G
Guest
Guest
Tome Reader said:
How long do you think that would last?? Christ they're trying to ban tobacco now. Despite OUTRAGEOUS taxes on it.
Should all drugs be Legal and Over the Counter?
- Thread starter amicus
- Start date
How long do you think that would last?? Christ they're trying to ban tobacco now. Despite OUTRAGEOUS taxes on it.
G
Guest
Guest
Liar said:
Appearently you don't realize that the first time you use an opiate or cocaine you ARE addicted.
As for the effects, it's not the addiction that gets innocent people killed. Most drinkers when drunk are benign. Until they get behind the wheel of a two ton chunk of steel and drive. And it's RARELY the drunk that ends up dead. It's some poor schmck minding his own business, stone sober whhen some dumb shit drunk crosses the centerline and plows him up the snotlocker. Then the drunk jumps out virtually unharmed and mumbles "I didn't mean to. It wasn't my fault. I was drunk."
You see people today absolutely can not take responsability for their own actions They are deluded into thinking that there is no possible way what they are doing is wrong. And when someone dies. "Hey, wasn't MY fault."
But, hey, I'm a fair guy. Tell you what, in addition to the laws stated above, in order for the gov't to properly regulate things (and they're doing a bang up job now) Let's say you have to have a licence to purchase and use these substances. You prove that you are capable of handling the responsability and you have a licence to do so. But then we need a test to prove it. (more inept beaurocracy that those taxes will have to pay for)
But how to test? Hmmmm..... Let's say you want a licence to do coke. You snort an ounce in an hour, and survive with no medical assistance and I'll personally hand you a licence and kiss your ass.
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
Pure? where did you go?
I hope the accidental agreement with something I said did not put you in a coma.
Thanks for your words...all societies, (except the Swedes, I think) regulate and control narcotics 'for the public good', or so they say. Aside from the fact that it does not seem to work, I am still left with the question of 'how' that authority is engendered in Government.
But then an apathetic public will accept most any dictate of a powerful government.
I am thinking of drafting legislation to outlaw the wearing of panties, (men or women) outside ones proper domicile. Not too happy about jeans and other forms of pants for women either. Too much bother by far...
amicus
I hope the accidental agreement with something I said did not put you in a coma.
Thanks for your words...all societies, (except the Swedes, I think) regulate and control narcotics 'for the public good', or so they say. Aside from the fact that it does not seem to work, I am still left with the question of 'how' that authority is engendered in Government.
But then an apathetic public will accept most any dictate of a powerful government.
I am thinking of drafting legislation to outlaw the wearing of panties, (men or women) outside ones proper domicile. Not too happy about jeans and other forms of pants for women either. Too much bother by far...
amicus
The_old_man
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2001
- Posts
- 916
Back in the 1920's cocaine, opium, marijuana, were all legal and openly available. A large cocaine addiction problem arose because Coca-Cola contained it as the boost ingredient. Coca-Cola removed the cocaine, substituted caffeine and began a campaign to reduce it's use in general. Most of the addicts got medical help and by the late (27-28) the addiction rate was below 1/2%. This took place during a time that alcohol was illegal, and consumption higher than now.
When Prohibition was repealed consumption went down, but a large GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION was out of work!
Harry Anslinger (director of that organization) convinced enough legislators that "DRUGS" were corrupting "OUR YOUTH" that Congress passed the "Controlled Substances Act". That kept him and his department in business.
I vote for Decriminalization, not full legality.
When Prohibition was repealed consumption went down, but a large GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION was out of work!
Harry Anslinger (director of that organization) convinced enough legislators that "DRUGS" were corrupting "OUR YOUTH" that Congress passed the "Controlled Substances Act". That kept him and his department in business.
I vote for Decriminalization, not full legality.
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
From one old man to another....thanks...nice post...
Perhaps I should have worded the poll differently so as to include, 'decriminalization' however I am searching for a deeper reason as to why people think mankind must be 'controlled' and regulated.
I get little glimpses here and there as to what some think.
regards...
amicus
Perhaps I should have worded the poll differently so as to include, 'decriminalization' however I am searching for a deeper reason as to why people think mankind must be 'controlled' and regulated.
I get little glimpses here and there as to what some think.
regards...
amicus
The_old_man
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2001
- Posts
- 916
I do not believe that it is so much a popular notion that people must be controled "For thier own good" as it is a fear that "If I don't keep control I'm out of a job".
