Should all drugs be Legal and Over the Counter?

[Pure]

Hi Slick, you make some good points.
{{Correction, this is a response to Randi's post, and the quote below 'it is not a good situation now...' is from Randi}}

But one central point of yours is that legal availability would created increased use and addiction, ruined lives, autoaccidents, etc.

It is not a good situation now, but to think that this wouldn't create a whole generation of drugaholics based on the masses that today are not in direct easy access to the stuff is beyond me.

Well, I know it's obvious to you and maybe liar, but might I ask what that claim is based on? Your personal story of overuse? I'd remind you that you ceased being a 'drugaholic', so that isn't always a permanent outcome.

To see the fallacy of your argument, picture it in the mouth of an anti liquor crusader, in the middle of the prohibition era, when it's obvious there's lots of illegal use of booze. Someone proposed 'repeal prohibition', legalize booze. This person says,

to think that this wouldn't create a whole generation of alcoholics based on the masses that today are not in direct easy access to the stuff is beyond me.

I imagine *some folks* did not have 'direct, easy' access, during prohibition. Whereas now, you can get a bottle of wine at the corner store, in some areas.

Was a generation of alcoholics created? Perhaps there was a transient rise only, then leveling out. In that case, there is a long term benefit to ending Prohibition, in respect of cutting back gang profits and activity, and police corruption.

Big article is Saturday's paper: Hell Angel's moving into this area, setting up cocaine distribution. In other areas there have been wars with rival gangs, and dozens of 'civilian' deaths from shootouts and bombs. Would any of this happen if cocaine, as it was in 1900, was available at the drugstore?

 

[thebullet]

Randi said:

The naysayers in this thread is merely objecting to your opinion, and AMICUS' original proposition, that things would be better if substances that are illegal today were let free.

You are misunderstanding my opinion, I believe. I merely propose that we remove the stigma from drug abuse. By legalization, I advocate state government control of the distribution of 'controlled substances' whatever they be.

People are going to do drugs. This is a fact of life. When Prohibition came into effect in 1919 (?), the government made criminals of the majority of the population. It allowed for the expansion of crime families into the distribution of alcoholic beverages.

What it didn't do was reduce the alcohol 'problem'. It made it worse. It suddenly became a massive criminal enterprise as well as a drag on the general population. Sound familiar?

Randi, I appreciate what you went through. But I sincerely believe that decriminalization of controlled substances will not increase abuse significantly. Addictive personalities are addictive personalities. They will get what they need to fill their addiction whether it is legal or not.

But we can make a significant dent on crime by bringing all substances under the mainstream umbrella.

Hey, Pure, I hadn't read your post when I wrote mine. I guess we sound rather redundent. Sorry.

 

[Pure]

hey, great minds often inhabit the same gutter.

 

[Randi Grail]

Pure zed:
Hi Slick, you make some good points.

But one central point of yours is that legal availability would created increased use and addiction, ruined lives, autoaccidents, etc.

It is not a good situation now, but to think that this wouldn't create a whole generation of drugaholics based on the masses that today are not in direct easy access to the stuff is beyond me.

That was not Slick, that was me.

Well, I know it's obvious to you and maybe liar, but might I ask what that claim is based on? Your personal story of overuse? I'd remind you that you ceased being a 'drugaholic', so that isn't always a permanent outcome.

In one sense, nieter alcoholism nor drug addiction is a permanent outcome, as you can overcome that initial abstinence surge, or learn how to supress it enough to get by. And in another sense it is, it makes a relapse the easiest thing in the world. They don't say "once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic" for no reason. Marginally easier, (to my limited knowledge, I only know what I've been told or seen on tv), with the soft drugs, like m, hash and kat.

What I fear with wide public access to rectreational drugs is the nature of some of them, especially heroin. For the average person, it takes a cerstain degree of dedication to become seriously addicted to alcohol. We're talking regular binge drinking for an extended period of time to see a medical effect. Most of the "white stuff", cocaine, heroin, exctacy and so on, as well as some legal, prescribed substances, are simply that much more addictive than alcohol.

(If I've been lied to about this, please let me know, I don't enjoy building my opinions on bogus. )

Another thing I have been told about those substances is that the addiction becomes incremental. Meaning that your body will adapt to it, not giving you the same high on the same doses, forcing the addict to increase his intake and/or try heavier stuff. Alcohol does this too, but again, alldgedly not to the same extent.

You bring up the prohibition years, and yes there are some similarities to the situation we've got today. But to use a social, economic and historical situation that was reality thee quarters of a century ago, and think that it would so easily apply to how the world looks today is to simplify matter a bit, dontchathink?

With legalisation, some of the trafficing related crime would go away. But unless we let anyone get anything at a reasonable price, all we do is more the border between white and black market a little further away.

--Randi

By the way, here's something I found a while ago. I don't know who this geezer is, but it pretty much says what I'm trying to say:

http://www.beyond-the-illusion.com/files/New-Files/991031/do_we_need_more_drug_addicts.txt

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Should all drugs be Legal and Over the Counter?

