.

If they're so poor-off that they require state assistance they shouldn't be spending that money on any currently-illicit drugs, with obvious exceptions (not that it's illicit now but cough medication, etc) and special circumstances (marijuana for cancer patients). Also, morphine is classified as a controlled substance in most(?) countries as well as internationally.

 

That would just criminalize/hurt the poor even more, and if you think all drugs should be legalized then it's just illogical. Also, when the people who require assistance are working, they are paying into welfare and such. That's why it's there.

Why is it illogical? It's my body, the government has no more right to legislate what drugs I put in it as they do what food I put in it. What's illogical is your next sentence. You seem to be implying that if I said "Drug testing should be mandatory to receive any form of government assistance past what the individual has personally paid in taxes." it would be okay. Considering nearly half the households in the USA aren't affected by the income tax, I suspect there are similar statistics for other countries which tend to have more progressive tax policies, and the personal income tax accounts for 45% of federal revenue I'd say it isn't much of a distinction.

 

I'm not sure on which point "That would just criminalize/hurt the poor even more" is directed but I'd like to hear your reasoning.

[marcustullius]

 

That would just criminalize/hurt the poor even more, and if you think all drugs should be legalized then it's just illogical. Also, when the people who require assistance are working, they are paying into welfare and such. That's why it's there.

Why is it illogical? It's my body, the government has no more right to legislate what drugs I put in it as they do what food I put in it. What's illogical is your next sentence. You seem to be implying that if I said "Drug testing should be mandatory to receive any form of government assistance past what the individual has personally paid in taxes." it would be okay. Considering nearly half the households in the USA aren't affected by the income tax, I suspect there are similar statistics for other countries which tend to have more progressive tax policies, and the personal income tax accounts for 45% of federal revenue I'd say it isn't much of a distinction.

 

 

Ok, so first you said that poor people should have mandatory drug tests to get welfare, and now you are saying they shouldn't because it's their body? It's illogical because first you say that drugs should be legalized, but then you say people should have to take drug tests to get assistance, which makes no sense because you don't think drugs are that dangerous and drug testing when it's legal to get assistance is illogical. I don't get what you are trying to say, first you say X, then you say Y and denounce X? Clarification please.

 

Oh, hahaha, I see, you think that people should be able to take drugs, except those lazy bums! So lets make policies aimed at criminalizing and hurting the poor so that they don't do drugs (instead of actually addressing problems like employment, education, equality, etc)! Bad idea.

 

How would they even swing that?

"Yes drugs are legal, no we don't think they are dangerous enough to be deemed illegal, yes people should be able to do to their bodies what they want. That is, of course, unless you are poor."

[Furah]

People can side-step that by taking drugs you can legally obtain such as morphine and DXM. The only time I can see drug testing as useful is for people such as pilots and people working with heavy machinery. Maybe the army. Even then, only testing for the drugs that would have serious negative effects in their ability to work.

If they're so poor-off that they require state assistance they shouldn't be spending that money on any currently-illicit drugs, with obvious exceptions (not that it's illicit now but cough medication, etc) and special circumstances (marijuana for cancer patients). Also, morphine is classified as a controlled substance in most(?) countries as well as internationally.

Never been to a hospital before? Numerous patients on morphine. There are also other similar drugs you can obtain legally. Here in Australia you can get what's called a green whistle, which is a small inhaler which looks like a green whistle and contains a small amount of methoxyflurane. It's given out by paramedics and hospitals as a short-term pain reliever. My friend had one when stacked his skateboard out the front of the hospital and ripped some skin off of his forearm. If he was on welfare then they could have taken him off it simply from consuming something that the government hospitals gave him.

 

People on welfare can already spend their money on drugs (alcohol, caffeine) and also on whatever the hell they want (gambling, tvs, computers, gaming consoles, pools, the list goes on) without any government intervention, why would something new change that system?

[TrueBeaver]

Ok, so first you said that poor people should have mandatory drug tests to get welfare, and now you are saying they shouldn't because it's their body? It's illogical because first you say that drugs should be legalized, but then you say people should have to take drug tests to get assistance, which makes no sense because you don't think drugs are that dangerous and drug testing when it's legal to get assistance is illogical. I don't get what you are trying to say, first you say X, then you say Y and denounce X? Clarification please.

 

Oh, hahaha, I see, you think that people should be able to take drugs, except those lazy bums! So lets make policies aimed at criminalizing and hurting the poor so that they don't do drugs (instead of actually addressing problems like employment, education, equality, etc)! Bad idea.