Lord DragonsWing
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- May 5, 2004
- Posts
- 709
Since you just read about the opium wars, then you should of read how the japanese used the opiates against the chinese to subdue the population.
Yes, Government needs to control us against ourselves or society or advancement will flounder. Then, those like the japanese during that period will use the vices against us.
As for alcohol and tobacco? Alcohol is the only mind altering drug that is legal. Even on the low scale it affects people's lives. Not that I don't mind a scotch every so often. Tobacco, well that's a different question. The tobacco companies made it sexy not so long ago. So most of us smoked to be cool and to fit into the crowd. I started smoking in the Army when you were given a choice to dig trenches or take a smoke a break. When you're on tank hill in SC with temps over 100 degrees, you learn to smoke.
I took the easy way out and smoked. So did alot of buddies. I do think marijuana should be legal for medical treatments. It is proven to improve glaucoma, the appetite of cancer patients and others. The only legal field I know of is in Mississippi. And the only reason marijuana is illegal from what I"ve read is due to the Rockefellers and the rope trade at that time. Hemp was stronger but they'd invested heavily in a comptetive business that made an alternative rope. They learned how hemp was smoked and the effects and used their influence to make it illegal. From that point on, marijuana has been illegal. Not for the buzz. But because of the strength. It made much stronger rope.
Otherwise, we're starting to finally learn how marijuana can help. Cocaine, heroine and other narcotics? Illegal and should remain that way. In my opinion, Marijuana should be legal and taxed. Use the proceeds to fight the drug wars.
Just my opinion.
Yes, Government needs to control us against ourselves or society or advancement will flounder. Then, those like the japanese during that period will use the vices against us.
As for alcohol and tobacco? Alcohol is the only mind altering drug that is legal. Even on the low scale it affects people's lives. Not that I don't mind a scotch every so often. Tobacco, well that's a different question. The tobacco companies made it sexy not so long ago. So most of us smoked to be cool and to fit into the crowd. I started smoking in the Army when you were given a choice to dig trenches or take a smoke a break. When you're on tank hill in SC with temps over 100 degrees, you learn to smoke.
I took the easy way out and smoked. So did alot of buddies. I do think marijuana should be legal for medical treatments. It is proven to improve glaucoma, the appetite of cancer patients and others. The only legal field I know of is in Mississippi. And the only reason marijuana is illegal from what I"ve read is due to the Rockefellers and the rope trade at that time. Hemp was stronger but they'd invested heavily in a comptetive business that made an alternative rope. They learned how hemp was smoked and the effects and used their influence to make it illegal. From that point on, marijuana has been illegal. Not for the buzz. But because of the strength. It made much stronger rope.
Otherwise, we're starting to finally learn how marijuana can help. Cocaine, heroine and other narcotics? Illegal and should remain that way. In my opinion, Marijuana should be legal and taxed. Use the proceeds to fight the drug wars.
Just my opinion.
Tome Reader
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2004
- Posts
- 297
Dranoel said:
They tried outlawing alcohol once, too. Didn't work for long, did it?
The_old_man
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2001
- Posts
- 916
A point of information; Heroin is not addictive when used properly. This has been proven in England where it is now available by perscription to cancer patiants. So long as the doseage is limited to that required to dull the pain addiction does not occure. Recreational use or dosage beond that required to aleviate pain (not eliminate) is addictive.
Weird Harold
Opinionated Old Fart
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2000
- Posts
- 23,768
I voted YES.
Prohibition didnt work with alcohol and it isn't working with the "War on Drugs" The only thing prohibition accomplishes is to make organized crime profitable -- and lethal to bystanders.
I don't think unrestricted access is particularly good alternative, but laws that make people responsible for their actions -- laws with teeth in them that get enforced -- while under the influence make much more sense to me than futile attempts to prohibit use.
Prohibition didnt work with alcohol and it isn't working with the "War on Drugs" The only thing prohibition accomplishes is to make organized crime profitable -- and lethal to bystanders.
I don't think unrestricted access is particularly good alternative, but laws that make people responsible for their actions -- laws with teeth in them that get enforced -- while under the influence make much more sense to me than futile attempts to prohibit use.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
There's a rambling post, above, asserting that heroin was not legalized in England, but offering no evidence.