There's no way to know for sure what would happen to drug use numbers if the controlled substances act was simply repealed -- or evenif most of the drugs on the list were simply droppd from it. History isn't much help for hard numbers -- either from drug abuse levels prior to the controlled substances act or the changes in alcohol abuse during and immediately following prohibition. Most Historians seem to think that alcohol use and abuse increased during Prohibition and dropped when it was repealed -- usually citing a "forbidden fruit effect" as the reason for it. However, there simply aren't any hard numbers one way or the other. The only thing that is certain about Prohibition is that it did NOT stop the problem of drunkenness, nor did repeal result in a nationwide binge and moral decay.

You make some good points about attacking the problem from several directions. One point that works against your suggestion -- "Free, no questions asked detox" has been proposed and occasionally enacted but FEDERAL regulations make local attempts at a rational approach illegal. The fight over "Medical Marijuana Laws" is a good example.



True, you can't put enough teeth into a law that will deter someone who is ON PCP -- or several other drugs that make people feel "invincible" -- but you CAN put enough teeth into one that they'll think twice about using it and/or keep them off the street longer if they do.



Don't forget the bleeding-heart prosecutors and DAs who won't bring charges with mandatory sentence requirements when they disagree with the sentence requirements and plea-bargain capital murder cases down to misdemeanor assault charges.

The "Justice" System in the US has a lot of flaws that need to be addressed. That doesn't mean that enforcing laws with teeth in them won't be possible or ineffective. Repairing the Justice System is an entirely different and complex topic.

I think the first step is restoring the principle of personal responsibility to our legal system -- and that's really at the heart of my objections to the controlled substances act and the "War On Drugs;" They are built on the premise that people can't, or won't, be responsible for their actions and thus the government must protect them from themselves.




I really don't know much about the particulars of PCP use -- why anyone would want to use it, how many use it and DON'T go berserker, What it would take to effectively protect the public from PCP users, etc. Your anecdote certainly would seem to indicate that it should be one of the very last drugs removed from the banned list at the very least.

Each drug on the list is there becuse of a perceived problem -- some of those "problems" are very specious and feeble, like the "gateway drugs," marijuana, valium and prescription pain-killers.

There is a lot of propaganda, but very little hard evidence that "gateway drugs" even exist. I'm of the belief that it's "addictive persoanlity" that makes someone seek an ever-greater high and NOT the particular drug they start with.

I've known a lot of "pot-heads" over the years -- I've even rolled a few joints for them when they were too stoned to do it themselves -- and I can't think of one single person of my aquaintance who ever went on to anything "harder" or more dangerous to the general public. There may be a couple I lost touch with that went on to harder stuff, and even a couple that wouldn't surprise me much if they did, but none that I persoanlly know of.

All I can say from personal experience is that I'd rather hang around with marijuana smokers than drinkers -- they're usually a lot more mellow and a great deal less pushy.

Every person reacts to any given substance differently. Therefore, it should be that individual's actions while under the influence of their chosen substance that determines what the laws/government's involvement should be.

In theory at least, anything can be ingested, injected or smoked responsibly, without endangering others -- even PCP. Let the law/government come down hard on those who are irresponsible and leave the respnsible ones alone in their privacy.

I have only known a few users of PCP. It seems to be an end use drug, that is one someone starts taking because they aren't able to get enough of their drug of choice anymore for that "ten foot tall & bullet proof" feeling. It's bad news all the way around from all I have seen & read.

A user quite simply feels no pain, you can not hurt them, even massive trauma doesn't register. Along with feeling no pain it pumps up the autonomic nervous system to the point where the individual is a seething mass of rage. It's unfocused rage, but anything or one will do for a target. It imparts nearly superhuman strength as well.

I just don't see that anyone could in good concience allow a monster like this to be created and count on the person involved not to hurt someone else. handing it out would be in essence creating a victim. Granted you could put the person who used it and lost contol under the jail, but that is likely to be of small comfort to whoever he goes off on.

Making this particular drug legal would be, in my opinion, nothing short of killing or maiming the victims of users yourself. There are drugs on the controlled substance list that create no casualties besides the user usually. For those, the arguments for legalization are pretty strong. But not PCP, I shudder to think how many people might be maimed or killed by users if that particular drug were made leagal and readily avialable.

-Colly

 

[amicus]

I was curious as to when someone who play the 'radiation card.'

Science in all its wonder has created many toxic substances, some as by-products, some for intentional use.

There are a couple of points, both well made by Wierd Harold and The Bullet, if I recall, that apply.

Even with stringent laws and regulations, and even the death sentence for passing nuclear secrets, proliferation went forward for profit and ideology.

Regardless of the prohibition of a substance or material, those who wish to acquire it, will. That is a sort of 'truism' that is demonstrable, but rather hard to prove objectively.

As with the Tom Clancy novel, "The Sum of all Fears", later made into a bad film, even radioactive material can be stolen and used in violent acts, as PCP and Methamphetamines.

So from just the practical aspect, 'banning' a substance, does not appear to work in terms of totality. Surely it does make it more difficult, but then, as pointed out, that merely raises the stakes.

Apparently I must shoulder the responsibility for being unclear. It is not the 'practical' aspects or consequences of the matrix of a free society I am concerned with.

Since a society with 'total' freedom of choice has never existed, it remains a hypothetical question. However, as many 'royalists' claimed in the run-up to the American Revolution, circa 1660-1776 and beyond, 'mankind is not capable of governing itself'.

