Teenager dies from Nitrous Oxide....UK now wants to ban it.

Whatever the reason this is a tragic event. I do sometimes wish teenagers and kids in their early twenties had better sense than they do. Perhaps now they will begin educating them in schools about the consequences (no room in the lungs for oxygen), and thanks Phage for pointing it out.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

There is a big difference though between alcohol and crack.

Yeah.
Mostly one is illegal and one is not. Mostly.

Think of it as evolution in action.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

There is a big difference though between alcohol and crack.

Yeah.
Mostly one is illegal and one is not. Mostly.

Think of it as evolution in action.

That is one difference. I would certainly not claim that is "mostly" the difference. Crack is far more addictive, far more harmful, and even if legal would be unaffordable for many addicted.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Crack is far more addictive, far more harmful, and even if legal would be unaffordable for many addicted.

Crack is cheap. Those who like it, are strung out on it. Changing its legal status would not change that but it might change the stigma attached to addiction, enabling a rational look at the problem.

a reply to: [post=19620139]Bone75[/post

Normally I would not bother getting involved in this hapless argument,
but your reasoning ( as far as it can be called that ) needs a rebutle because
it is as illogical and commonplace as most of the arguments one hears against
legalisation of drugs, so here it goes; if you make drugs legal they will get cheaper
and better, consumers will be way better off, the public will be better off because less
crime, less crazyness, less police, they could start laying of some soon to be redundant law enforcement,
loads less $ spend on the suppression and criminalisation, penal system etc.
Very easily proven by present day policy in Portugal although there they still are leaving the supply chain
to the mafia.
Your turn, knock yourself out..

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Crack is far more addictive, far more harmful, and even if legal would be unaffordable for many addicted.

Crack is cheap. Those who like it, are strung out on it. Changing its legal status would not change that but it might change the stigma attached to addiction, enabling a rational look at the problem.

Possibly. Or maybe it being legal will get more addicted, impossible to say for sure. Crack is cheap, yet people still spends thousands every week.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Or maybe it being legal will get more addicted, impossible to say for sure.

Did prohibition reduce the number of alcoholics?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Pain pills are legal. That didn't stop them from killing half of my friends before they turned 30.

I know people say Portugal this, Portugal that but I've dug up alternate sources more than once for ATS that shows it basically doesn't do much to reduce or increase the number of users in the long haul. All it does is break up families, give monies to the state, and waste peoples time. There's a little bit of help in Texas with the treatment prison facilities, but it's not all too effective still.

If we look at something like DWI's, I can honestly say the most effective thing will be taking away the driver from the drunk. That'll come with next gen transportation that is driverless. Until then, it'll be the same stats regardless of the punishment.

I think tech will be the saving grace for addicts at some point in the future. We'll be able to hone in on genetic propensities for addiction, tailor treatment to the individual, and actually understand what the hell their wiring means as far as how to deal with said individual. Until then, much the same.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

Have you been to Portugal ,? unfortunatly other then Holland there are not many countries one can cite who had the balls to question and change the status quo. Do you actually know what its like to be
addicted to something like Heroin trying to get enough cash together for
your next hit ?
Making it legal is the only reasonable alternative, life is dangerous, it is up to
us to get educated and if possible help our mates and kids make good decisions,
from driving a fast motorbike to trying crack or what have you.
Such is life without danger there is no evolution.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Or maybe it being legal will get more addicted, impossible to say for sure.

Did prohibition reduce the number of alcoholics?

Unless alcohol and crack are equally addictive, the point is moot.

10-20% of all those who use crack have a serious addiction.
www.nytimes.com...

2.8% of those who drink are alcoholics. 20% of Americans are heavy drinkers, and only 10% of heavy drinkers are addicts.

It really is a completely different animal.

well.blogs.nytimes.com...
www.washingtonpost.com...

originally posted by: Bone75
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Pain pills are legal. That didn't stop them from killing half of my friends before they turned 30.

No they are not. What store can you walk to and buy pain pills for no reason?

a reply to: simplesurfer

No and I'm not sure why I would have to go there to talk about the statistics in the state. I've read articles from people who live there, heard their stories, and looked at stats from sources that don't have an obvious bias. I thought my post was pretty level headed.

You jump from asking me if I've done heroine, to saying we have to protect our kids from crack? I'm not sure what you're on about.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

2.8% of those who drink are alcoholics. 20% of Americans are heavy drinkers, and only 10% of heavy drinkers are addicts.

That does not address my question. Did the prohibition reduce the number of alcoholics?

Is there any reason to think that, because coc aine is illegal, it reduces the number of crack addicts?

a reply to: Phage

Yes. Lots of reasons. It's not reason to think no one will use it, but certainly it can be argued fewer people will, thus fewer addicts.

Second, alcohol consumption declined dramatically during Prohibition. Cirrhosis death rates for men were 29.5 per 100,000 in 1911 and 10.7 in 1929. Admissions to state mental hospitals for alcoholic psychosis declined from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1919 to 4.7 in 1928.

Arrests for public drunkennness and disorderly conduct declined 50 percent between 1916 and 1922. For the population as a whole, the best estimates are that consumption of alcohol declined by 30 percent to 50 percent.

www.nytimes.com...

But let's not kid ourselves with the cultural and historical significance of alcohol, which drugs such as crack simply do not possess.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

I am on about legalisation of all drugs, Portugal has taken that step and the results
are definetly positive, your tenor seems to suggest everyone quotes Portugal but the results are
not conclusive as far as you are concerned...
To me they are, so I will also quote Holland where cannabis has been semi legal for decades and guess what,
statistically they have the lowest number of users in Europe.
Which goes to show, follow me on this if you can, that if you make a substance illegal you make it more attractive especially for young people, statistics show in both Portugal and Holland that if you make drugs legal and turn them into a health issue rather then a criminal one the abuse of those substances becomes substantially less...
So what are you on about ? Are you arguing because you are a thorough researcher or because you think its morally wrong to legalise drugs ?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yes. Lots of reasons. It's not reason to think no one will use it, but certainly it can be argued fewer people will, thus fewer addicts.

Argued based on circular reasoning I suppose.

The Prohibition Era was unkind to habitual drunkards, not because their supply was cut off, but because it was not. Those who wanted liquor badly enough could still find it. But those who recognized their drinking as destructive were not so lucky in finding help.

Nevertheless, the possibility remains that in 1933 a less restrictive form of Prohibition could have satisfied the economic concerns that drove Repeal while still controlling the use of alcohol in its most dangerous forms.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Do you honestly imagine that if crack were legal tomorrow, that the rate would double within a few years or so? I think crack has run it's course and is on it's inevitable decline. Most people know better than to touch it. The people who take it are not thinking about consequences. I don't think people look at crack and say, "OMG, that's illegal NO!". They say, "why the hell would I mess with that", or "why not". That "why not" is not considering long-term repercussions. It's thinking in the moment that it wants to feel better with whatever is around them.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

Why would it have to double, if it increased 1% that's an increase. There are drugs that are extremely dangerous, everyone knows it, but they are legal so people try it. Ever seen someone on bath salts, I have at the ED here, it's not pretty.

People know drugs are dangerous, but they have the "it won't happen to me" attitude.

a reply to: simplesurfer

It's ironic you think I'm the one not capable of following, when in reality you have completely misinterpreted my post. I don't know why someone who has a layered perspective on this is pigeon holed into a position that I don't stand by. I'm pro-legalization, let me go ahead and make that clear. It should have been crystal in my first post.

What I realize, and most seem to want to not address, is that addicts will continue to exist regardless, and legalization is but one step in a very long road towards truly helping people with serious issues.