New category

This area is for discussions that do not fit into the formal firearms discussions of the website. Common sense and non-controversial contributions are expected. Certain topics are forbidden. See the forum rules for more details.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

NavyChief
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 11621
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 10:22 am
Location: Greene County
Contact:

Post by NavyChief »

P4G -
You're missing the point. Yes, drugs may in fact ruin lives. (Although it might be agrued it's more the illegality of drugs that contribute largely to said ruination, but that's a different issue.) But it's their own lives the drug abusers are ruining. (And yes, again, I realize that sometimes spills over to others, and again it's more the illegality of it.) Murder and property crimes, directly affect others. Those of course must reamin illegal. In essence, what I do with my body is my business. However, my rights end where your's begin.
Total repeal of ALL firearms/weapons laws at the local, state and federal levels. Period. Wipe the slate clean.
TunnelRat
Deceased
Deceased
Posts: 9710
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:31 am
Location: Toledo

Post by TunnelRat »

Petrofergov wrote:All facetiousness aside,
Good, your facetiousness wasn't working.
Petrofergov wrote:I think you guys are missing the main point. Drugs destroy lives.
That's possible, but does it destroy 1.2 million lives? That's roughly how many are in prison right now because of the War on Drugs. Most of them are in prison for marijuana. I'll grant you that heroin can screw you up, but how many lives are "ruined" by marijuana?

Regarding your facetious comments about murder. In the law and philosophy (and in the real world), we make a difference between those things which are forbidden because they are evil in themselves and those things which are forbidden simply because there is a law against them.

Murder, rape, arson, assault, these are bad things. They'd be bad whether they were against the law or not. However, most of the drugs proscribed by the War on Drugs are not fundamentally evil in themselves, they are evil because the legislature says they are. During the Renaissance coffee was illegal in Europe -- it was only permitted to royalty and perhaps some of the very uppermost class. Much the same as marijuana has been made illegal today.
Petrofergov wrote:As for the alcohol question.....yeah, it's legal alright. Now sit back and think about all the damage that's done to our society as the result of alcoholism.....and don't ask me what the solution is because I don't know.
Alcohol does indeed do a great deal of damage to our society, as can the drugs we are discussing. However, we are having to choose weevils here, and you want to choose the lesser.

We are dealing with a fallen humanity. If you believe the bible, you're supposed to know that. People are going to drink and they're going to get drunk (take Noah for example...), regardless what the law says.

We can either make alcohol illegal and deal with it as a police problem (at great cost both socially and economically), or we can make it legal and deal with it as a health problem. We tried making it illegal (it was called "The Noble Experiment") and that really didn't work. Now we're dealing with it through social, medical, and economical methods rather than locking everybody up.

The same should hold true with the War on Drugs. Right now we imprison more of our population than any other country on the planet -- including Russia -- and we do it for victimless, non-violent crimes. It ties up our police; it limits our liberties; it erodes our constitutionally protected rights (see 4th and 5th amendments); it produces large, wealthy, and destructive criminal gangs; it finance terrorists, and it costs us billions of dollars every year in cash and untold more in human suffering.

Were we to legalize drugs and end this second "Noble Experiment," all these major societal problems would cease, and we could begin to deal with what is, after all, a medical, social, and educational problem.

Most dangerous of all, we have allowed the government to overstep its bounds in order to do this. Remember Prohibition? It took a constitutional amendment in order to give the federal government the authority to ban alcohol, and another constitutional amendment to take that authority away. When was the amendment to allow the War on Drugs? I musta missed that one.

The federal government has no constitutional authority to ban any of the drugs it currently proscribes. It is like the flood waters in New Orleans. You don't have to break down the entire levee, you've just gotta find a breach and the water comes pouring through.

The Feds have NO POLICE POWER under the constitution. That power has been reserved to the states. That's why federal officers weren't issued firearms until as late as 1934 (for the War on Alcohol). Yet today the FBI runs the most efficient private army in the world.

Are drugs a bad thing? Yes indeedy! But are they as bad as the most powerful government in the world released from its chains...?
TunnelRat

"Applying the standard that is well established in our case law, we hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States." ~ McDonald v. Chicago

When your only tools are a hammer and sickle, every problem starts to look like too much freedom.
Petrovich
*** Banned ***
Posts: 4030
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 3:39 pm

Post by Petrovich »

Well, I guess this one goes to the 'agree to disagree file'.

Besides, your argument seems to be more politically motivated so we aren't even arguing at the same level.

You will never convince me that allowing uninhibited access to dangerous narcotics is a good idea.

Those substances are toxic to the human system,and are extremely addicting.

I have used narcotics in my profession for nearly 16 years. There's a REASON those substances are regulated.

I have also seen MANY MANY cases of addiction and it ain't pretty.

