Oregon county decriminalizes heroin, meth, cocaine and shoplifting, among others

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Jezus

 

I agree with full legalization of soft safe drugs like marijuana, '___', mushrooms etc. I agree that we should target and punish the dealers of hard drugs more than victims - possesing certain small amount of hard drug should only be a minor offense. But I dont agree with outright decriminalization of all hard drugs. That is just absolutely insane IMHO.

These substances are outlawed because they are toxic and very addictive poisons. I see no difference between outlawing hard drugs and outlawing other dangerous poisons.

But we don't outlaw many poisons. You can buy and consume rat poison if you are stupid enough.

1. Some people can responsibly do hard drugs. Doing drugs is not inherently immoral.

2. Abusers and addicts have emotional and psychological issues that are not related to any particular drug. There is always something to abuse; are we going to start trying to control paint and glue?

We don't outlaw fatty foods because some people are fat, we give people nutritional information.
We don't outlaw extreme sports because some people get hurt, we give people helmets.
We don't outlaw knives because people get stabbed, we respond to emergencies.

Just as anything can be a weapon, anything can be a drug.

The only way to fight "the drug problem" is with education and treatment.

Prohibition causes the problems it is attempting to fight.

It creates the market for criminals and in turn violence.
It creates ignorance about drugs, and in turn abuse and addiction.
It attacks innocent people, this ruins the relationship between society and law enforcement.

People should only fear police if they are bad people; not if they believe recreational drug use is okay.

This "War on Drugs" creates violence, hurts innocent people, and empowers criminals.

reply to post by Jezus


Going to jail for taking drugs is criminal. Quit trying to pass it off like our system are sending people to the showers. They have a choice to not do drugs, and its their choice alone. A LOT of jurisdictions have pre-trial diversion programs as well as drug courts to assist in these matters. Maybe if they spent more time trying to persuade their elected officials to change the law, and less time complaining about the Government not letting people do whatever they want, it might be different.

And since I have had this statement leveled at me before in other threads (not by you) I will bring it up here. There are many many people who do Law Enforcement, performing a job and serving the Public. You can check news sites and you will find articles, stories, video, etc about how one cop beat this person, a cop lied on the stand, a cop etc etc. 1 incident by one person spoils the lot.

The same thing is true of people who do illegal drugs (or abuse legal drugs). The majority of people who get drunk, or use drugs, know what they are doing, and for the most part control the behavior. Its the ones that don't exercise the self restraint that end up on the news, which in turn does the same thing that the description above this does.

The list you put up is interesting. If people have psyche issues, why would we think its ok to take mind altering drugs to go along with it? There are medications available that would do a much better job of helping the person.

Fatty Foods, Extreme Sports, Weapons - All of these categories are regulated, or banned in certain states / jurisdictions, depending on where you live, in addition to the manner of use (discharging a weapon inside most city limits etc).

I have seen comments from many people talking about the safe use of drugs. Its a valid, if not narrow view, on the issue. Not everyone will use the drugs as recreational or in a safe manner, like alcohol and prescription drugs.

Using Portugal's program as a base for change could possibly lead to some answers / change in this area. The Attorneys General under Clinton (IRR) advocated treatment over incarceration.

The marijuana issue will come sooner rather than later with the California Prop 19 proposal. AG Holder has gone on record saying the Federal Government will continue to enforce marijuana as illegal, which is setting up the ensuing court battle that could alter the entire drug scene, or set it back a few decades.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Your Orwellian thought police mentality is offered is nothing more than offering up the logical fallacy of argument of adverse consequence. You appeal to peoples fear, and do so not by offering up any truth, but merely your opinion. There is absolutely no empirical data to support your contention that shooting up heroin or "meth" leads to crime.

Using drugs directly leads to criminal behaviour, because you cannot control yourself when you use them and are addicted, so you become a threat to society when under the influence of drugs. Crime rates among drug users are higher than among general population, even if you exclude the crime of drug posession.
In addition, it leads to serious health problems which society must pay to cure, because all hard drugs are toxic, and we cant leave people to die in the streets. Unless you think we can, because you are that blinded by your anarcho-libertarian ideology. Then I have nothing to say to you..
There is nothing orwellian about it, look up what that term even means. They are outlawed because they harm people and society, not because they threaten the establishment.

Further, if you were so concerned about the causes that lead to crime, perhaps it would occur to you that by criminalizing heroin and "meth" use demonstrably leads to crime. If urination was criminalized every single person would become criminals under the legislation criminalizing it, but what led to this upsurge in crime was the legislation itself.

Even if we exclude the crime of drug posession, drug users still have higher crime rates (stealing, murders, rapes, all other crimes because they cannot control themselves, economic problems, health services abuse).

None of the actions you have described are, in and of themselves, criminal. Manufacturing poison has been something people have been doing for thousands of years and the uses for poisons include anti-venom and medicinal purposes, not to mention the extermination of pests, such as rats, and insects that can be harmful to humanity.

I was talking about illegal poisons, not rat poison. You cannot manufacture sarine or other neural poisons at home, can you? Even if you claim you intent to harm noone with it. There are many substances which you cannot mnufacture or posses without a license.