Social experiments such as National Socialism, (Nazis) and Communism (CCCP) seem to take about two generations and a lot of suffering, before they collapse.

In terms of the 'grand experiment' of individual freedom, it has continued for about 250 years, about 8 generations and many say the jury is still out. Perhaps it is.

Ayn Rand called them the 'Statists', those who desire a 'central authority' to dictate human activity, 'in their own best interest', to protect them from themselves'.

Ofttimes it is those who have failed at making rational choices and paid the price, who transfer their own failure to the rest of society, that lead the way in advocating 'greater control' over a poplulation.

A free society, without the excesses of both the politcal left and right, is a thing of the future, as yet untried.

Perhaps one day.

Amicus

 

[Weird Harold]

HAROLD, I've held you in regard as a sensible guy, but what eare you aiming at here? To start talking about Aspirin, and use that as a cheap shot to poke a hole in a very valid argument, when we have a whole thread dedicated to talking about illegal narcotics? Isn't that a bit below you? I thought it was perfectly obvious that it was illegal narcotic substances what he was talking about. Besides, anything is dangerous in the wrong dose, salt can kill you, so can Oreos. I don't get your point there.

The point is definitions. What is and is not "illegal" is a a matter of defintion -- or designation. The flat statement that "DRUGS are bad and should be denied to everyone because some people are irresponsible" is a FALSE statement because it's a generalization that doesn't make ANY distinction or define what a constitutes a "Drug."

There has been a LOT of generalization on this thread -- specific anecdotal evidence being applied to all of humanity, the specific substances being applied to all "illegal substances, etc. That's not necessarily a bad thing, all of us must argue from what we know and feel about any subject, but it can be carried to illogical extremes.

Aspirin, Tylenol, and Advil could be logicaly argued as "gateway drugs" that lead to use of stronger and stronger pain-killers until the realm of serious and addictive narcotics like Morphine, Heroin, and the like. The argument is patently flawed, because the percentage of aspirin users who are truly chronic pain suffers is so low as to be neglible and relative few aspirin users go on to ever stronger pain-killers.

However, the same argument has been applied successfully to marijuana to get it placed on the Controlled Substances List.

Where do we draw the line when talking about "Drugs?" The initial question includes alcohol and tobacco, both legl substances which some people would like to see placed on the Controlled substances List (i.e they should be banned) so the discussion has never been only about "illegal drugs."

I think it should be fairly self-evident that the "problem" with drugs stems from the interaction of each individual with the specific drug of their choice. It isn't the substance that causes the problem, but what the individual DOES under the influence of that substance that causes the "problem" (or in some cases what they do under the lack of infuence during withdrawal.)

Somebody mentioned an accident or near-accident caused by driving while impaired by withdrawal symptoms -- Our current drug laws and policies don't take that part of the danger into effect (except for a few places where "Driving While Impaired" laws are in place.)

The major problem with the structure of the current War On "Drugs" is that it doesn't apply to any substance that the law doesn't define as a "Drug" and doesn't address the effects of USING a banned substance.

Collen:I have only known a few users of PCP. It seems to be an end use drug, that is one someone starts taking because they aren't able to get enough of their drug of choice anymore for that "ten foot tall & bullet proof" feeling. It's bad news all the way around from all I have seen & read.
...
Making this particular drug legal would be, in my opinion, nothing short of killing or maiming the victims of users yourself. There are drugs on the controlled substance list that create no casualties besides the user usually. For those, the arguments for legalization are pretty strong. But not PCP, I shudder to think how many people might be maimed or killed by users if that particular drug were made legal and readily available.

When PCP was first mentioned, I tried to make the point that it probably wouldn't exist as problem drug if not for the banning of other substances. It certainly did NOT exist (as a problem or otherwise) before the "War On Drugs" drove "bathtub chemists" to invent it.

There are a lot of "Drug Problems" that probably wouldn't exist without the War On Drugs -- "Huffing" spray paint or "Sniffing Glue"was never a big problem until there was a serious push to wipe out Marijuana.

Now that PCP exists, it is without doubt public health and safety issue that needs to be addressed, but then so is the problem of Drunk Driving.

We tried banning alcohol completely in the 1920's and it didn't work. We closely restrict teens from consuming alcohol but half of all traffic accidents involving teen drivers also involve acohol.

PCP is currently completely illegal and there is still a problem with it's use. The fact that PCP is illegal is probably small comfort to the EMT you mentioned earlier when it comes time to pay his medical bills -- it's probably even less comfort to know that the person who used PCP was not held responsible for his actions while under it's influence.

One of the prices of holding people responsible for their actions is that you have to wait for them to act inappropriately. Any other course leads to "Thought Policing" and "creating" crimes like "possession with intent to sell." (Possession of more than six cartons of tax free cigarettes from the base commissary is de facto proof of intent to black market. The fact that I might be going away from access to a base commissary for six weeks is irrelevant to that determination. Just a minor exmple of "thought policing" in action.)

Yes, PCP is a specific substance that has a very good and reasonable place on the banned list, but it is harmless until it's USED. It is the USE that should be illegal and NOT THE SUBSTANCE. That's essentially true for any substance that is not volatile or explosive. Mere possession isn't a danger to anyone.

