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.
Good lord. Cannabis is not a dangerous, addictive drug on par with heroin, cocaine, pcp or meth by any stretch of imagination. Quit acting like Colorado legalized crack, for the love of God.
Funny thing about crack, for the most part rich and non blue collar workers enjoyed cocaine for years through the '70s and the early part of the '80s. Crack showed up so poor people could afford cocaine, then the war on drugs and Nancy Reagan "Just say no" happened.
Put it this way, those guys and gals who worked those long weekends in the office to get a project done just weren't drinking coffee, nor were they snorting crank, cocaine was and still is the drug of choice for those who can afford it. Cocaine didn't become a problem until poor people found a way to afford it.
Here's the thing; we have these debates, and in principle it seems to make sense... but the general public really isn't willing for full legalization. Even me, I would not like to see EVERYTHING out available at the gas station. From a harm reduction perspective, I think we need to fully legalize and regulate what is deemed acceptable, and then leave the remaining, like crack and pcp in a state of non-legality.
So what are the various groups against it?
The religious I would say are primarily against hallucinogens. The already use depressants (I don't think there's a drop in depressant use depending on whether a person is a Christian) and their kids use stimulants at college. But hallucinogens... those ones are demonic.
Then others are scared of the hard stimulants and opiods... as would make sense. They can really take a toll on a person and aren't abuse friendly, even though they can be used recreationally healthily and have definite medical uses for which there is no substitute.
And then the other ones people just don't know about, like disassociatives or GHB or deleriants (which are legal but fully as wacko as any other hard drug).
Cannabis has paved it's way to legalization. But Cannabis has now entered it's own category, it's cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana, and the rest are drugs you shouldn't do.
So what's next after pot? My guess would be less emphasis on enforcement of amphetamines due to the sheer amount of use that's jumped up recently in college attendees. Then, maybe moving ketamine and methoxetamine into the same category as ADD drugs because their anti depressant qualities look promising, and SSRIs and other anti-depressants are kind of crappy and dangerous.
But hey, why is benedryll available at Walgreens for $3 while salvia got banned, even though both are pretty far out drugs?
Most drug users aren't hardcore addicts. If someone who's been dealt a crushing hand in life finds solace in a substance and society can give them that substance for much less than prosecuting them for having that substance, why would society force sad, hopeless people to suffer rather than have access to a mood-enhancer administered in a safe, consistent manner?
If you think drugs like heroin are "mood enhancers" that merely provide "comfort" for the unfortunate junkies who find themselves enslaved to it, you could have made a fortune working for Frank Lucas in 1970's Harlem.
Seriously. It's responses like yours that are the reason discussions about decriminalization end in rather short order. You write sillier propaganda than the prohibitionists.
Besides, other countries have had severe drug problems before (China, Singapore) and today are largely drug free. So it can be done.
China and Singapore? Let's review:
China is not a champion for reducing drug addiction by any stretch of the imagination. They run their more productive citizens with tanks if they get out of line and human rights are practically non-existent there.
Given China's application of law however they see fit and extensive history of human rights abuses, it is safe to say that their version of the "war on drugs" would make America look like boy scouts by comparison.
As for Singapore, they will cane you if you are caught chewing gum in public. What do you imagine the penalty would be for getting caught with a gram of heroin?
Put it this way, those guys and gals who worked those long weekends in the office to get a project done just weren't drinking coffee, nor were they snorting crank, cocaine was and still is the drug of choice for those who can afford it. Cocaine didn't become a problem until poor people found a way to afford it.
Not quite. Freebase was around for a long time before crack even hit the national radar. However, when dealers in low-rent neighbourhoods discovered that cocaine that was turned into crack was far more addictive, had a shorter high and left the user with severe cravings for more of the drug, they flooded their neighbourhoods with it. Crack also had nasty side effects in many users leaving them violent and in an unstable psychotic state, which wasn't common with intranasal users of the drug.
If you are interested on how the cocaine trade fuelled the rise of the MedellÃn Cartel, built the Miami skyline and turned the city into one of the most dangerous since Prohibition-era Chicago, I highly recommend 2006's documentary "Cocaine Cowboys".
If you think drugs like heroin are "mood enhancers" that merely provide "comfort" for the unfortunate junkies who find themselves enslaved to it, you could have made a fortune working for Frank Lucas in 1970's Harlem.
Seriously. It's responses like yours that are the reason discussions about decriminalization end in rather short order. You write sillier propaganda than the prohibitionists.
I don't write propaganda, I write honest, dispassionate evaluations of the available literature.
You think heroin doesn't provide comfort to those who use it? You think it doesn't enhance their mood? Sure, calling it "comforting" and a "mood enhancer" has to be one of the all-time biggest soft-sells of what it can do, but medically pure opiates, by themselves, don't kill people when used by people who have appropriate information about dosage. The two biggest problems with street heroin are unknown dosage and unknown impurities. If you eliminate those unknowns and have honest education for users, the risk profile for most opiates is similar to (or even safer than) most anti-depressants. In fact efficacy of opiates in clinically depressed patients who do not respond to typical anti-depressants is well-documented despite being unpopular due to concerns about dependency - concerns that are almost certainly exacerbated by the legal status of opiates.
