I guess when I was thinking of hard drugs, I was thinking mostly of crack. Addictive from the first try, or so they say.
Whoever "they" are, I'm guessing that "they" have an addictive personality, and are genetically prone to addiction. So it's not the drug itself that gets them hooked on that first hit, it's their own brain.
Back before there was crack, I used to manufacture freebase cocaine from cocaine salts for my friends. I knew the chemistry, and didn't smoke, so doing stuff like that and cleaning pot gave me something to do with my hands in those social settings. I used one of three common methods. Crack is nothing more than freebase cocaine made using the crudest of the three methods. Usually my reward for doing the work was a (very) small sample of the finished product. I did not like the sensation. After the curiosity factor wore off, I said "no thanks" to the free hit. I guess that I'm wired for ethanol, and not cocaine.
Well...many people deliberately overdose on prescription drugs for suicidal purposes. But it's harder to accidentally overdose on drinking alcohol because all commercially available, governmentally regulated drinking alcohol is a known quantity. You know the concentration of alcohol, and most "by the glass", carafe and bottled drinks are served in standardized quantities.
One thing about watching your drinking seems to be a puzzler, though. Most light to moderate drinkers tend to count their drinks, and stop at a small number, needing only one hand's worth of fingers to count their drinks with. But according to lots of "are you an alcoholic?" tests, counting your drinks is a sign of alcoholism! WTF? I never counted my drinks...
I only count my drinks so that I can walk out of the bar....
Not too difficult, as I usually stop at 2. (I'm a wuss.)
Agreed, yet it's the only one I can think of that people DELIBERATELY overdose on.
Well...many people deliberately overdose on prescription drugs for suicidal purposes. But it's harder to accidentally overdose on drinking alcohol because all commercially available, governmentally regulated drinking alcohol is a known quantity. You know the concentration of alcohol, and most "by the glass", carafe and bottled drinks are served in standardized quantities.
One thing about watching your drinking seems to be a puzzler, though. Most light to moderate drinkers tend to count their drinks, and stop at a small number, needing only one hand's worth of fingers to count their drinks with. But according to lots of "are you an alcoholic?" tests, counting your drinks is a sign of alcoholism! WTF? I never counted my drinks...
I know many people people who take the so called hard drugs and not one of them is an addict. In fact every single one of them gets up every morning and goes to work. These people are not hardcore criminals they are simply people who choose to spend some of their hard earned cash on taking some drugs that happen to be illegal yet if they were caught they would be prosecuted and perhaps go to jail. I know a couple who like to take heroin once a month when they get paid simply because they like the hit and they have done this for years, I see no harm in that at all, they are not out on the town on a weekend getting pissed out of their brains starting fights like many people do in my town.
As for your weed comment I agree that growing your own should not be a crime, wheres is the victim in that? However, I'm not sure if you have it where you are but here in the UK we have something called skunk weed which is basically a man made weed, not even natural which can be up to 20 times the normal strength of regular weed. It's an awful drug and there are certainly links to mental health with that particuar weed. Natural highs I'm all for but skunk is the only 'drug' i would ban. Thing is it's everywhere now and it's what the kids are smoking, it's almost impossible to buy pot or normal weed now. Not that I do, my smoking/drug days are long gone now. I've even given up the cigarettes (6 weeks now)
I guess when I was thinking of hard drugs, I was thinking mostly of crack. Addictive from the first try, or so they say.
As for the skunk weed, if used properly, it can lessen the damage to lungs, because you smoke less. Presumably. I don't think it should be any less legal than "plain" pot....as it does not seem to cause criminal activity, any more than your friends' using heroin once a month. (I'm betting that's the exception and not the rule — betting most folks can't "handle" heroin addiction that well.)
I know many people people who take the so called hard drugs and not one of them is an addict. In fact every single one of them gets up every morning and goes to work. These people are not hardcore criminals they are simply people who choose to spend some of their hard earned cash on taking some drugs that happen to be illegal yet if they were caught they would be prosecuted and perhaps go to jail. I know a couple who like to take heroin once a month when they get paid simply because they like the hit and they have done this for years, I see no harm in that at all, they are not out on the town on a weekend getting pissed out of their brains starting fights like many people do in my town.
FYI— It can take years, even decades for someone to lose control of their lives because of addiction. Those people who you know may very well end up in crisis some time later. Addiction is a progressive disease. It works in subtle ways. People who were casual drug users (or social drinkers) in their youth can and do end up as full-blown addicts (and alcoholics) by middle age. Some can remain functional for quite a long time. But, as one ex-heroin user said, "you never see any old junkies — there's a reason for that."
That's not to say that everyone who uses illegal drugs will become addicted. But in general, the longer someone continues using, the greater chance they have of losing control. Most people who don't develop problems give up their habits altogether while still relatively young.