I don't know if it's possible to write a defintion of "responsible usage" for PCP or any other drug. However, it is reasonably simple to write law against harming or endangering anyone other than yourself and compounding the severity of the consequences when it's done under the influence of, or impairment by, a chemical influence.

In fact, there are already laws on the books that cover the actions of drug users that make drug use a public health and saftey issue and the most effective of them don't mention drugs at all.

Since a society with 'total' freedom of choice has never existed, it remains a hypothetical question. However, as many 'royalists' claimed in the run-up to the American Revolution, circa 1660-1776 and beyond, 'mankind is not capable of governing itself'

Pure Anarchy -- i.e a society total freedom of personal choice -- HAS existed several times in several places throughout history, but you have to keep your eyes open because if you blink you'll miss them. The problem with Total freedom of choice is that it generally turns violent when one person's choice conflicts with anothers.

Peaceful Anarchy -- where rules of politeness (AKA societal pressure to conform) are in place to control excesses works on a small scale and a few enclaves have persisted for several generations before they came into contact withthe outside world and collapsed.

The only time and place that "total freedom" can work is for a hermit who never comes into contact with anyone else -- even then, "choice" is dictated by survival. A hermit can choose not to store food for the winter, but reality will punish that "choice" with starvation and death. Freedom of choice cannot exist without consequencses for bad choices. If society doesn't prescribe consequences for bad choices, Nature will.

In the context of this discussion, absolutely free and unencumbered acess to drugs WILL result in those who choose take advantage of the full range of substances available removing themselves as a problem -- eventually. The problem with that idea is that they will often take others withthem when they go, and will probably procreate before they succeed in killing themsleves. That may be a marginally acceptable result for a primitive hunter/gatherer society, but it is NOT an acceptable alternative for those of us who live in a technologicl world where one person can kill hundreds or millions before killing himself.

Any rational society MUST set rational consequences for actions that endanger "public health and safety" -- "An' it harm no other" should be the guiding principle of any society/government, NOT "an' it might harm another."

 

[Pure]

Hi Harold,

While I agree with your general criticism of the war on drugs, I have a couple minor quibbles:

You said.

When PCP was first mentioned, I tried to make the point that it probably wouldn't exist as problem drug if not for the banning of other substances.

It's hard to tell, but certainly, as you mention below, there is evidence that glue and gasoline sniffing are *effects* of banning stuff like marijuana.

It certainly did NOT exist (as a problem or otherwise) before the "War On Drugs" drove "bathtub chemists" to invent it.

This is not correct, as the material below and at many sites, shows. A major drug company invented PCP, and after it didn't work so well for humans, continued to market it for animals.

Most problem drugs were invented by the big companies, since good stuff aint easy to come up with; examples are the following: methamphetamine,

heroin

It was not until 1874 that diacetylmorphine (diamorphine), commonly known as heroin was discovered. Heroin, a semi-synthetic derivative of morphine, was first made at St Mary’s Hospital in London, and ironically, was initially used to treat morphine addiction (Wills, 1997).

{another source:}

In 1874, heroin was synthesized from opium, and was touted as a less dangerous form than opium or morphine. The name, in fact, refers to its supposed potential as the hero of medicines. In 1896, the Bayer company began marketing heroin. "Brief History of Psychopharmacology," by Boeree.

"ecstasy" (MDMA)

Ecstasy (MDMA) is a semi-synthetic drug patented by Merck Pharmaceutical Company in 1914 and abandoned for 60 years. In the late 1970s and early 1980s psychiatrists and psychotherapists in the US used it to facilitate psychotherapy.

Source: Greer G and Tolbert R. A Method of Conducting Therapeutic Sessions with MDMA. in Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 30 (1998) 4:371.379. For research on the therapeutic use of MDMA see: www.maps.org. "Ecstasy: What the evidence shows."


and LSD (due to Hofmann, at Sandoz).
"The Discovery of LSD"

http://www.island.org/ive/2/discovery.html

Indeed, the big companies were/are major suppliers of many 'illegal' drugs, from meth, to (currently) 'oxy' (hillbilly heroin; oxycodone).

While there are a few 'bathtub' creations around, and half-assed bathtub (weaker) versions of the good stuff (sold as the real thing), the drugs of the bathtub *creators*(i.e inventers) are generally not the most common on the drug scene.
-----

http://www.rhodium.ws/chemistry/pcp.shulgin.html

The original chemistry laying the groundwork for the preparation of phencyclidine (PCP, 1) was a study reported in 1926 describing the reaction of 1-piperidinocyclohexanecarbonitrile (PCC, 2) with Grignard reagents [1]. It was not until some 30 years later that the anesthetic effectiveness of (1) was observed in animals [2], and the compound was made available by Parke Davis and Co. under the name of Sernyl (CI-395) for clinical investigation in man.


The first surgical studies described the development of complete analgesia within a few minutes following intravenous administration of approximately 20 mg, but at the higher dosages required for surgical anesthesia (some 4x this amount) there was observed an excited state which required supplementary pentobarbital for control [3]. Other early observers of PCP use in clinical anesthesia had reported related undesirable side reactions, both during the operative state as well as in recovery. Johnstone et al. [4] made comment concerning the patient's volunteering of information suggesting experiences of trance-like ecstatic states and, upon emergence a euphoria accompanied by hallucinations and visual distortions. Similarly, Riffin reported post-operative side reactions including dizziness, slurred speech, and manic behavior [5].

