Ah, what a controversial topic. I don't think this one has been discussed here yet, however, if it has, I apologize. In my opinion, the criminalization of drugs is not only doing absolutely nothing to curb drug use, but is rather increasing the amount of users and the variety of drugs on the street. (Naturally, when I say drugs I mean such substances as weed, acid, E, coke, and so on, not the drugs used by the socially accepted drug addicts who can buy their "fix" from a convinence store or, at most, a pharmacy) The same results were seen from the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920's. Not only did alcohol continue to flourish, but it also raised the number of drinkers who only drank because it was illegal. The main thing that disturbs me about the drug war is the cost of the whole venture. Last year the US alone spent $40 billion on the drug war. Thats about $600 a second if you figure it out. The other aspect of the US's drug war that really pisses me off is that the gov't's target is mainly the user, not the producer. The drug user is really only the end of the line in a very long and complex chains of growers, suppliers, sellers, and runners and to go after the drug user is absolutely foolish, especially when most are hard working, tax paying Americans. If drugs must be illegal, why not take a stance like that of Canada or most of Europe where drugs are legal to an extent (really decriminalized) so that more money is available to go after the big fish. It saves money and it actually shows some results. Take for example that while 33% of Americans have tried weed in their life time, only 8% of Dutch people have tried it even though it is illegal in their country. The theory that the legalization of drugs will actually cause a rise in drug abuse is unbelievably absurd. How can someone crave something they have never seen, let alone tried. Ok, I'm done. Comments anyone?
The difference is that I don't directly effect others when I take my prescription pills the way my friend's brother does when he hotboxes INSIDE THE HOUSE.
As for going after the producers, we could nuke Columbia etc. but that wouldn't be very nice. One way to look at it is the old supply and demand principle. If there is little demand (users) the supply (producers) is worthless. If life is too hard on the user, they will eventually give it up (theory).
Besides the occasional room buzz (which I feel is nothing to complain about) how does this possibly effect you? I am sincere in this question. Ah, yes, very true but the fact is that demand, along with supply, is very high. I should have mentioned that drugs like crack/meth are, in my opinion, substances that have no place in society as they are the real threats that should be the main focus of the drug war. However, thanks to the questionable "gateway" theory, marijuana is the main target of this war. Meth and crack is only good for those who want to lose 30+ pounds in a week or turn into a jibbering sociopath for the rest of their life, if you could call it that. Meanwhile, marijuana has about 50,000 non-medical uses alone, sounds useful to me...
William Burroughs described the drug trade like a pyramid. With the users at the bottot proping it up and each layer you go up there are less people and they are more important. The Police are always focused on knocking out the top thinking that it will make a difference but it never does, for as long as their are users people will move up the pyramid to fill the gaps. I'm for the legalisation of most drugs. The government can sell them legally with a healthy profit at far less than a drug dealer. The cost of the average drug is probably 95% profit split ammong everyone who touched it. Whilst the profits are high and people want them there will be dealers and they will often be nasty criminals. FNG
if drugs are legalised..overnight you eliminate the drug barons the dealers everything is contriolled by the state..it would be just like the control of tobacco and alcohol...look at the violence and gangwarfare that occured during the 1920s and 30s in america when alcohol was illegal the same is true of drugs today. you will never control it eliminate it or even disrupte the supply chain whilst it is illegal those who say you can are niaeve in the extreeme! i for one believe the world would be a safer place if drugs were legalised crime in general would fall especailly violent crime. there will always be ppl who say that if legal evryone will be on drugs and chaos will reign and it is a danger to public health...however they tend not too think that most people as with smoking and drinking are too sensible and intelligent and are capable of making thier own rational informed decisions. trouble is govt fear the unkown and drugs have a general culture of being associated with all the evils of criminality, unfotunately these come with drugs simply because they illegal.
I think they should legalize marijuana , the cops are over worked trying to find all these potheads all over the place , and beer is more harmful then marijuana, so legalize it and give the cops a break.
Soft-drugs (weed and Hash, don't know how they call Hasj in US...) and stil lthere are dealers, but these are hard-drugs dealers, if you buy from them and you get caught with hard-drugs (small amount) they only give you a fine or a ''street-ban'' (not allowed into the street/area they cought you) for a short period of time, they are really ''soft'' on drugs here. I don't care about soft-drugs being legal, we even got bars where you can just drink beer and watch football, only difference is that you can buy weed or hasj there. There is nothing wrong with weed, alcohol is more ''dangerous'', it can make you agressive, weed cools you down.
I saw this while looking up some paranormal pictures for the Paranormal Topic and thought it would be good here: http://www.paranormalnews.com/article.a ... cleID=1107 I always knew something was fishy!
lol - I could point out that hemp has been replaced in pretty much every role by synthetic alternatives, that are mostly superior... For one of my essays at Uni, I had to read through house inventories (probates) from a couple of Norfolk villages from the 14th / 15th Centuries (I think - can't remember the dates now...). Most houses had a plot devoted to growing hemp, and several had various large measures of hemp in storage. Hey, it was a good cash crop. A couple had small amounts of hemp hidden away (one in a beehive!) - My lecturer claims that this is the earliest recorded 'stash' in English history.