Here are the basic facts, from a rather hostile source, the Drug Enforcement Administration of the Department of Justice.
Of course their summary of consequences and conclusions about 'failure,' the reasons for it, and the remedy, remain highly tendentious, but the fact is that an addict could get a legal prescription for heroin, from a dr.
http://www.stopthedrugwar.org/popup/popup.shtml
{This site has a number of 'pro' and 'anti' legalization materials, including several official Us gov. manuals, like the following
From a US DOJ pamphlet
Drug Legalization: Myths and Misconceptions
by The US Dept. of Justice
[start excerpt]
Great Britain
With the report of a government commission known as the Brain Committee of 1964, England instituted a policy whereby doctors could prescribe heroin so long as they followed certain treatment criteria.47 Previously in England, doctors could prescribe heroin much like any other opiate (such as morphine). This allowed a few unscrupulous doctors to sell ungodly amounts of heroin to members of the black market.48 Consequently, it was believed that if heroin were offered at medical clinics according to stringent rules and regulations, addicts would come to these clinics to seek treatment and eventually would overcome their habit.
As of 1983, however, England began to phase out these programs of clinically supplied heroin in favor of methadone treatment.49 Why? First, according to the reputable British physician journal Lancet, the number of addicts increased 100% between 1970 and 1980.50 A disproportionate number of these new addicts were between the ages of sixteen and seventeen.51 Second, only twenty percent of all of the addicts in England belonged to the clinical programs.52
At first blush, this fact seems strange - why would addicts choose not to participate in a program wherein they get free methadone? The answer probably lies in the fact that methadone does not produce the high that heroin does. Also, addicts probably did not care for the mandatory treatment and rehabilitation facets of the clinical programs. Whatever the reason, by 1985 England had 80,000 heroin addicts, the vast majority of whom wen not in treatment.53
A third reason why England began to abolish its clinical heroin program was the fact that not only were there few people, in them, but the programs themselves did not work. According to the British Medical Journal, more addicts left the program because of criminal convictions than because of treatment.54 Fourth, even with the clinical programs, heroin addicts had a death rate twenty-six times the average population. Finally, even when the programs were in operation, Scotland Yard had to increase its narcotics division 100% in order to cope with the increased crime rate.56 [end excerpt]
=====
I (pure) add:
One obvious point of debate raised by the selective 'facts' above, is that there were too many restrictions on legal access through drs., hence the program failled to attract many addicts. Ergo....
-----
Note to amicus: while I don't derive my conclusion from the same premisses as you, I believe it's a correct one. I don't agree with 'minimal' government as a *general* principle, except at the most abstract level. I DO agree with minimal government interference around 'morals' issues. IOW, what I do agree with, and use as a premise, is this:
Where there's an evil, often government legistlation and the application of police and courts to the problem fails to solve it, and sometimes makes it worse.
This worsening is often the case with 'morals' legislation designed to stamp out 'moral evils.
Hence we agree that, in the face of some 'evil' or 'harm', real or alleged, one should NOT run out and start legislating. If one does, the situation may be made worse, and most observers think the US situation is pretty bad, far worse than in 'lenient' (though no longer entirely 'legal' England.).
I don't believe Liar or several others have 'gotten' this point. To them it's obvious law and jails 'fix' (reduce) an evil, like water quenches a fire. It's so 'obvious' that no evidence is ever offered.
Here are the basic facts, from a rather hostile source, the Drug Enforcement Administration of the Department of Justice.
Of course their summary of consequences and conclusions about 'failure,' the reasons for it, and the remedy, remain highly tendentious, but the fact is that an addict could get a legal prescription for heroin, from a dr.
http://www.stopthedrugwar.org/popup/popup.shtml
{This site has a number of 'pro' and 'anti' legalization materials, including several official Us gov. manuals, like the following
From a US DOJ pamphlet
Drug Legalization: Myths and Misconceptions
by The US Dept. of Justice
[start excerpt]
Great Britain
With the report of a government commission known as the Brain Committee of 1964, England instituted a policy whereby doctors could prescribe heroin so long as they followed certain treatment criteria.47 Previously in England, doctors could prescribe heroin much like any other opiate (such as morphine). This allowed a few unscrupulous doctors to sell ungodly amounts of heroin to members of the black market.48 Consequently, it was believed that if heroin were offered at medical clinics according to stringent rules and regulations, addicts would come to these clinics to seek treatment and eventually would overcome their habit.
