Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People keep saying that but I don't think it makes sense. For most people, drinking is a social thing--take it or leave it. Some people become addicted but most people don't. But with drugs, from what I've heard, anyone who tries it gets addicted and it will usually ruin their lives. Drinking has been a part of our culture since the beginning. Yes, the Pilgrims drank. The ancestors of the Pilgrims drank. Most of our ancestors, no matter where they came from, drank. But most of them did not take addicting drugs.
Alcohol was here, then it was taken away. That's why it didn't work. They took something that was perfectly legal, that grampa could make out in back of the barn, and made it illegal. Something that the men would drink in the pub, something people used as a means to socialize. "Let's go out for a beer." Hard drugs aren't the same thing.
I know we have been told that everyone who tries drugs gets addicted but the data doesn't support that and it's been studied extensively
After the first year of substance use onset the probability of transition to dependence was almost 2.0% for nicotine, alcohol and cannabis users and 7.1% for cocaine users. The probability estimates of transition to dependence a decade after use onset was 15.6% among nicotine users, 14.8% among cocaine users, 11.0% among alcohol users, and 5.9% among cannabis users. Lifetime cumulative probability estimates indicated that 67.5% of nicotine users, 22.7% of alcohol users, 20.9% of cocaine users, and 8.9% of cannabis users would become dependent on those substances at some time in their life. Half of the cases of nicotine, alcohol, cannabis and cocaine dependence were observed approximately 27, 13, 5 and 4 years after use onset, respectively (Figure 1).
"Among year-before-last beginners ("initiates") of specific substance use, just over two-thirds of crack cocaine, inhalant, and heroin initiates did not use the drug in the past year. Alcohol and marijuana were the only substances for which the majority of year-before-last initiates used the substance in the past year. More than one-tenth (13.4 percent) of year-before-last heroin initiates were dependent on heroin in the past year, and 9.2 percent of year-before-last crack initiates were dependent on any type of cocaine in the past year. Among year-before-last initiates of alcohol use, 25.7 percent had not used alcohol during the past year; 71.1 percent had used alcohol in the past year but were not dependent on it; and 3.2 percent were both using and dependent on alcohol during the past year. Among year-before-last initiates of marijuana, 42.4 percent had not used marijuana during the past year; 51.8 percent had used marijuana in the past year but were not dependent on it; and 5.8 percent were both using and dependent on marijuana in the past year."
Ask a couple cops how many dead and horribly injured victims of your local drunks they scrape up off the roads each year. A LOT more than meth heads.....(truckers)....
If you claim a big difference and don't back it up with actual statistics.....
"Nearly 88,000 people (approximately 62,000 men and 26,000 women die from alcohol-related causes annually, making alcohol the fourth leading preventable cause of death in the United States.
"Total Deaths from ALL stimulants (this includes legal ones) - approx. 3,000 per year"
Meth heads are NOT truckers... I'm guessing you do not live in an area close to where meth is major problem.
Around these parts we call them tweakers because they have to 'tweak' everything they touch. One friend had his front door carpet reduced down to an 18x12 inch sort or square. It used to be almost 2x3 feet, but because one little corner of the carpet was 'the wrong color'... The tweaker started 'fixing' it. To watch a tweaker 'at work' is painful, yet amusing at times. A lot of WTF are you doing? thoughts go through ones head in watching.
I would not like to see these fold get behind the wheel of a big rig....however....they probably would never make it into the cab as they would be 'polishing' all the chrome.
It's very sad, meth is horrible!
Now for those numbers. As they are presented, they are not any evidence to support that alcohol is worse than meth. The numbers here are the total numbers of deaths. Yes, less dead from meth, but what is the percentage of users to deaths? That's were things become more clear as to what substance is more dangerous?
For alcohol; is it for every 10 drinkers there is 1 death? For meth users; is it for every 10 users there are 3 deaths?
These are the numbers we need to know to see what substances are more deadly and dangerous to society.
I'm with the other poster.... I would rather deal with a drunk than a tweaker. A drunk might pass out and pee on your couch, but the tweaker is going to steal the couch and your TV.
Drinking has been a part of our culture since the beginning. Yes, the Pilgrims drank. The ancestors of the Pilgrims drank. Most of our ancestors, no matter where they came from, drank. But most of them did not take addicting drugs.
Do you know why people drank back in the days of the pilgrims?
Do you know why prohibition was put into place?
Today we drink for 'social' reasons, and mental ones.
Back in the day, no one drank water, water was dangerous and would make you very ill. No one knew about the nasty little microbes and bacteria that could be boiled away. They just did not know! What WAS safe to drink was ales/beer and lots and lots of hard apple cider (remember Johnny Appleseed?). Everyone was drinking, even children! Drinking back then was not recreational, it was survival, a body needs fluids and 'ale' was safe. So with that, on, in my opinion, cannot use 'our ancestors drank' as support for the cause.
Our ancestors also used lead to make hats... we don't do that anymore.
Prohibition was started because everyone was drinking and society was becoming 'useless'. There needed to be some sort of control on consumption. Because, unfortunately, most people who drink regularly, addicted or not, cannot or do not drink responsibly or reasonably.