 

[Weird Harold]

It certainly did NOT exist (as a problem or otherwise) before the "War On Drugs" drove "bathtub chemists" to invent it.

This is not correct, as the material below and at many sites, shows. A major drug company invented PCP, and after it didn't work so well for humans, continued to market it for animals.

Most problem drugs were invented by the big companies, since good stuff aint easy to come up with; examples are the following: methamphetamine,
...
Indeed, the big companies were/are major suppliers of many 'illegal' drugs, from meth, to (currently) 'oxy' (hillbilly heroin; oxycodone).

While there are a few 'bathtub' creations around, and half-assed bathtub (weaker) versions of the good stuff (sold as the real thing), the drugs of the bathtub *creators*(i.e inventers) are generally not the most common on the drug scene.

I stand corrected on the invention of PCP (and others) but I don't believe the manufacture of the actual drugs on the street can be laid at their feet as firmly as you seem to suggest.

Nearly every time I bother to turn on the TV and watch the local news, there is a story about a 'Meth-lab" or some other clandestine drug manufactory being busted in an apartment complex or residential neighborhood. To the best of my knowledge, the product of such labs is chemically identical to that produced by legititmate pharmaceutical plants -- if not necessarily of the same quality control and purity.

The existnce of Meth-labs in apartment complexes and residential areas is yet another public health and safety issue created by theWar On Drugs. Methamphtamines are apparently fairly easy to manufacture in quantity, but the process involves some hazardous/explosive materials that make illegal labs a hazard to innocents that the methamphetimine itself doesn't pose.

Personally, I'm at far more risk of losing my life and/or property to a careless mistake in an illegal Meth-lab than I am from a whole battalion of Meth users. At least if Methamphetamines were legal and Iwouldn't have to worry about an explosion in some haphazard make-shift Meth lab taking out the entire building I live in -- which has happened more than once in the last year in other similar apartment complexes this town.

 

[Pure]

Meth is indeed easy to make at home, "in a bathtub," metaphorically. (I once looked into it.) This makes it a drug of choice for the Hells Angels and other gangs.

I wish it were sold over the counter.

I wasn't, in my posting, referring to *production, but to *discovery.

So far as I can tell, the 'crack' form of cocaine might have been an amateur's discovery, but most other discoveries go to the scientists and doctors. And much 'supply' of certain recreational drugs is from the drug companies who know where its going: How much 'oxy' can one pharmacy in appalachia need??? how many 'bad backs' can there be in a town of 1,000?

 

[Weird Harold]

how many 'bad backs' can there be in a town of 1,000?

I'd say no more than about 1,000, but I can't say for sure -- maybe that huge commune of druggies and overage hippies just outside of the city limits isn't figured into the population level?

 

[EmeraldKitten]

Drugs are bad.
Drugs alter our minds for a period of time.
Drugs kill and ruin lives.

Well, the people that do drugs kill themselves and ruin their own lives.
But, drugs of any sort, certainly play a part.

Why legalize something that is doing its damnest now to fuck up lives all over the world?
I say to hell with drugs. Legal, illegal, or undiscovered.

Have any of you, that are saying that yes, all drugs should be legalized, had to live with a parent, or be friends with someone, or love somebody that's had a substance abuse problem? Let's get past the 'the gov't is telling me what I can and cant do' issue, and get real.
Have any of you watch friends slip deeper into the emptiness of addiction?
Have any of you watched your father wear long sleeved shirts in the summer to hide his tracks? Then giving up that idea, switch to having tracks all over his hands, glaringly obvious for anyone to see?
Have any of you, that think drugs should be legal, watched the entire family fall apart, waiting helplessly to assit someone that wont help themself?
I'd hope not. Maybe, when all that would happen, would you be able to see the stupidity of such an idea.

Lord, I'm opinonated and mouthy.
True. Its the individuals choice to do, or not to do drugs.
But if someone, with an addictive personality decides to just 'try' it one time... they're screwed.
It's a done deal, and sometimes it's a lost cause.

Everyday, I think about the people I know that have lost loved ones to drugs (of any sort).

Meanwhile, every day of my life for the past 4 years, I've lived with the knowledge that I'm not my fathers "favorite".
Something else takes that place.
A drug. And a needle. The rest of the world means nothing.

*************************************
"Choose life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a big fucking television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disk players and electrical tin openers...choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on the couch, watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarassment to the selfish, fucked-up brats you spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life. But why would I want to do a thing lke that? I chose not to choose life. I chose something else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got heroin?"
Irvine Welsh
*************************************

~K

 

[cloudy]

Emerald:

To answer your questions, yes.

My grandfather (on my mother's side), and my father were both alcoholics.

My brother is currently serving a six year prison sentence for robbing banks to get money for his heroin habit.

My cousin injected what he thought was cocaine, and died almost immediately.

I still say either legalize them, or decriminalize them. The way its handled now obviously is NOT working (see above). There's got to be a better way.

 

[EmeraldKitten]

Emerald:

To answer your questions, yes.

My grandfather (on my mother's side), and my father were both alcoholics.

My brother is currently serving a six year prison sentence for robbing banks to get money for his heroin habit.

My cousin injected what he thought was cocaine, and died almost immediately.