As of 1983, however, England began to phase out these programs of clinically supplied heroin in favor of methadone treatment.49 Why? First, according to the reputable British physician journal Lancet, the number of addicts increased 100% between 1970 and 1980.50 A disproportionate number of these new addicts were between the ages of sixteen and seventeen.51 Second, only twenty percent of all of the addicts in England belonged to the clinical programs.52
At first blush, this fact seems strange - why would addicts choose not to participate in a program wherein they get free methadone? The answer probably lies in the fact that methadone does not produce the high that heroin does. Also, addicts probably did not care for the mandatory treatment and rehabilitation facets of the clinical programs. Whatever the reason, by 1985 England had 80,000 heroin addicts, the vast majority of whom wen not in treatment.53
A third reason why England began to abolish its clinical heroin program was the fact that not only were there few people, in them, but the programs themselves did not work. According to the British Medical Journal, more addicts left the program because of criminal convictions than because of treatment.54 Fourth, even with the clinical programs, heroin addicts had a death rate twenty-six times the average population. Finally, even when the programs were in operation, Scotland Yard had to increase its narcotics division 100% in order to cope with the increased crime rate.56 [end excerpt]
=====
I (pure) add:
One obvious point of debate raised by the selective 'facts' above, is that there were too many restrictions on legal access through drs., hence the program failled to attract many addicts. Ergo....
-----
Note to amicus: while I don't derive my conclusion from the same premisses as you, I believe it's a correct one. I don't agree with 'minimal' government as a *general* principle, except at the most abstract level. I DO agree with minimal government interference around 'morals' issues. IOW, what I do agree with, and use as a premise, is this:
Where there's an evil, often government legistlation and the application of police and courts to the problem fails to solve it, and sometimes makes it worse.
This worsening is often the case with 'morals' legislation designed to stamp out 'moral evils.
Hence we agree that, in the face of some 'evil' or 'harm', real or alleged, one should NOT run out and start legislating. If one does, the situation may be made worse, and most observers think the US situation is pretty bad, far worse than in 'lenient' (though no longer entirely 'legal' England.).
I don't believe Liar or several others have 'gotten' this point. To them it's obvious law and jails 'fix' (reduce) an evil, like water quenches a fire. It's so 'obvious' that no evidence is ever offered.
Last edited:
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
Good research, Pure, and appropriately posted.
I understand your reluctance to agree with the 'minimalist' position I occupy.
On this particular thread, I am trying to get a feel for what people here think about basic human nature. Is man really so debased as to not be trust worthy in terms of free choice in all things?
That seems to be the opinion of many.
Thank you for your effort in researching and correcting an assertion made.
amicus...
I understand your reluctance to agree with the 'minimalist' position I occupy.
On this particular thread, I am trying to get a feel for what people here think about basic human nature. Is man really so debased as to not be trust worthy in terms of free choice in all things?
That seems to be the opinion of many.
Thank you for your effort in researching and correcting an assertion made.
amicus...
cloudy
Alabama Slammer
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2004
- Posts
- 37,997
I'm wading in here, knowing I might get flamed by this, but *sigh*, for some stupid reason, I'm doing it anyway...
If someone wants to do drugs, they will, legal or not. End of story.
Making them illegal only increases the costs to said users, while filling the dealers bank accounts. Might this money be better off elsewhere?
Yes, it hurts those that use them. I have a family member in prison right now due to heroin use. It's sad, but I don't think it made any difference to him whether it was legal or illegal. He did it, so now he pays the consequences.
Just like the whole argument about gun control. Sure, take 'em away from the law-abiding citizen, but it won't mean diddly to the criminals. They don't care.
I smoked way too much pot in high school and college, but guess what? I managed to graduate from both, and with decent grade point averages. It's all about being responsible. And making it legal won't make any more addicts, it'll just decrease the crime that surrounds it.
Just my 2 cents....
edited to add: for those who want to flame me, please reread my post. I understand all too well what havoc drugs can wreak.
If someone wants to do drugs, they will, legal or not. End of story.
Making them illegal only increases the costs to said users, while filling the dealers bank accounts. Might this money be better off elsewhere?
Yes, it hurts those that use them. I have a family member in prison right now due to heroin use. It's sad, but I don't think it made any difference to him whether it was legal or illegal. He did it, so now he pays the consequences.