For the sake of argument...let's say we decriminalize drug abuse....now what? Where's the stuff gonna come from? Probably the same places it comes from now. Do you honestly think pharmaceutical companies will start producing methamphetamie, crack, heroin, ectasy and all that stuff? That's crazy to even think about. Those substances have absolutely no clinical use...if they were produced it would only be for the purpose of abuse; and that ain't gonna happen.

There's a little experiement I heard about once during a lecture on addiction.

Some rats had electronic stimulators surgically implanted in their brains. The device emitted a gentle electic current into the rat's brain that was the 'pleasure center'. The rats were then placed in a cage with a bar and they soon figured out when they pressed the bar the pleasure center in their brain was stimulated.

Guess what happened? The pressed the bar constantly, to the exclusion of eating, drinking mating and all the other stuff rats like to do.

People are virtually powerless over addiction. We are hardwired by evolution to become addicted. The 'pleasure center' in our brains is there for a reason, and it has enormous influence over our behaviour.

If we are given access to drugs many of us will become addicted....it is just that simple.
BEAR!
Posts: 3548
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:00 am
Location: S.W. Montgomery county

Addiction

Post by BEAR! »

Your right, some may become addicted. But following your logic, Alcohol, fast food, and sex should be illegal too. :roll:
NRA Endowment Member
OFCC Member

"Life is tough, its even tougher when you're stupid"- John Wayne

http://theoldtimeway.blogspot.com/
Petrovich
*** Banned ***
Posts: 4030
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 3:39 pm

Re: Addiction

Post by Petrovich »

BEAR! wrote:Your right, some may become addicted. But following your logic, Alcohol, fast food, and sex should be illegal too. :roll:
Maybe...
TunnelRat
Deceased
Deceased
Posts: 9710
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:31 am
Location: Toledo

Post by TunnelRat »

Petrofergov wrote:Besides, your argument seems to be more politically motivated so we aren't even arguing at the same level.
I don't understand what you mean by "politically motivated" unless you refer to the dangerous way the federal government operates outside the bounds of the constitution. But, yes, I think that is the primary reason to stop the War on Drugs. Unrestricted access to addicting drugs is a bad idea, but it's way better than an unrestricted government.
Petrofergov wrote:You will never convince me that allowing uninhibited access to dangerous narcotics is a good idea.
Don't you realize that we have that right now? But not only is the access uninhibited, it is also uncontrolled. On the black market there is no oversight, no safety precautions, no regulation, no age limit.
Petrofergov wrote:Those substances are toxic to the human system,and are extremely addicting.

I have used narcotics in my profession for nearly 16 years. There's a REASON those substances are regulated.

I have also seen MANY MANY cases of addiction and it ain't pretty.
So you prefer to make them available without restriction, to anyone who wants them, with no control over them? That's what happens when you make things illegal that people want. Right now any teenager can go out and buy the worst kind of addicting drug, but they can't by alcohol because alcohol is legal and thus subject to government conrol.
Petrofergov wrote:For the sake of argument...let's say we decriminalize drug abuse....now what? Where's the stuff gonna come from? Probably the same places it comes from now.

That's possible, except whoever makes it would have to be licensed and regulated. They'd have to maintain standards of safety and purity. There would be records to keep of how much is manufactured and where and to whom it is sold. And everything would be taxed. And nobody would be going to jail.
Petrofergov wrote:Do you honestly think pharmaceutical companies will start producing methamphetamie, crack, heroin, ectasy and all that stuff? That's crazy to even think about. Those substances have absolutely no clinical use...if they were produced it would only be for the purpose of abuse; and that ain't gonna happen.
Sandoz, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson... these companies all exist to make a profit. During the 30's people asked, "if we legalize alcohol, who will produce it?" Alcohol doesn't have any clinical use either (at least not when it is sold as a beverage). People don't buy alcohol for its clinical uses, they buy it to get high. That's why people use drugs, too.
Petrofergov wrote:There's a little experiement I heard about once during a lecture on addiction.
Yeah, I've heard about those rats. We all should be so lucky... 8)
Petrofergov wrote:If we are given access to drugs many of us will become addicted....it is just that simple.
That is no doubt true. On the other hand, we have access to drugs today. In fact there is a plague of drug abuse on the land. Are you addicted? Am I? Are we better or smarter than the druggies, or just luckier? No, we know better -- we choose not to live that kind of life. No, because we know better than to risk that sort of thing. Like you said, you've seen what it's like to be addicted.

Right now, those who want to use (or abuse) drugs do. And those of us who don't want to don't. Changing the laws won't change that. The law has not and does not reduce the rate of drug abuse. All the law does is make drugs expensive, enrich the dealers and the cartels, distract the police from dealing with violent criminals, militarize police units, and put people in prison who might otherwise lead productive lives.