I agree with you enthusiastically about that, with plenty of first-hand knowledge to back it up! While almost any drug's benefit or detriment is in direct proportion to how (and by whom) it is administered, ethyl alcohol is a highly reactive, highly toxic chemical with few if any legitimate medical uses as a medication. Many years ago I did an informal comparison of the complexity of the chemical structures of various popular recreational drugs and alcohol. What I found was that, with few exceptions (like nitrous oxide), that ethyl alcohol is a simpler (fewer atoms per molecule or salt) and more unstable (the hydroxyl radical) than other drugs.
IIRC I was incited to do this comparison at a time when ethyl alcohol was just beginning to be used at concentrations of less than 10% as a gasoline additive. As it happened, even this small amount of alcohol, in a cocktail of all sorts of dangerous chemicals, caused many fuel systems to fail. Ethyl alcohol is a powerful oxidizer, and it was eating up the rubber in gas lines and fuel pumps, causing all kinds of mayhem. Newer cars use alcohol-resistant fuel system components, so it's no longer the problem that it once was. But it stood out to me as a sobering example of how a concentration of ethanol that's roughly equivalent to that of wine could do a lot of damage.
I doubt that the human body in its natural state is any more resistant to the damaging chemical effects of ethanol than those old cars were. Of course, the human body can repair itself, which is good. OTOH, it can repair only so much, and those repairs just allow you to drink more and do more damage! And so far I've only been talking about the basic chemical reactions caused by alcohol, separate from the intoxicating effects, metabolism and other ill-effects!!
Research has shown that moderate consumption of ethyl alcohol can be beneficial to health under certain circumstances. And its use has been so deeply ingrained in human tradition that it's unlikely to fall out of common use. But it's one drug NOT to abuse!!! Take it from someone who found out the hard way...
Agreed, yet it's the only one I can think of that people DELIBERATELY overdose on.
Thing is, it's always presumed that drugs are bad for you, The most destructive drug I've seen wherever I have beeen is undoubtedly alcohol yet that is readily available in most countries, in fact encouraged...
I agree with you enthusiastically about that, with plenty of first-hand knowledge to back it up! While almost any drug's benefit or detriment is in direct proportion to how (and by whom) it is administered, ethyl alcohol is a highly reactive, highly toxic chemical with few if any legitimate medical uses as a medication. Many years ago I did an informal comparison of the complexity of the chemical structures of various popular recreational drugs and alcohol. What I found was that, with few exceptions (like nitrous oxide), that ethyl alcohol is a simpler (fewer atoms per molecule or salt) and more unstable (the hydroxyl radical) than other drugs.
IIRC I was incited to do this comparison at a time when ethyl alcohol was just beginning to be used at concentrations of less than 10% as a gasoline additive. As it happened, even this small amount of alcohol, in a cocktail of all sorts of dangerous chemicals, caused many fuel systems to fail. Ethyl alcohol is a powerful oxidizer, and it was eating up the rubber in gas lines and fuel pumps, causing all kinds of mayhem. Newer cars use alcohol-resistant fuel system components, so it's no longer the problem that it once was. But it stood out to me as a sobering example of how a concentration of ethanol that's roughly equivalent to that of wine could do a lot of damage.
I doubt that the human body in its natural state is any more resistant to the damaging chemical effects of ethanol than those old cars were. Of course, the human body can repair itself, which is good. OTOH, it can repair only so much, and those repairs just allow you to drink more and do more damage! And so far I've only been talking about the basic chemical reactions caused by alcohol, separate from the intoxicating effects, metabolism and other ill-effects!!
Research has shown that moderate consumption of ethyl alcohol can be beneficial to health under certain circumstances. And its use has been so deeply ingrained in human tradition that it's unlikely to fall out of common use. But it's one drug NOT to abuse!!! Take it from someone who found out the hard way...
If the government figured out a way to tax (for instance) marijuana use, and to stop using resources to prosecute and incarcerate for simple posession, we could probably pay off the national debt with the money saved in court costs, and money collected for "use". I'd gladly pay a rather high fee to grow my own pot. I'd save money and so would the government. And the jails wouldn't be full of NON criminals.
As for the harder drugs, I do believe that the physical addiction causes people to commit crimes to support their habit. I don't think we can legalize the harder stuff.
I know many people people who take the so called hard drugs and not one of them is an addict. In fact every single one of them gets up every morning and goes to work. These people are not hardcore criminals they are simply people who choose to spend some of their hard earned cash on taking some drugs that happen to be illegal yet if they were caught they would be prosecuted and perhaps go to jail. I know a couple who like to take heroin once a month when they get paid simply because they like the hit and they have done this for years, I see no harm in that at all, they are not out on the town on a weekend getting pissed out of their brains starting fights like many people do in my town.