Just like the whole argument about gun control. Sure, take 'em away from the law-abiding citizen, but it won't mean diddly to the criminals. They don't care.
I smoked way too much pot in high school and college, but guess what? I managed to graduate from both, and with decent grade point averages. It's all about being responsible. And making it legal won't make any more addicts, it'll just decrease the crime that surrounds it.
Just my 2 cents....
edited to add: for those who want to flame me, please reread my post. I understand all too well what havoc drugs can wreak.
Last edited:
Weird Harold
Opinionated Old Fart
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2000
- Posts
- 23,768
amicus said:
I think that it is not a case of "so debased as to not be trust worthy" but a case of trying to block norml human behavior instead of holding people resonsible for their choices.
Prohibition of alcohol -- "The Great Experiment" -- proved that you can't dam a river completely. The "War On Drugs" is simply confirming that proof.
If you have problem with flooding, the answer is control and redirection, NOT a dam without a spillway. A river will always find a way to the sea and prohibited items will always find a way to those who want them.
lucky-E-leven
Aphrodisiaddict
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2004
- Posts
- 17,241
Should drugs be legal and over the counter?
Absolutely! I think they outta be in the checkout aisles where now the best option for some fun is Bubblicious bubble gum. That way, it would be easier for kids to get a hold of. You know, like when we were kids and stole nickel gum and suckers? Our kids can swipe a sheet of acid or a vial of coke. Appetizing!
Cloudy, this is in no way directed at you, as we just talked on this the other night.
My personal feeling is that if Adults want to do something to harm themselves they will. Here we agree. However, there are so many kids out there that actually are protected by the illegality of such substances and for that I'm grateful. I had tons of friends that managed to get them anyway, but had it been easier I doubt many of them would be alive. Some aren't anyway.
At any rate, growing up is tough and during those times kids do stupid things. I feel safer knowing that by making it harder for them to get their hands on drugs and having the ability to punish them (read treat them) that many of them can and will learn the stupidity of their decisions.
My big bitch with drug enforcement is that it's so corrupt. There are ways to make it work and make it work well. This isn't prohibition folks. It's always been illegal. We're not taking something from people that was once theirs. And I'm not too keen on the idea of repealing laws because people are going to do it anyway, or because they should be responsible for themselves and choose not to. Just like statutory rape laws, drinking and driving laws, seatbelt laws and child abuse laws. Some people out there simply do not have the intelligence or want to do the right thing.
It's those people I don't want 'high' on the road at night when my daughter is driving around. It's those people that I don't want working with my husband, where their 'high' mistake cost him dearly. It's those very same people that need to answer for their bad choices somehow someway. Sometimes it saves them and sometimes it doesn't. I think it's opening Pandora's box to think it wouldn't create some severe problems.
~lucky
Absolutely! I think they outta be in the checkout aisles where now the best option for some fun is Bubblicious bubble gum. That way, it would be easier for kids to get a hold of. You know, like when we were kids and stole nickel gum and suckers? Our kids can swipe a sheet of acid or a vial of coke. Appetizing!
Cloudy, this is in no way directed at you, as we just talked on this the other night.
My personal feeling is that if Adults want to do something to harm themselves they will. Here we agree. However, there are so many kids out there that actually are protected by the illegality of such substances and for that I'm grateful. I had tons of friends that managed to get them anyway, but had it been easier I doubt many of them would be alive. Some aren't anyway.
At any rate, growing up is tough and during those times kids do stupid things. I feel safer knowing that by making it harder for them to get their hands on drugs and having the ability to punish them (read treat them) that many of them can and will learn the stupidity of their decisions.
My big bitch with drug enforcement is that it's so corrupt. There are ways to make it work and make it work well. This isn't prohibition folks. It's always been illegal. We're not taking something from people that was once theirs. And I'm not too keen on the idea of repealing laws because people are going to do it anyway, or because they should be responsible for themselves and choose not to. Just like statutory rape laws, drinking and driving laws, seatbelt laws and child abuse laws. Some people out there simply do not have the intelligence or want to do the right thing.
It's those people I don't want 'high' on the road at night when my daughter is driving around. It's those people that I don't want working with my husband, where their 'high' mistake cost him dearly. It's those very same people that need to answer for their bad choices somehow someway. Sometimes it saves them and sometimes it doesn't. I think it's opening Pandora's box to think it wouldn't create some severe problems.