Don't argue from emotion. Don't just say drugs are bad. Of course they are. The question is what to do about it.

My position is that the present way of the War on Drugs is totally non-productive, and even counter-productive. It is unconstitutional and even anti-constitutional. It corrupts our republic and draws us ever closer to a police state.
TunnelRat

"Applying the standard that is well established in our case law, we hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States." ~ McDonald v. Chicago

When your only tools are a hammer and sickle, every problem starts to look like too much freedom.
Redhorse
Posts: 614
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 8:26 pm
Location: Licking county

Post by Redhorse »

8) Have to agree with Tom and NavyChief on this one. US was the first country in the world to make Hemp illegal. Whole thing stemmed from some rich people who stood to lose their collective butt (DuPont). They held the patents on MANY synthetic fibers and chemicals that would have all been replaced by nontoxic and recyclable alternatives from the hemp plant. When the process to break down the fibers of the plant wee finally made efficient and possible on a lorge scale, combined with a new machine which made the harvesting of said plant was invented, DuPont got worried :shock: .

You could buy some bud at the local pharmacy up until it was banned. The American Medical Society didn't even know what the substance being banned was until a few days before Congress was to vote on it (talk about a snow job)!

Bush Sr. has a bunch of money invested in Pharmaceutical companies who hold pattent's on synthetic forms of the over 60 different compounds found in the Hemp plant. Many of these compounds have medical uses, only one get's you high. Can't patent a plant! :? Where's the money in that.

Bibles are printed on Hemp paper. Ever wonder why it's so thin yet so strong? We could get 4 1/2 times the pulp for paper off an acre of land by growing hemp instead of trees (doesn't take hemp 100 yrs to grow back either). Non toxic paint, efficient fuel source, recyclable products of all kinds including very durable clothing, Etc...Etc... :!:

As far as those "other drugs" like heroin, cocaine,and so on... our government and pharmaceutical companies are producing many of them. There are derivitives of heroin that are used by our anesthesiologists every day! If they aren't using the real thing, they are using a synthetic chemical compound made to simulate the compound found in the natural form of the drug. Same goes for cocaine. Where do you think our medical field came up with these drugs... :roll: aliens brought them from outerspace?

There was no such thing as the DEA in the 20's. That agency began as the Bureau of Narcotics. A cousin of the DuPont family was "appointed" to head this "new government agency". He also happened to own 3 major newspapers...let the propoganda begin :idea: . The rest is history.
Freedom isn't free!
TunnelRat
Deceased
Deceased
Posts: 9710
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:31 am
Location: Toledo

Post by TunnelRat »

Wow, the Horse rules! I didn't know all that tinfoil hat, conspiracy stuff. :?

I did know that there was (and is!) a lot of propaganda involved with the banning of drugs. I didn't know about the commercial connections.
TunnelRat

"Applying the standard that is well established in our case law, we hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States." ~ McDonald v. Chicago

When your only tools are a hammer and sickle, every problem starts to look like too much freedom.
Petrovich
*** Banned ***
Posts: 4030
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 3:39 pm

Post by Petrovich »

Redhorse wrote:8)

As far as those "other drugs" like heroin, cocaine,and so on... our government and pharmaceutical companies are producing many of them. There are derivitives of heroin that are used by our anesthesiologists every day! If they aren't using the real thing, they are using a synthetic chemical compound made to simulate the compound found in the natural form of the drug. Same goes for cocaine. Where do you think our medical field came up with these drugs... :roll: aliens brought them from outerspace?
Don't go into unfamiliar terrain.

You are correct, however in that there are hundreds of compounds derived from the same basic raw materials. Some are specifically produced for the high (heroin and crack) others are specifically produced for their clinical use (morphine and lidocaine).

The pharmaceutical derivitives have their high producing qualities downplayed and the clinical qualities emphasized. Yes, morphine, dilaudid, methadone, oxycodone, hydrocodone, demerol, versed, ativan, lorazepam yadda yadda....will all make you feel good, or at least less bad, but none typically produce the eurphoria that street drugs produce...as a rule.

You will also find that patients who become addicted to clinical narcotics rarely do so because they abuse for the euphoria. They abuse for the anasthetic, analgesic, or sedative properties.

Substances such as heroin and crack have absolutely no clinical use whatsoever.

Case in point....there is a medication in pill form that is basically cannabinol. I've given it myself. It's used to accentuate the effects of antiemetics (nausea) and it works quite well without the 'buzz' associated with pot. So, why give someone pot to smoke so they can rot their lungs out??? Give 'em a pill.
tommcnaughton wrote:Don't argue from emotion. Don't just say drugs are bad. Of course they are. The question is what to do about it. .
So, my thoughts and professional input are reduced to "arguing with emotion?"