Seeing as I know a number of heroin users, some functional, some not, and know their backgrounds, how they got into it and why they continue to use; seeing as I am familiar with addiction management programs that use methadone or suboxone, and ones that even use heroin as management tools; seeing as I am familiar with the history of functional opiates addiction among professionals with ready, safe access to medical-grade opiates, I'll have to just tell you that you're making assumptions and revealing prejudices (common prejudices, but prejudices nonetheless) about drugs. People become "enslaved" to them primarily because of their cost. A months supply of heroin might cost $3,000 on the street. A months supply of the equivalent dosage of methadone or morphine at theraputic doses runs from about $30-$90, possibly even less. Few people can afford $3,000/month. Most people could afford even $90 a month for a treatment that successfully treated them for a debilitating illness like depression.
One thing I will concede is that it is concerning that if the government gets in the business of administering maintenance drugs on a wide scale, it could start to seem a little to much like the "soma" in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Our main difference of opinion is whether that's any worse than allowing the social ills created by severely restricting the supply and treating drug use as a criminal matter. And seeing as non-addictive anti-depressants, even with their limited efficacy (something like 45% of patients do not respond to them), are already acting as a soma-like substance for some people, I think you really do misunderstand the role even so-called "hard" drugs can play if removed from the criminal system.
Wow guys way to make the thread more interesting. My two cents:
China and Drugs - take history into account with Chinese and kinda-Chinese countries like Singapore. The British did a lot of harm to their country by hooking tons of people on heroin (Terry, pg 11)
Then waging war on them for not wanting their population to be heroin addicts and taking Hong Kong.
Xanadu: Encounters with China, Martin Terry https://books.google.com/books?id=I4...page&q&f=false
Wow guys way to make the thread more interesting. My two cents:
China and Drugs - take history into account with Chinese and kinda-Chinese countries like Singapore. The British did a lot of harm to their country by hooking tons of people on heroin (Terry, pg 11)
Then waging war on them for not wanting their population to be heroin addicts and taking Hong Kong.
Xanadu: Encounters with China, Martin Terry https://books.google.com/books?id=I4...page&q&f=false
Uh, no. Heroin didn't exist in the era you're referring to. Opium is what the British force-imported into China, as a means to extract silver from China. The conflicts of the era were called The Opium Wars, not The Heroin Wars.
What's more interesting is Imperial China's reaction to this. They were most interested in stopping foreign interference with their government. And there were some harsh penalties for higher-level Chinese dealers, but mostly the addicts were dealt with in a fairly humane way, with treatment and support not that different from modern, integration-focused rehab programs.
While Singapore famously has death penalties for drug smuggling and high-level dealing, and severe penalties even for possession, mainland China is not as strict. It probably does have the death penalty for certain levels of dealing, but more often uses busts for possession to either enforce rehab or, in the case of famous people, to publicize the legal dangers of drug use.
Uh, no. Heroin didn't exit in the era you're referring to. Opium is what the British force-imported into China, as a means to extract silver from China. The conflicts of the era were called The Opium Wars, not The Heroin Wars.
What's more interesting is Imperial China's reaction to this. They were most interested in stopping foreign interference with their government. And there were some harsh penalties for higher-level Chinese dealers, but mostly the addicts were dealt with in a fairly humane way, with treatment and support not that different from modern, integration-focused rehab programs.
While Singapore famously has death penalties for drug smuggling and high-level dealing, and severe penalties even for possession, mainland China is not as strict. It probably does have the death penalty for certain levels of dealing, but more often uses busts for possession to either enforce rehab or, in the case of famous people, to publicize the legal dangers of drug use.
IMO heroin and opium are basically the same thing. Sorry if I offended you. Maybe the term OPIATES would have been a better term.
What many people do not know is that apparently refined Opiates may be super addictive, but opium itself does not seem to be a problem in moderation. As you indicated, it may not even be a problem for everyone who uses it, similar to alcohol. Any American and Eastern European desserts contain poppy seeds. And this evil drug is all over the bread our children eat! [sarcasm )
All Chock full of opium. The flowers are also sold openly and grown by gardeners all over the US as breadseed poppies and peony-flowered poppies. Yet based on all my research, the government has made it technically illegal to grow them. So depending on God knows what you can grow the flowers or be tried as a felon. This is ridiculous.
Here's the thing; we have these debates, and in principle it seems to make sense... but the general public really isn't willing for full legalization. Even me, I would not like to see EVERYTHING out available at the gas station. From a harm reduction perspective, I think we need to fully legalize and regulate what is deemed acceptable, and then leave the remaining, like crack and pcp in a state of non-legality.