~lucky
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
Cloudy...well said...
From the practical and the personal experience viewpoint, which most seem to respond to.
Hypothesize for me and others, if you will, what the effect of 'no controls on any drugs' would mean to society in general.
regards...amicus..
From the practical and the personal experience viewpoint, which most seem to respond to.
Hypothesize for me and others, if you will, what the effect of 'no controls on any drugs' would mean to society in general.
regards...amicus..
Weird Harold
Opinionated Old Fart
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2000
- Posts
- 23,768
Re: Should drugs be legal and over the counter?
As The_Old_Man pointed out, it has NOT "always been illegal" -- drugs were essentilly uncontrolled n the US until the 1930's after prohibition of alcohol failed.
I had a discussion with my eldest daughter about 10 years ago about drugs and alcohol -- her assertion at that time was, "It's easier to get drugs than beer."
So just which children are being protected by the prohibition of drugs if they're easier to buy than alcohol -- which is regulated and sold openly where ID's can be checked and underage purchase blocked.
"No Controls" -- meaning no regulations such as those that apply to alcohol and tobacco -- would mean a return to the "Snake Oil" and "Patent Medicine" days of the late 19th and early 20th century -- sort of like the "supplement" market of today but with less information on the labels.
Society didn't collapse when drugs were totally unregulated and it didn't suddenly become a utopia when they were banned -- in fact smuggling and organized crime tended to increase, with corresponding increases in "colateral damage" from inter-gang violence.
I don't think legalizing drugs will remove the risk to society from stoners at the wheel, but it just might remove the risk of being an "innocent bystander" at a drive-by shooting.
lucky-E-leven said:
As The_Old_Man pointed out, it has NOT "always been illegal" -- drugs were essentilly uncontrolled n the US until the 1930's after prohibition of alcohol failed.
I had a discussion with my eldest daughter about 10 years ago about drugs and alcohol -- her assertion at that time was, "It's easier to get drugs than beer."
So just which children are being protected by the prohibition of drugs if they're easier to buy than alcohol -- which is regulated and sold openly where ID's can be checked and underage purchase blocked.
"No Controls" -- meaning no regulations such as those that apply to alcohol and tobacco -- would mean a return to the "Snake Oil" and "Patent Medicine" days of the late 19th and early 20th century -- sort of like the "supplement" market of today but with less information on the labels.
Society didn't collapse when drugs were totally unregulated and it didn't suddenly become a utopia when they were banned -- in fact smuggling and organized crime tended to increase, with corresponding increases in "colateral damage" from inter-gang violence.
I don't think legalizing drugs will remove the risk to society from stoners at the wheel, but it just might remove the risk of being an "innocent bystander" at a drive-by shooting.
lucky-E-leven
Aphrodisiaddict
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2004
- Posts
- 17,241
Re: Re: Should drugs be legal and over the counter?
Evenin' Harold,
Long time no see. I admit to not having read the entire thread and must've missed The_Old_Man's post. However, I'm not sure that the drugs, at the time they were legal, compare equally to the drugs available today. I wasn't around in the thirties, but in my mind it was Opium, Pot, etc... (totally assuming here)
As for your daughter's statement that drugs were easier to obtain than alcohol, I think that's totally possible in some circumstances. However, it was not the case for me. It was plenty easy to snare a few joints as it was beer and liqour. It was NOT easy to get cocaine, heroin, acid or ecstasy.
All could certainly be acquired, but the cost and effort greatly exceeded that of alcohol, tobacco and marijuana. As for your question about which kids are more protected, I say, "This kid." And many of my friends as well. I've not researched much on this and to be honest, I don't think a measure to legalize and regulate stands a snowball's chance in hell, but I do see great potential for things to get out of hand in a hurry.
~lucky
Weird Harold said:
Evenin' Harold,
Long time no see. I admit to not having read the entire thread and must've missed The_Old_Man's post. However, I'm not sure that the drugs, at the time they were legal, compare equally to the drugs available today. I wasn't around in the thirties, but in my mind it was Opium, Pot, etc... (totally assuming here)
As for your daughter's statement that drugs were easier to obtain than alcohol, I think that's totally possible in some circumstances. However, it was not the case for me. It was plenty easy to snare a few joints as it was beer and liqour. It was NOT easy to get cocaine, heroin, acid or ecstasy.