I still say either legalize them, or decriminalize them. The way its handled now obviously is NOT working (see above). There's got to be a better way.

I wish they could just do away with them completely.
Hell, I'm not even that hot on pain pills. Well, the way a lot of doctors hand 'em out like candy, I guess I should say.

But whatever.. they won't do anything, nothing will change, and I'll just sit and watch my father die.
*Shrugs*
Thanks for the reply. I'm going back into my corner now.

~K

 

[cloudy]

I wish they could just do away with them completely.
Hell, I'm not even that hot on pain pills. Well, the way a lot of doctors hand 'em out like candy, I guess I should say.

But whatever.. they won't do anything, nothing will change, and I'll just sit and watch my father die.
*Shrugs*
Thanks for the reply. I'm going back into my corner now.

~K

I've learned the really hard way that there really isn't anything you can do for people that are that set on self-destructing. We didn't know where my brother was, dead or alive, for close to a year. When he got arrested, we found out he was alive. I cried almost every night of that year.

If we put as much money into rehab and other treatments as we've put into the "war on drugs" could it have made a difference?

 

[EmeraldKitten]

I've learned the really hard way that there really isn't anything you can do for people that are that set on self-destructing. We didn't know where my brother was, dead or alive, for close to a year. When he got arrested, we found out he was alive. I cried almost every night of that year.

If we put as much money into rehab and other treatments as we've put into the "war on drugs" could it have made a difference?

No, because addicts aren't going to change/get better until they're ready.
Unless of course, they're thrown in jail. Or unless it's somehow made impossible to get their DOC.
Anyone got any ideas for that? lol.

My dad landed in jail for 7 days. His dad bailed him out. Why? I'll never know. I'd've let his ass rot.
And of course, before he got home he was callin up his dealers.

Last summer, he took me on a drug buy with him.
Actually, he tricked me into driving him to it. Why I didnt realize what was going on, I'll never know.
That was pretty damn traumitizing to say the least.

*Sigh* Well, who the hell knows what would be better, or what would make a difference? Obviously no one, or there would be a solution by now.

~K

 

[Pure]

Emerald said,
Have any of you watch friends slip deeper into the emptiness of addiction?
Have any of you watched your father wear long sleeved shirts in the summer to hide his tracks? Then giving up that idea, switch to having tracks all over his hands, glaringly obvious for anyone to see?
Have any of you, that think drugs should be legal, watched the entire family fall apart, waiting helplessly to assit someone that wont help themself?
I'd hope not. Maybe, when all that would happen, would you be able to see the stupidity of such an idea.

I'm sorry to hear of some family members self destructing. From some of the rest of your story it appears they have pretty easy access to illegal drugs.

Last summer, he took me on a drug buy with him.
Actually, he tricked me into driving him to it. Why I didnt realize what was going on, I'll never know.

Seems about as easy as going to the corner store. Such is the case for many addicts.

So I don't think legalization is going to increase access.

What it would do is drastically lower the price. What you don't mention is how these family persons get so much money, and what their drug spending does to the family. Also the likely illegal acts that are done to get money.

Legalization can be expected to reduce the drain on families. If the habit cost *the family* a dollar a day, that's a whole other ball game than a hundred a day. (which means someone's dealing, hooking, pimping, forging, or somethin, in most cases where the person isn't wealthy).

So the addict might not be 'saved', of course, but he wouldn't take his family down, and he wouldn't have to burgle, run dope, or roll drunks to get his money, so the rest of us too, would be better off, safer.

Hope things work out for you.

J.

 

[amicus]

As of this post, voting is 13 Yes 18 No, 42% to 58%; 5 pages, 776 views, 117 comments...

I have read every post on this thread and it has widened my viewpoint. Many thanks to all who have contributed, some in very painful ways.

My view has been rather detached and academic, as I do not have personal intimate knowledge of those with serious substance abuse problems.

I maintain the position that human freedom of choice, means just that, freedom of choice.

That is not an easy thing to say in view of the stated tragedies of substance abuse. But still, if humanity is to ever achieve true maturity it will only be through unrestricted rational choices of how one lives life with both the successes and the failures that may ensue.

I pose another question...one that arose as I was reading the sad family history of a recent contributor to this thread.

Although there have been terrible times before, World Wars, famine, natural catastrophes, great depressions, more wars, a long list of ills...is it possible we live in a time when hope for a better future has waned?

I can really only speak of the United States, feel free to widen the scope, but with the great societal changes taking place, have many people perhaps lost their way?

Perhaps as the 'Church' has lost influence in the past half century and been riddled with scandal....perhaps the failure of the 'traditional family'. perhaps the emergence of 'alternate' lifestyles, and dare I say the 'empowerment of women'?

Perhaps people are turning to 'substances' because they see no means of achieving and accomplishing their goals?

What drives men to leave wives and children and immerse themselves in substance abuse? Are they unhappy, frustrated, angry, unfulfilled?

Is Western Society at a crisis? Are the Muslims right? Is America the morally depraved nation they claim it is?

Outside the pejorative 'neocons' so called on this forum, where are those who support America and the way of life of her people?

Questions you may choose to address or not.

Amicus

 

[snooper]

I still think that the use of drugs would be reduced considerably if they were legal and obtainable over-the-counter from a Government Agency.