 

How would they even swing that?

"Yes drugs are legal, no we don't think they are dangerous enough to be deemed illegal, yes people should be able to do to their bodies what they want. That is, of course, unless you are poor."

I don't even-

Yes, I think you should be able to do whatever you want with your body with your money. I never said drugs aren't dangerous. Lots of things are dangerous and legal, but people who are spending their own money should be able to gauge risk v reward and make a decision. It's human nature to spend your own money more effectively than someone else's and I think everyone can agree buying an eight ball isn't doing anything to help employment, education, or equality. Further, it's not like this is the one policy I want. I'd love to see school districts around the world learn from AIPCS so poor youth have a fair shot at receiving a quality education and thus better employment. I'd love to see rent control eliminated so fair housing can return. There is a whole host of policies I'd like to see implemented to deal with employment, education, and equality. This one is simply to provide those who are receiving other people's money an extra incentive to spend it wisely. In fact it would free up more funds to help those who are serious about improving their situation. I don't care if poor people want to buy drugs, but I do care if they're using taxpayer money to buy them.

 

Never been to a hospital before? Numerous patients on morphine. There are also other similar drugs you can obtain legally. Here in Australia you can get what's called a green whistle, which is a small inhaler which looks like a green whistle and contains a small amount of methoxyflurane. It's given out by paramedics and hospitals as a short-term pain reliever. My friend had one when stacked his skateboard out the front of the hospital and ripped some skin off of his forearm. If he was on welfare then they could have taken him off it simply from consuming something that the government hospitals gave him.

 

People on welfare can already spend their money on drugs (alcohol, caffeine) and also on whatever the hell they want (gambling, tvs, computers, gaming consoles, pools, the list goes on) without any government intervention, why would something new change that system?

You're clinging to a point that would not be an issue pragmatically. Drug testing is not an all-or-nothing deal, it'd be very easy when you are testing someone to ask "Have you taken any medications in the last 90 days?" and send those notes with the samples to be tested. My friend initially failed his drug test to get into West Point because he had a couple poppy seed bagels for breakfast. After the failed test they asked him about it, he explained, and they tested further to verify it was poppy seed and not anything illicit.

 

Your second point is much stronger, but just because a proposal does not encompass every detail does not mean it would not have an effect. Recently some legislator blocked a bill that would make it illegal to drive while texting in my state because she felt it should include eating, doing make up, etc. A step in the right direction is better than no step at all.

Further, according to NPR polling 75% of low-income Americans said that they felt that drug use was a major cause of poverty. For comparison, 52% said a shortage of jobs was a major cause and 46% said poor quality schools was. What's the harm in forcing people to make a choice: government assistance or their drug fix?

[marcustullius]

This one is simply to provide those who are receiving other people's money an extra incentive to spend it wisely. In fact it would free up more funds to help those who are serious about improving their situation. I don't care if poor people want to buy drugs, but I do care if they're using taxpayer money to buy them.

 

 

People on assistance pay into those programs (when they work) which they use when they are in need. Not spending their money on drugs isn't going to help them get an expensive education, an expensive house, or a decent job. As long as capitalism is around, there will be poor people, and there will be poor people who spend money on drugs to numb themselves from their reality. You want them not to take drugs? Set up programs to make education more accessible, put them in work programs where there is actually a chance of advancing to a decent wage, set up addictions programs, etc. You need to address the cause of the drug use. Who's going to pay for the drug tests anyway? Or is it going to be like Florida where the guy who pushes for it has a vested interest the company that administers the tests? Having to go on assistance isn't a choice for lazy people, it's a place you end up. Do you want to tell poor people what kind of food they can buy next?

 

I don't want to offend, but this is the only way I can put it: Your posts seem to be a lot of bootstraps and them poors are using MY money for drugs!

[Furah]

Your second point is much stronger, but just because a proposal does not encompass every detail does not mean it would not have an effect. Recently some legislator blocked a bill that would make it illegal to drive while texting in my state because she felt it should include eating, doing make up, etc. A step in the right direction is better than no step at all.

Further, according to NPR polling 75% of low-income Americans said that they felt that drug use was a major cause of poverty. For comparison, 52% said a shortage of jobs was a major cause and 46% said poor quality schools was. What's the harm in forcing people to make a choice: government assistance or their drug fix?

That's only going to encourage crime and violence.