All could certainly be acquired, but the cost and effort greatly exceeded that of alcohol, tobacco and marijuana. As for your question about which kids are more protected, I say, "This kid." And many of my friends as well. I've not researched much on this and to be honest, I don't think a measure to legalize and regulate stands a snowball's chance in hell, but I do see great potential for things to get out of hand in a hurry.
~lucky
Weird Harold
Opinionated Old Fart
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2000
- Posts
- 23,768
Re: Re: Re: Should drugs be legal and over the counter?
One of the first drugs to be placed on the banned list was cocaine -- along with heroin, opuim, and morphine.
Pot was almost unheard of -- at least in the US -- when the regulation and baning of drugs began. I don't think it was banned until the mid-fifties.
I'm sure that there is a potential for an "orgy of excess" if all of the drugs on the banned list were made legal and unrestricted at once.
There was a short period right after Prohibitin was repealed where consumption shot up drastically -- a nation-wide binge, so to speak. It quickly passed however, and alcohol consumption dropped to well below the levels before and during Prohibition.
I think that properly handled and scheduled, the impact of legalizaion on usage would be similar to the end of Prohibition -- a short spike followed by the novelty wearing off and usage declining. For the average person, the change would probably be hardly noticeable.
I think the key to a rational drug policy is laws, with teeth, against iresponsible actions resulting from drug use -- DUI, Intoxicated in Public, etc. Beefing up and rewording the laws against drunkeness to include any form of intoxication before legalizing anything would be a first step. Actually enforcing them consistently would be the second.
Only then would it be practical to start removing drugs from the banned and controlled lists.
lucky-E-leven said:
One of the first drugs to be placed on the banned list was cocaine -- along with heroin, opuim, and morphine.
Pot was almost unheard of -- at least in the US -- when the regulation and baning of drugs began. I don't think it was banned until the mid-fifties.
I'm sure that there is a potential for an "orgy of excess" if all of the drugs on the banned list were made legal and unrestricted at once.
There was a short period right after Prohibitin was repealed where consumption shot up drastically -- a nation-wide binge, so to speak. It quickly passed however, and alcohol consumption dropped to well below the levels before and during Prohibition.
I think that properly handled and scheduled, the impact of legalizaion on usage would be similar to the end of Prohibition -- a short spike followed by the novelty wearing off and usage declining. For the average person, the change would probably be hardly noticeable.
I think the key to a rational drug policy is laws, with teeth, against iresponsible actions resulting from drug use -- DUI, Intoxicated in Public, etc. Beefing up and rewording the laws against drunkeness to include any form of intoxication before legalizing anything would be a first step. Actually enforcing them consistently would be the second.
Only then would it be practical to start removing drugs from the banned and controlled lists.
Liar
now with 17% more class
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Posts
- 43,715
I wanted. I couldn't get hold of it. And many with me. End of story. Like lucky said, that might be true in some places. I say we should not extend those places to all places.cloudy said:
So I stuck to booze and butane gas. That was easy -- just bribe some wino to buy it for you at the mall. In the long run, I think that saved my life, when I look at what happened to the select few who did get hold of the illegal stuff.
#L
Liar
now with 17% more class
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Posts
- 43,715
Was that supposed to undermine my argument? All the more reason to be very very careful with it.Dranoel said:
YOu're spot on abot drugs/alcohol and driving though. We need to come to grips with that problem. I don't think creating more drug users will help much.
What you describe is basically similar to regulation of prescribed drugs today. Meaning that the authorities (a doctor) grants you the right to limited use of a drug by presription. This works half-assed today, something that millions of addicts of regular, legal painkillers tan testify. It is too easy to get hold of, and too easy to get hold of more than your regulated dose.
It seems to me that you look at addiction to hard drugs through rose colored glasses,thinking that once someone has their daily dose of cocaine in their nostrils, thay'll be happy with that, and lead a productive and responsible life. The thing about those substances is that they will constantly escalate the need for a heavier dose - something stonger the next time. Nothing but the next fix will matter, and the means to get to it will eventually not matter either. In the case of alcohol, illegal narcotics and legal pills this is already messing people up, destroying families and the childhood of addict's children, and is laying a huge weight on society to clean up the ugly mess.