As for your weed comment I agree that growing your own should not be a crime, wheres is the victim in that? However, I'm not sure if you have it where you are but here in the UK we have something called skunk weed which is basically a man made weed, not even natural which can be up to 20 times the normal strength of regular weed. It's an awful drug and there are certainly links to mental health with that particuar weed. Natural highs I'm all for but skunk is the only 'drug' i would ban. Thing is it's everywhere now and it's what the kids are smoking, it's almost impossible to buy pot or normal weed now. Not that I do, my smoking/drug days are long gone now. I've even given up the cigarettes (6 weeks now)
Location: The birthplace of Rock & Roll, baby. Gender:
Posted:
Oct 22, 2008 - 7:40am
Pyro wrote:
Agreed!
If the government figured out a way to tax (for instance) marijuana use, and to stop using resources to prosecute and incarcerate for simple posession, we could probably pay off the national debt with the money saved in court costs, and money collected for "use". I'd gladly pay a rather high fee to grow my own pot. I'd save money and so would the government. And the jails wouldn't be full of NON criminals.
As for the harder drugs, I do believe that the physical addiction causes people to commit crimes to support their habit. I don't think we can legalize the harder stuff.
Which would pretty much cripple the privatized prison industry and force companies that contract cheap-to-free labor from those facilities to have to pay real wages to get their work done.
Thing is, it's always presumed that drugs are bad for you, The most destructive drug I've seen wherever I have beeen is undoubtedly alcohol yet that is readily available in most countries, in fact encouraged. I think many people could benefit from TAKING some drugs, open their eyes a little to be honest. It would be more beneficial if drugs were legalised, massive crime reduction for a start. 90% of the UK prison inmates are there for drug crimes, either selling them or committing crime to buy them as they are addicts.If you are not an addict before you go in there is a high chance you are when you leave as there is so many drugs in prison. The amount of tax money that is spent on keeping them in prison far far outweighs how much it would cost to legalise drugs. Whatever this war on drugs actually is is clearly not working and never has and never will, corrup from top to bottom.
Just my tuppence worth.
Agreed!
If the government figured out a way to tax (for instance) marijuana use, and to stop using resources to prosecute and incarcerate for simple posession, we could probably pay off the national debt with the money saved in court costs, and money collected for "use". I'd gladly pay a rather high fee to grow my own pot. I'd save money and so would the government. And the jails wouldn't be full of NON criminals.
As for the harder drugs, I do believe that the physical addiction causes people to commit crimes to support their habit. I don't think we can legalize the harder stuff.
Thing is, it's always presumed that drugs are bad for you, The most destructive drug I've seen wherever I have beeen is undoubtedly alcohol yet that is readily available in most countries, in fact encouraged. I think many people could benefit from TAKING some drugs, open their eyes a little to be honest. It would be more beneficial if drugs were legalised, massive crime reduction for a start. 90% of the UK prison inmates are there for drug crimes, either selling them or committing crime to buy them as they are addicts.If you are not an addict before you go in there is a high chance you are when you leave as there is so many drugs in prison. The amount of tax money that is spent on keeping them in prison far far outweighs how much it would cost to legalise drugs. Whatever this war on drugs actually is is clearly not working and never has and never will, corrup from top to bottom.
"The War on Drugs has absolutely nothing to do with drugs - it's about power, it's about control, it's about coercion, it's about money."
The War on Drugs (capitalized, as in the Nixon/Reagan/Bush initiatives and the surrounding legislation) is all about power at the highest levels. There's little doubt about that.
At the state and (especially) the local level, it can be as much or more about money as power. That's because the rules of search and seizure under Reagan/Bush were altered, allowing police forces to confiscate money and property without any due process. This is the kind of "absolute power that corrupts, absolutely"!!!
"The War on Drugs has absolutely nothing to do with drugs - it's about power, it's about control, it's about coercion, it's about money."
From The Pinky Show.
Right On! Right now the State of California is voting on a huge "Drug Diversion" overhaul of the criminal justice system but they refuse to talk about the moral decay of the society caused by the ass-backward attempts to outlaw marijuana and other "soft" drugs.
Unless the drug has a medically valid proven deleterious effect upon the body, there should be no reason to criminalize possession.
Unless, of course, the reason for outlawing the drug has nothing to do with medical reality but has to do with forcing people to behave in channeled ways.
And so far I've only been talking about the basic chemical reactions caused by alcohol, separate from the intoxicating effects, metabolism and other ill-effects!! 
The War on Drugs (capitalized, as in the Nixon/Reagan/Bush initiatives and the surrounding legislation) is all about power at the highest levels. There's little doubt about that.