Yeah, when all else fails call them emotional. Kinda shoots their logic in the foot.

Cheap tactic.....I've used it myself.

Like I said....let's agree to disagree.

You say unrestricted, legal access to dangerous drugs is an improvement.

I say it's insane.

Case closed.
Last edited by Petrovich on Thu Sep 01, 2005 3:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
NavyChief
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 11621
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 10:22 am
Location: Greene County
Contact:

Post by NavyChief »

Petrofergov wrote:Substances such as heroin and crack have absolutely no clinical use whatsoever.
Well, golly. Where the heck did heroin come from, then? Oh, that's right. It was developed following WWI as a miracle cure for morphine addiction. Worked, too. Curiously, as long as folks were able to get it, they continued to perfom more or less normally in their everyday lives. Some better than others, but even the worst of them would be compared to a functional alcoholic of today.
Total repeal of ALL firearms/weapons laws at the local, state and federal levels. Period. Wipe the slate clean.
Petrovich
*** Banned ***
Posts: 4030
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 3:39 pm

Post by Petrovich »

NavyChief wrote:
Petrofergov wrote:Substances such as heroin and crack have absolutely no clinical use whatsoever.
Well, golly. Where the heck did heroin come from, then? Oh, that's right. It was developed following WWI as a miracle cure for morphine addiction. Worked, too. Curiously, as long as folks were able to get it, they continued to perfom more or less normally in their everyday lives. Some better than others, but even the worst of them would be compared to a functional alcoholic of today.
Jeesh, give me a freegin' break.

If it worked so well why aren't we still using it? Why did we substitute methadone???? I'm sure you are a great gunner's mate but let's leave pharmacy to health professionals.

It has no clinical use CURRENTLY. It's use was DISCONTINUED.

Probably on account of some vast, government conspiracy to overstep it's boundaries. :roll:
NavyChief
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 11621
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 10:22 am
Location: Greene County
Contact:

Post by NavyChief »

*Sigh* You're right. We'll have to agree to disagree. I'll only leave you with this one last thought. When looking at any gov't regulatory scheme - follow the money.
Total repeal of ALL firearms/weapons laws at the local, state and federal levels. Period. Wipe the slate clean.
Petrovich
*** Banned ***
Posts: 4030
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 3:39 pm

Post by Petrovich »

NavyChief wrote:*Sigh* You're right. We'll have to agree to disagree. I'll only leave you with this one last thought. When looking at any gov't regulatory scheme - follow the money.
I'll leave you with one....I don't give a rat's patooties about the money. Greedy, arsholes do not concern me and I don't waste my energy worrying about them.

Drugs should be regulated, prescribed and administered by PROFESSIONALS who are trained to use them.

Allowing ANYONE to self medicate, whether with street drugs or clinical agents is absolutely nonsense.

Hey, if you ever need a gall bladder operation come and see me...I'll cut you a deal (pun intended). I've seen at least a dozen so I'm sure I can pull it off.
TunnelRat
Deceased
Deceased
Posts: 9710
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:31 am
Location: Toledo

Post by TunnelRat »

Petrofergov wrote:Drugs should be regulated, prescribed and administered by PROFESSIONALS who are trained to use them.

Allowing ANYONE to self medicate, whether with street drugs or clinical agents is absolutely nonsense.
Sorry, you don't get to make that argument -- that's what I've been saying!

By making drugs illegal, you forbid trained professionals to administer them and require self medication with street drugs. That has been one of my major points about the stupidity of this War on Drugs.
TunnelRat

"Applying the standard that is well established in our case law, we hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States." ~ McDonald v. Chicago

When your only tools are a hammer and sickle, every problem starts to look like too much freedom.
User avatar
jmwildenthal
Posts: 647
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:18 am
Location: Greater Columbus

Addiction

Post by jmwildenthal »

Let's see.

In 1979, before the War on [some] Drugs began, the estimated rate of cocaine addiction was 1.3%.

In 1999, twenty years later, the estimated rate of cocaine addiction was 1.3%.

In 1914, when you could buy cocaine off the shelf at grocery stores, the estimated rate of cocaine addiction was?

1.3%.

Statistics are from an address given by Senior Judge John L. Kane of the U.S. District Court of Denver, Colorado to the Western Governors’ Association in Scottsdale, Arizona on December 15, 2000.

Guns were available to gangs in the fifties. They were mail order items. You could order them from comic books. But gangs didn't use guns. They fought with fists over their turf. Why guns now? Because turf is worth big bucks do to drug profits.

Lastly, if we legalize drugs the corrupt Latin American governments will fall. Imagine Mexico being as safe as it was 40 years ago.
Post Reply