Sure, let's add to that, shall we?
#L
Last edited:
Weird Harold
Opinionated Old Fart
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2000
- Posts
- 23,768
Liar said:
Perhaps the fact that my daughter was attending a high-school with about 20% gang-members in it's student population made drugs more available to her and her peers. Combine that with living in a town that is super-conscious of underage gambling and drinking and the relative difficulty in obtaining alcohol fits as well.
However, I went to school in a much smaller town in a much less drug conscious time, and it did't seem to make all that much difference in the availability of drugs -- especially later on when my brothers went through the same school system. We didn't have ny resident pushers when I was there, but there were a couple in residence by the time my brothers got to high-school in the late 70's.
The gang/pusher problem in my daughter's school would probably be severely reduced if there weren't such a profit in illegal drugs -- something that would be much reduced if they were legalized.
I'm sure that any teenager who really wants drugs can get them -- it's just a bit harder in some plces than others. There will always be the "wino at the mall" or an equivalent who will buy illegal substances for minors, but at leas they'll have to go looking for him instead of sitting next to him in class.
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
Weird Harold...from one opinionated old fart to another...
I appreciate your practical life experience approach in terms of seeing the problem...
In Clan of the Cave Bear, Jean Auel's original first volume, the, was it 'Mogur' and the medicine woman, knew of the 'special' plants that gave a mind altering experience. It was a very secret formula, forbidden to all but the high priests...
I am working on a novel or pre historic peoples and again, the 'Shaman' and the Medicine woman, know of plants that alter perception, although the tribe in general has access to what might be called wine or beer, something with an alcoholic content and they had something to smoke...although that was generally reserved for the leaders and the chosen ones...
Would the ready availability of all substances do worse to society than they already do in the restricted and forbidden state?
That is my basic question...and the answers/input..has been interesting.
Thank you for yours.
regards...amicus...
I appreciate your practical life experience approach in terms of seeing the problem...
In Clan of the Cave Bear, Jean Auel's original first volume, the, was it 'Mogur' and the medicine woman, knew of the 'special' plants that gave a mind altering experience. It was a very secret formula, forbidden to all but the high priests...
I am working on a novel or pre historic peoples and again, the 'Shaman' and the Medicine woman, know of plants that alter perception, although the tribe in general has access to what might be called wine or beer, something with an alcoholic content and they had something to smoke...although that was generally reserved for the leaders and the chosen ones...
Would the ready availability of all substances do worse to society than they already do in the restricted and forbidden state?
That is my basic question...and the answers/input..has been interesting.
Thank you for yours.
regards...amicus...
Weird Harold
Opinionated Old Fart
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2000
- Posts
- 23,768
amicus said:
The root Ayla prepared for the shaman's was a secret of the senior medicine woman, but only Creb, the Mog'ur, could decide when it was used and who received it -- the shamans and shaman's in training.
Later, in The Mamoth Hunters, the Shaman knew of the root by reputation, but didn't know the secret of preparing it. Other groups she encounters through series didn't venknow of it by reputation but knew of other, milder, halucigens.
In almost every case in the Earth's Children Series, fermented drinks and mind altering substances were limited to the men in general or to the shamans -- Only two of the societies Ayla encountered shared fermented drinks with the whole community, male and female.
amicus said:
In case it isn't clear from my previous posts, I believe the "evils of drugs" primarily lie in the criminal element's involvement in trafficking and the fact that the results of irresponsible drug use aren't sufficiently punished.
Drugs alone won't change society much if they're legalized. However, decriminalizing them removes the criminal activity from the equation and thus the financial underpinning of most gang-related violence.
One advantage of legal and regulated drugs that isn't often mentioned is quality control -- many illegal drugs are cut with strychnine or other poisons and that too would mostly be a thing of the past. The variable quality of illegal drugs results in many cases of Overdosing because of the difficulty in determining the correct dosage.
A similar problem was common during Prohibition -- lethal "bathtub gin" made with wood alchohol or anti-freeze. It hasn't completely disappeared because moonshiners dont always have the best equipment or quality control, but it is very much reduced by the availability of legal, safe, booze from reputable distillers and brewers.
People who want to use drugs should at least have access to safe, consistent chemicals so they don't kill themselves by mistake. There will still be ODs by stupid people looking for a bigger high, but at least they'll OD on what they intended to.
Similar threads