The reason people become hooked on any drug is because they took the first dose.

They took the first dose because somebody persuaded them to do so, or made it possible for them to do so.

If nobody had a vested interest in selling drugs (a vastly profitable business) then nobody would be trying to persuade people to buy them (except the Government, of course).

Without the pressure to indulge, people would not start.

It is no accident that drug dealers are called pushers.

 

[Weird Harold]

Have any of you, that are saying that yes, all drugs should be legalized, had to live with a parent, or be friends with someone, or love somebody that's had a substance abuse problem? Let's get past the 'the gov't is telling me what I can and cant do' issue, and get real.

No and yes, sort of.

I haven't personally been directly affected by subsance abuse in family members. However, I did have three of five uncles who were alcoholics and am, myself, a reformed lush and two-pack a day smoker.

That's really nothing to compare with your father's heroin addiction, but I do understand addiction and addictive personalities very well. I suspect that if I wern't allergic to marijuana I'd probably have developed a "drug" problem to go with the drinking problem and nicotine addiction.

My objections are only peripherally about the government infringing on my freedom to be addicted to my substances of choice, they are about the government wasting my tax dollars on a futile and ineffective attack on "drugs" that is causing more problems than it is solving.

 

[Randi Grail]

Perhaps as the 'Church' has lost influence in the past half century and been riddled with scandal....perhaps the failure of the 'traditional family'. perhaps the emergence of 'alternate' lifestyles, and dare I say the 'empowerment of women'?

You know, for one who advocated freedom of choice above all, it is staggering how you are so selective with what areas of society people are allowed to be free in.

Too bad on an otherwise very sensible post, which I'll reply to later. It's time for my lunch.

 

[Randi Grail]

I'm sorry to hear of some family members self destructing. From some of the rest of your story it appears they have pretty easy access to illegal drugs.

Last summer, he took me on a drug buy with him.
Actually, he tricked me into driving him to it. Why I didnt realize what was going on, I'll never know.

Seems about as easy as going to the corner store. Such is the case for many addicts.[/B]

Yes, that is exactly why those people became addicts. They were prone to addiction, and had easy access to the shit.

Trust me when I say that far from everyone has that when they have that initial urge to try. More people drink that shoot up because you can buy booze at the mall. And it's not even socially frowned upon to get drunk now and then.

If the illegal drugs of today were sold openly at the corner store, and as you suggest, at an affordable price, how many more with addictive personalities would be able to get their hands on that first fix, that the scary, seedy world of black market and lawbreaking has so far kept them from venturing into?

My guess is many many more.

I might be wrong, but until proven otherwise, I dare not take that risk.


Further, you say that drug addiction itself is not what messes people and famillies up, but the crime and financial drain of supporting the habit.

Wrong. I understand your reasoning, but I think you undersetimate the effect those things have on ppl.

I can cite many examples, but I'll use one close to me - yours truly:

I had easy access to free drugs. My mixed bowl drug addiction never drained anything but my mental and social capacities, transforming me from a farily normal, sensible kid, to a crazed out, irresponsible, perpetually horny loon at first, and in the end to a babbling, drooling idiot. Losing most of my still non-drooling friends, alienating my mother and traumatizing my little sister with my behaviour.

It didn't cost me or my family a nickle, uuntil dad dragged me kicking and screaming away frome it all and locked me up in privately funded detox and rehab. And the only criminal activities I engaged in was because I forgot where the lines were drawn, and didn't really give a fuck. Setting things on fire was really entertaining when high on acid.

I can only imagine what would had happened in this had happened to a different Randi, some ten years older, with family and children of my own. It's a truly frighteneing thought.

Selling cocain like we sell liquour today, would put it in the hands of demographic groups like "middle class soccer moms", where the vast majority today does not have the opportunity or motivation to seek out the local pusher.

 

[EmeraldKitten]

Emerald said,
Have any of you watch friends slip deeper into the emptiness of addiction?
Have any of you watched your father wear long sleeved shirts in the summer to hide his tracks? Then giving up that idea, switch to having tracks all over his hands, glaringly obvious for anyone to see?
Have any of you, that think drugs should be legal, watched the entire family fall apart, waiting helplessly to assit someone that wont help themself?
I'd hope not. Maybe, when all that would happen, would you be able to see the stupidity of such an idea.

I'm sorry to hear of some family members self destructing. From some of the rest of your story it appears they have pretty easy access to illegal drugs.

Last summer, he took me on a drug buy with him.
Actually, he tricked me into driving him to it. Why I didnt realize what was going on, I'll never know.

Seems about as easy as going to the corner store. Such is the case for many addicts.

So I don't think legalization is going to increase access.

What it would do is drastically lower the price. What you don't mention is how these family persons get so much money, and what their drug spending does to the family. Also the likely illegal acts that are done to get money.

Legalization can be expected to reduce the drain on families. If the habit cost *the family* a dollar a day, that's a whole other ball game than a hundred a day. (which means someone's dealing, hooking, pimping, forging, or somethin, in most cases where the person isn't wealthy).

So the addict might not be 'saved', of course, but he wouldn't take his family down, and he wouldn't have to burgle, run dope, or roll drunks to get his money, so the rest of us too, would be better off, safer.

Hope things work out for you.

J.