As for taking addicting drugs, if no one took them, it's because they were not available. Once they became available, people ate them up! I'm not sure of what decade it was but it was during our earlier days, but there was a 'magic elixir' being sold and found in every home, it contained either opium or cocaine, maybe both. It was legal and everyone was ingesting it. And guess what... People got addicted.
I like the way it's done in Europe. Drugs are not a criminal offense. The state operates clinics and gives out clean needles and offers rehab for addicts if they choose to go that route. Just think about how much that would free up law enforcement to go do other things than busting some teenager who has a little bit of pot.
"gives out clean needles "
"would free up law enforcement to go do other things than busting some teenager who has a little bit of pot "
?????????????
I have never used pot but what is the correlation between " needles " and "pot " ?
"gives out clean needles " "would free up law enforcement to go do other things than busting some teenager who has a little bit of pot "
?????????????
I have never used pot but what is the correlation between " needles " and "pot " ?
The two statements refer to a harm reduction strategy, i.e. rather than criminalize the possession of hypodermic syringes provide access to unused sterile syringes to cut down on the spread of diseases such as hep C and reduce the incidence of infections resultant from dirty needles. That same strategy rejects the idea of putting people in the criminal justice system whose only crime is possession of a controlled substance because few if any drug users quit because of an arrest and a stint in jail or prison generally leads to more criminality and more serious addiction issues upon release.
When people buy illegal hard drugs, there is usually organized crime involved. By supplying money to organized crime, they're supporting it. They're traitors in the war on organized crime. Most countries, throughout human history, have executed traitors. We give them a slap on the wrist. That motivates them to continue their treason.
You'd have to line up and execute a LOT of doctors, pharmacists, sales people and others who have pushed the pills - which EVERY study agrees has caused the current heroin problem(s).
War on Organized Crime? I didn't know there was such a thing. It's more about supply and demand.
Folks who want some insight into this should read two books.
Methland (about meth)
Dreamland (about opiates)
Methland Executive summary - meth prospered largely on the back of the loss of good jobs and good incomes in the midwest and other such areas. Turns out meth was the perfect drug to allow you to work 2 or 3 jobs in an attempt to make ends meet. When the regular (white) folks couldn't keep up with the jobs any longer, immigrant labor took over in the packing plants. After a while the mexicans noticed that all their white co-workers as well as a lot of the general population wanted meth - and, lo and behold, the word got back to Mexico and they created some good stuff to import.
Before that, local (white) people had been making the stuff - after they lost their jobs they needed a way to make a living and they could sell all they could make. The Mexicans largely put the locals out of business due to better quality and price.
Dreamland Executive Summary - Perdue Pharma, one company, invented the modern "high dose" opiates and spread them to millions using marketing and sales techniques. Thousands of profit-seeking doctors opened "pill mills" and billions of "legal" pills hit the streets. Millions became addicted.
The price of these pills on the street is quite high - as much as $50+ per pill (heavy oxys).
So, some people from a particular little town in Mexico started bringing in black heroin - at about 20% of the price. They were into customer service and free delivery. Since the addicts already had a strong habit, the Mexicans didn't have to do anything...the word got out instantly and they have done well ever since.
Based on your "theory of Saudi Arabian Law", the Mexicans are probably lowering crime because it's documented in the book how they abhor guns, violence or anything of the sort. Because their product is affordable, they are actually stopping the addicts from committing crimes to support a habit.
Need to stop prescribing so many opiates. Often after the prescription runs out, the patient turns to heroin. Maybe cut down on the drug advertising. For every anti drug spot I see in TV there must be ten drug advertisements. As an aside, drug overdoses kill more Americans every year than car crashes and murder combined.
Need to stop prescribing so many opiates. Often after the prescription runs out, the patient turns to heroin. Maybe cut down on the drug advertising. For every anti drug spot I see in TV there must be ten drug advertisements. As an aside, drug overdoses kill more Americans every year than car crashes and murder combined.
America is a capitalist free market - and one of the only countries in the world which allows direct to consumer advertising of drugs. This is completely ridiculous - of course! "Talk to your doctor about using our new billion dollar blockbuster the price of which includes 100's of millions of advertisements like this".
But, again, why would America change in a fashion which is more "for the people" and "against the corporations"? As it stands we seem to be going even more down the path of praying to money.
So it should happen - but it's not going to happen unless people take to the streets. We like to pat ourselves on the back and think we have a government of the people - but we simply don't.
People are too busy trying to survive or having fun or raising families...to get involved in changing the actual system. Meanwhile, the system has completely failed.
This made me laugh, but the poster that said the policy will soon have a lot of gadgets at their disposal has some (actually a lot) of credence. I do a lot of work with a software company in the law enforcement and video surveillance space, and with rate that IoT technology is advancing and being deployed both across the public and private sector (including our homes) we will soon have every inch of our communities being video monitored with essentially real-time connectivity to our police departments - the release of "intelligent lighting" that includes video and internet connectivity on every light bulb is just the start. A scary proposition with hints of Big Brother, but it will certainly put a damper on the dealers activities. And Inspector Gadget doesn't even have to be particuarly smart in this case - they will just get alerts in real time when drug deals are going down and artificial intelligence will crank all this data and help them identify the players and potential locations that deals may go down.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