[Ginger_Warrior]

[citation needed]

[Furah]

Do I really need a citation to show that addicts will commit crimes to fuel their habits?

[Nifflin]

Yes please. And not just a hasty generalization.

[Ginger_Warrior]

I misinterpreted what he meant by government assistance. Having read properly I can see his points are asinine.

 

I thought he was referring to success rates of addiction programs (government assistance) compared to those who are forced to go 'cold turkey'.

[Furah]

It's cool Ginger.

 

Nifflin, here is your damn evidence.

[TrueBeaver]

People on assistance pay into those programs (when they work) which they use when they are in need. Not spending their money on drugs isn't going to help them get an expensive education, an expensive house, or a decent job. As long as capitalism is around, there will be poor people, and there will be poor people who spend money on drugs to numb themselves from their reality. You want them not to take drugs? Set up programs to make education more accessible, put them in work programs where there is actually a chance of advancing to a decent wage, set up addictions programs, etc. You need to address the cause of the drug use. Who's going to pay for the drug tests anyway? Or is it going to be like Florida where the guy who pushes for it has a vested interest the company that administers the tests? Having to go on assistance isn't a choice for lazy people, it's a place you end up. Do you want to tell poor people what kind of food they can buy next?

 

I don't want to offend, but this is the only way I can put it: Your posts seem to be a lot of bootstraps and them poors are using MY money for drugs!

Addressing the cause of drug use would be in legalizing all drugs. In the example of Portugal cited in the other thread, enrollment in drug rehab shot up dramatically, 63%, since they legalized all drugs. In my last post I posted policies to address those issues, drug testing for welfare is not some miracle policy that will fix all that is wrong in society.

 

Again, I don't care if they use drugs to numb themselves from reality. The purpose of the various welfare programs is to assist low-income people to try to help them advance upwards socio-economically. As I cited in my last post, the poor themselves cite drug use as the #1 reason preventing them from getting out of the low-income bracket (poverty line x2).

 

That's only going to encourage crime and violence.

Legalizing drugs will lessen crime and violence in addition to freeing up law enforcement to address any rise in crime and violence. As cited, in your post as well as earlier in this post, legalizing drugs allows drug-addicts to get the help they need which would also mitigate drug-addiction fueled crime.

[Furah]

That's only going to encourage crime and violence.

Legalizing drugs will lessen crime and violence in addition to freeing up law enforcement to address any rise in crime and violence. As cited, in your post as well as earlier in this post, legalizing drugs allows drug-addicts to get the help they need which would also mitigate drug-addiction fueled crime.

I know what legalisation will do, I've been studying up on it for a while now. However, taking welfare off of people who fail a drug test isn't going to help the addicts at all.

[i_love_burritos]

Ritalin, not my thing.

 

lol

[Furah]

Changed your mind, mate?

[Nifflin]

Does anyone know if absynth is still illegal in America?

[K4ylan]

Does anyone know if absynth is still illegal in America?

 

I'm pretty sure it's still illegal. There's some cheap knock-off brands, but Absinthe itself is still illegal; you'll have to smuggle it in really well.

[mcneilp]

Does anyone know if absynth is still illegal in America?

 

I'm pretty sure it's still illegal. There's some cheap knock-off brands, but Absinthe itself is still illegal; you'll have to smuggle it in really well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absinthe#United_States

 

I was going to type up a whole bit about absinthe but Wikipedia seems to have its facts straight so theres a link.

 

I've got a bottle of 80% "Absinthe" in my room which is essentially just 80% aniseed flavour spirit coloured blue, but due to the lack of guidelines for what constitutes Absinthe, the company can slap a label proclaiming the drink is absinthe even if it technically isn't.

 

Also, most of the myths about it have been blown way out of proportion (ie, the Thujone in it makes you hallucinate, it has THC type properties etc).

[Range_This11]

If you want THC properties in alcohol, just throw a bunch of stems in the bottom of a bottle of vodka and let it sit for a few weeks. I've never tried it myself as I feel like a moron saving my stems, but some of my friends say it will seriously [bleep] you up.

[i_love_burritos]

If you want THC properties in alcohol, just throw a bunch of stems in the bottom of a bottle of vodka and let it sit for a few weeks. I've never tried it myself as I feel like a moron saving my stems, but some of my friends say it will seriously [bleep] you up.

 

Letting the resin/scrapings sit in high proof alcohol like Everclear usually works. Stems aren't as good, IMHO.

 

:thumbup:

 

[hide]Save your stems.[/hide]