Pure,
It is as easy as going to the corner store. I can give you names of dealers in 4 different towns.
How did he get money? Well, he was working for a while into his addiction, until someone squealed and he got fired. He got a couple other shit jobs that never turned into anything... so he started pawning things. Starting with his wedding ring.
Then, there for a minute, he was runnin' drugs... that didn't last for long though.
When he was poppin' Oxys and Vikes, when they still had pretty good money sitting in the account, he managed to spend 800 bucks in two days.
Eventually, he managed to put them in 30 thousand dollars worth of debt, that my (ex)stepmom is still struggling to pay off.
Meanwhile, he hasn't worked for 2 years now.

Last year, when he got arrested for a domestic violence dispute, he had Heroin in his pocket.
He's just now going to court for the posession charges. Why he hasnt gone earlier?
He told them he'd give up names. Then after he got out of jail last year, he obviously changed his mind, because then, he wouldnt have any suppliers. How silly of him!

Weird Harold- I know what ya mean. I've been a smoker for 3 years now. I need to stop. I've been scared to death for a year, about turning 21, because then I can buy alcohol anytime I want. And since I have, I've really had to watch myself. I could turn into an alcoholic in no time flat. I know I could. I smoked weed a few times the summer after I graduated.. I didnt see what was so great about it. All my friends got into the whole drug scene.. weed, weed laced with coke, X, a couple popped pills... a few dropped acid.. etc. I wasnt around long. And to this day, dont see them much, if ever.

Amicus- You said:
"Perhaps people are turning to 'substances' because they see no means of achieving and accomplishing their goals?

What drives men to leave wives and children and immerse themselves in substance abuse? Are they unhappy, frustrated, angry, unfulfilled?"

My fathers addictions started when he was 13. He's done any and everything. He's now 41, and he still hasnt learned his lesson. I dont know "why" he decided to do drugs.. maybe because everyone else was, and maybe because he got in too deep.
And besides, I think addiction is.. just what it is. I don't believe that there is a 'reason'. I think its an excuse. Something to blame it on- 'oh, my life sucks, i'll shoot up' Whatever. I don't buy it. With all that I've delt with since I was 17, I could have easily turned to a drug of some sort. I could've gotten lost in addiction, and said, "I do this because my dad is a failure and he loves something better than me." I chose not to.
My father has loving parents, had a wonderful wife who was always good to me, with me being a stepchild, and had another daughter with her- one that positively adores him. He won't call either of us. He's got his goals apparently, and we arent part of his plans.

I'm rambling. It's early, and I havent had enough coffee. lol.
I hope this all made sense, and that I got across the points I was trying to.

~Kitten

 

[vargas111]

I think marihuana is propbably safe enought not to be discouraged.

Other drugs should be legalized but regulated in such a way as to both discourate the use and to remove the criminal profits from the supply. These profits drive violence and fund "bad guys" all over the world.

 

[Weird Harold]

My fathers addictions started when he was 13. He's done any and everything. He's now 41, and he still hasnt learned his lesson. I dont know "why" he decided to do drugs.. maybe because everyone else was, and maybe because he got in too deep.

Your father's example -- addiction starting at 13 -- is an example of why I think banning drugs isn't working and should be replced by something that WILL work to prevent 13-year-olds from having the easy and uncontrolled access to drugs that now exists.

Since illegal drugs are illegal for anyone of any age, there is no control over who has access to them other than the ability to pay -- and that is not even a consideration in many cases because many "pushers" know that a new user is easy to recruit if you give the drugs away to get an addiction established and then you've got a paying customer for life.

Legalization, isn't going to totaly remove all access to drugs for minors -- it certainly hasn't done so for alcohol and tobacco -- nd it's not going to remove the peer pressure factor of "c'mon, it's cool to sneak a beer/cigarette/joint/fix behind the gym."

What legalization will do is redirect the majority of drug use to "responsible adults" and provide a mechanism for some degree of control over minors' access to drugs.

Under the current sysem, the control over who has access to drugs is in the hands of criminals -- who incur no additional risks by selling to minors and probbly wouldn't care if they did.

Under a more rational system of controlling drugs, with clear rules on who and when can have access to which drugs, the control of who has access to drugs is at least primarily in the hands of law-abiding people with a vested interest in not breaking the rules.

Would legalization have stopped your father from becoming an addict at 13? Maybe, maybe not -- you say you don't know what prompted him to start using drugs and I won't speculate on which of the hundreds of possible scenarios might apply to him.

Legalization and regulation of alcohol doesn't prevent 13-year-old, and even younger, from becoming alcoholics. Tobacco regulation don't stop 13-year-olds from smoking. All the age limitations on alcohol and tobacco do is give legitimate suppliers a vested interest in keeping their product out of the hands of minors, lest they lose the ability to sell to adults as well.

Drug dealing criminals, on the other hand, have no interest in being discriminatory about who buys their product if they're caught selling to anyone, there is essentially no difference in the penalty. Doubling the sentence for selling to minors, or some other qualifiers or charges, doesn't really make much difference to the risks the dealers take; Jail time of any duration is "just part of the cost of doing business."

I don't approve of drug use, but I also don't se ny realistic way of preventing it either. The best I canhope for is to tke the production and distribution out of the hands of criminals and put it in the hands of people who at least might have some morals.