Oh this is absolutely the funniest thing that has been posted all day. I would like to thank you ahead of time, Zhukov. "How does this possibly affect you." That's an interesting statement, Zhukov. It can mean a couple different things. Like, "Wow, Phelps, why are you getting mad? I just called you a socially pampered [self edit] for taking prescribed medicines which could be considered drugs. I just made a jab at you because you, yourself, are a [self edit] [self edit]. It's nothing to be mad about." Oh yes it is plenty to be mad about. You have the guts to classify someone who needs medical care with some kid sitting in his room with a doobie watching porn? Or you could be referring to the hot boxing in the house bit. How does someone hot boxing (in the house) effect me? Well, let’s see: I have no interest in taking drugs, or getting high. I do not want to have to breathe that [self edit] every time I go to my friend's house. I do not want to have that stuff forced into my body because my printer broke down and I had to go to his house to print some documents, all the while his brother is contaminating the entire house with enough vapors and god knows what to make his house float several meters off the ground. I dislike it, his family dislikes it, everyone dislikes it. So, while it may be well and good for him, all it does is make everyone else sick. It's not funny, and no one around this guy enjoys it. How does he defend himself, you ask? "There's allot worse things than what I do."
I agree, but supposedly clothes made of hemp do not shrink or tear like shirts of cotton, but thats just what I heard. Did I just open Pandora's box? You have taken me way out of context here Danyel, and frankly, I expected more. If I'm going to be called a drug addict then I believe I have the right to point out a similarity between what society deems as a drug addict and what it classifies as a "healthy drug addict", which can include anything from someone who takes asprin every morning to someone who takes Viagra. I did not make this distinction, society did, I'm just emphasizing it. Of course there is a fundamental difference between one who takes drugs for recreation and one for medical purposes. I was trying to point out that there is a very thin line in today's society about whats right and wrong when it comes to drugs. You may take drugs for health problems, others take them for weight proplems and depression. If we have drugs for these, why can't people legally take them for recreation. Oh yeah, one question. So people who have cancer, glaucoma, AIDS, or whatever else that take medical marijuana, do you see them as druggies or as patients who have found a way to survive? No need to be so melodramatic, its not like your actually smoking the stuff anyways. Like you said, you went to your friends house, not yours, and what he or his brother do in there is none of your business and it should not effect you in any way, so you will have to do much better than this. Its not your life and its not your problem and I respect you for not doing drugs for recreation but I also respect those people who do them responsibly. And I agree with your friends brother, there are much worse things he could be doing. If drugs bring someone happiness, that happiness brings them peace, and god knows the world needs more of that. So in summary, I still do not see who this guy smoking in his house effects you. All I see is that it hits some emotional soft spot in you and should be instantly regarded as wrong and evil. If this is wrong, I apologize, if its right, its just ignorant.
Yeah, great copout. Society didn't make this thread, you did. Society didn't try to call everyone who takes prescriptions drug addicted assholes who ruin everyone's lives around them, you did. Don't try to pass this whole "Boo hoo, I didn't say it. Society did." shtick on me. I can read. Why can't people legally take them for recreation? Good question. As far as I know, most druggies don't take medical drugs. Most do things that openly affect those around them. People with AIDS are prescribed Marijuana? Hey guy, did you even read my post? The air is absolutely polluted with the stuff. This kid is forcing his family (and his family's friends) to intake that crap on a weekly basis. No one bothers to say anything to him because he gets so riled up about it, screaming and ranting that "there are worse things." So, how does it affect me? How doesn't it affect me? Here’s another example: Kids who do it (or at least try) on the school buss, or in the Lunchroom at the local schools. Try as you may, you cannot even begin to attempt to justify these people. They aren't just doing this to themselves; they are forcing their drugs on everyone in the immediate area around them. A guy who takes an Aspirin, however, doesn't.
I'm not sure if you do know how to read because I don't recall (and its all here) calling or even thinking about calling anyone who has a prescription a, in your words, "drug addicted asshole". I'm not even going to try to explain my position anymore because I don't think it will do any good. Unfortunently you missed everything I was trying to explain and viewed it in some distorted sense and are now shifting it all on me. Thank you, and to all the others who actually had something to add to this topic, I hope you realize I did not mean any disrespect to those people with Rx's. Good point, but these things they do only effect those around them, in most cases, because they have such a negative stigma to them which is more often than not ridiculously absurd and pathetic to say the least. There is some testing in Canada and I believe the US where patients that have AIDS are being given medical marijuana. It helps them eat more, feel less pain and so on. First of all, marijuana will not pollute the air, but cars, factories, jets (should I go on?) pollute the air but I don't hear you disregarding these things. Where do you go to school, Compton? These are people, or should I say teenagers (wow, I sound old), who are not using responsibly. I do not condone this and of course you can't justify this beyond the fact that they are teenagers and teenagers will do dumb things. And if your school has such a problem with kids toking in the lunchroom, well what the hell are you going there for? Obviously they don't care or they can't control whats happening and if thats the case I would much rather worry about some screwball bringing in a gun and shooting the place up then a couple of stoners lunchroom, do you agree? Anyways I'm done, I tired of explaining myself to those who chose not to listen.
We had kids coming into my school who were high (late 1990s). Typically they would be either: Ridiculously giggly, thus being annoying & disruptive More than a little paranoid, which usually gave way to being mildly aggressive (yup, it made them aggressive, who'd have thunk it?)
I used to come to school high all the time, I remember the paranoia a little bit but I mostly remember how much more interesting school was. It also seemed like a circus in there at times.
I used to come to school high all the time, I remember the paranoia a little bit but I mostly remember how much more interesting school was. It also seemed like a circus in there at times. Oh yeah Ricky, is "thunk" a word because I have been pondering that question for quite some time now?