So what are the various groups against it?
The religious I would say are primarily against hallucinogens. The already use depressants (I don't think there's a drop in depressant use depending on whether a person is a Christian) and their kids use stimulants at college. But hallucinogens... those ones are demonic.
Then others are scared of the hard stimulants and opiods... as would make sense. They can really take a toll on a person and aren't abuse friendly, even though they can be used recreationally healthily and have definite medical uses for which there is no substitute.
And then the other ones people just don't know about, like disassociatives or GHB or deleriants (which are legal but fully as wacko as any other hard drug).
Cannabis has paved it's way to legalization. But Cannabis has now entered it's own category, it's cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana, and the rest are drugs you shouldn't do.
So what's next after pot? My guess would be less emphasis on enforcement of amphetamines due to the sheer amount of use that's jumped up recently in college attendees. Then, maybe moving ketamine and methoxetamine into the same category as ADD drugs because their anti depressant qualities look promising, and SSRIs and other anti-depressants are kind of crappy and dangerous.
But hey, why is benedryll available at Walgreens for $3 while salvia got banned, even though both are pretty far out drugs?
The problem with the general public is they (we) believe that making something legal is akin to approving of it. There is a difference between approving of something, and realizing it is not appropriate to make it illegal. Marijuana for instance, you can disprove of it all day long, but that doesnt mean it should be a criminal offense to possess it.
IMO heroin and opium are basically the same thing. Sorry if I offended you. Maybe the term OPIATES would have been a better term.
Yes, it would, since it is far more accurate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kinkytoes
What many people do not know is that apparently refined Opiates may be super addictive, but opium itself does not seem to be a problem in moderation.
Opium can be as addictive as heroin. It's just not as common in the West, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that it's harder to smuggle in large quantities. Addiction is a complicated thing, and part of the difference between opium smoking and heroin use is that opium use has a long history of social use. Social use of drugs mitigates addiction - it doesn't completely prevent it, but people with strong social support are less likely to become addicts in general. In societies were opium smoking is traditional, it was often considered socially acceptable only for old people or the chronically ill, or for occasional celebratory events like weddings. It was peer pressure that kept its use under control, not so much the law.
One of the biggest differences between opium and heroin is that pure heroin converts to morphine alone in the brain. Opium's primary active ingredient is usually morphine (although it can vary depending on the subspecies of opium poppy used), but also includes codeine, thebaine and a few other less-known "opiates" like noscapine and papaverine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kinkytoes
As you indicated, it may not even be a problem for everyone who uses it, similar to alcohol. Any American and Eastern European desserts contain poppy seeds. And this evil drug is all over the bread our children eat! [sarcasm )
Yes these are the same poppy seeds that come from the evil opium poppy.
...
All Chock full of opium. The flowers are also sold openly and grown by gardeners all over the US as breadseed poppies and peony-flowered poppies. Yet based on all my research, the government has made it technically illegal to grow them. So depending on God knows what you can grow the flowers or be tried as a felon. This is ridiculous.
...
First, poppy seeds have little to no opium within them which is why they're currently not a controlled substance. To the extent that the seeds carry opium, it is on the surface of the seeds and within the past 10 years or so a lot of poppy seed providers have been washing the seeds to remove more of the opium. Prior to that you could buy a pound or two of poppy seeds and make poppy seed tea and get a bit of a warm glow, but that's less possible these days (although I think there are some sellers who still sell unwashed seeds).
Second, poppy pods is where the opium primarily resides. There may be a little bit in the straw (stems) and roots, but the vast majority is in the pods. Selling ornamental dried poppies for floral arrangements was tolerated in the US for a long time until the internet helped educate drug users on the possible strength of poppy tea made with those dried poppies. The DEA started reaching out to florists and reminding them that, technically, the sale of dried poppies is illegal and it is now uncommon to find dried poppies available for sale. Prior to that crackdown, "florists" on eBay actually started having a roaring trade in dried, "ornamental" poppies. Today you cannot find dried poppies on eBay. I believe eBay actively shuts down new listings for them, even.
Third, growing a limited number of poppies if obviously merely for their aesthetic value is not prosecuted. Growing a large number of poppies with the intent to sell them is illegal, and growing any number of poppies if the pods show the scarring associated with opium harvesting can (and has in some cases) brought charges of manufacturing against the grower.
You and I agree that the prosecution of poppies is a rather odd thing, and I support fully decriminalizing it. I only corrected you and provide additional detail in this response because I think in discussions of policy, details matter a great deal.
Finally, it is possible to become addicted to poppy tea (or even poppy seed tea). In fact even in small quantities, poppy tea taken regularly for a period of months will result in mild to moderate withdrawal symptoms if stopped cold turkey. And, it is also possible to overdose on poppy tea - this doesn't usually happen in traditional use of it, but with unaware users who are going for a high (as opposed to the mild euphoria associated with traditional use) and underestimated how strong poppy tea can be.
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.
)