The entire purpose of the unalienable right to keep and bear arms is so that the people may protect their life, liberty and property.

Can you bear arms without license in the US? Can you bear full-auto military grade weapons, grenades, rocket launchers or nuclear weapons in the US?
Think of legal weapons as soft drugs and illegal weapons as hard drugs. Ones should be legal for general public to obtain, the others should not.

Driving an automobile is not a crime, and does not, in and of itself, produce any victim.

I was not talking about driving an automobile, I was talking about SPEEDING. Speeding in itself also does not produce any victim, its also outlawed because of adverse consequences. Does it mean it should be legal to speed, and you would be prosecuted only after you kill someone?

They obviously do nothing at all to PREVENT crime, but do everything to impair or deny people their unalienable rights, and since you see nothing wrong with that, then it is clear where you stand in regards to human rights.

OK, you disagree in principle with laws which outlaw beahviour leading to crime because of adverse consequences, so lets see what kind of society you are advocating:
1. anyone can manufacture any substance as long as he does not harm others with it. He can be prosecuted only AFTER the harm is done.
2. criminals would be free to bear full-auto, explosive, military grade or nuclear weapons. Police would not be able to prosecute them, only if they attack someone, police would be allowed to fight the gangs, now armed with advanced military-grade weapons. Slaughtering will ensue.
3. everyone would be free to speed as fast as he can, and only AFTER the he kills someone he would be prosecuted.
4. There would be no mandatory accounting for banks and corporations, because not doing accounting does directly harm noone. Frauds will be much more common than now.
5. threatening someone would not be a crime, the harm on life and property was not yet done. Police can arrest someone only after he has done the things in the threat.
etc.

I am advocating respect for the unalienable rights of all people, and by any standard of logic, an abrogation and/or derogation of a right is a crime.

Abrogation of BASIC human rights is a crime, because only they are unalienable. If society agrees something should be outlawed, and it is not a basic unalinable human right, there is nothing wrong or illegal with outlawing it. You clearly dont know how legal system works, and the difference between unalienable and alienable right.

Anarcho-libertarian extremist ideologies are as dangerous for the society as collectivist extremism, IMHO. The truth is in the middle.

reply to post by Jezus

But we don't outlaw many poisons. You can buy and consume rat poison if you are stupid enough.

But I am not advocating outlawing all drugs. Only the most dangerous ones. You would be able to buy and consume '___' or marijuana if you want.

Some people can responsibly do hard drugs. Doing drugs is not inherently immoral.

Show me one. Even if some people did, if its not more than 50%, then its better for society to outlaw them for general public than not, because the net effect of use would be negative.

Abusers and addicts have emotional and psychological issues that are not related to any particular drug. There is always something to abuse; are we going to start trying to control paint and glue?

Non-sequitur. We outlaw hard drugs because they are very dangerous to health and cause people to loose control over themselves, and are physically addictive, not because they are moderately phychologically addictive or pleasant (in the beggining).

We don't outlaw fatty foods because some people are fat, we give people nutritional information. We don't outlaw extreme sports because some people get hurt, we give people helmets. We don't outlaw knives because people get stabbed, we respond to emergencies.

Negative effects of such things are smaller or equal compared to positive effects. Negative effects of hard drugs are far bigger than positive ones (if they even exist). Its all about weighing positive and negative effects on the society.

Just as anything can be a weapon, anything can be a drug.

Not anything can be a dangerous drug, which negative effects far more outweight the positive ones.

The only way to fight "the drug problem" is with education and treatment.

And prosecuting dealers, not victims.

Prohibition causes the problems it is attempting to fight.

Thats not true, people still drink alcohol today, people would still do hard drugs, even if legalised, maybe even more. Prohibition caused only mafia, not more alcohol usage, that was actually less.

It creates the market for criminals and in turn violence. It creates ignorance about drugs, and in turn abuse and addiction. It attacks innocent people, this ruins the relationship between society and law enforcement.

If drug dealers were legalised, the negative effects of their drugs would be smaller? Outlawing the hard drugs does not cause ignorance, abuse or their addictive potential.

People should only fear police if they are bad people; not if they believe recreational drug use is okay.

There is no such thing as recreational use of hard drugs.

This "War on Drugs" creates violence, hurts innocent people, and empowers criminals.

I agree. And in case of soft drugs, these negatives outweight positive effects of criminalization. In case of hard drugs, its the other way around.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Using drugs directly leads to criminal behaviour, because you cannot control yourself when you use them and are addicted, so you become a threat to society when under the influence of drugs.

The worst must the Cancer patients, with all the drugs they are on - some of the most addictive and powerful ones.

A menace to us all,they must be.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Going to jail for taking drugs is criminal. Quit trying to pass it off like our system are sending people to the showers.

An immoral law that imprisons millions of innocent people is an atrocity.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
The list you put up is interesting. If people have psyche issues, why would we think its ok to take mind altering drugs to go along with it? There are medications available that would do a much better job of helping the person.

You are missing the point. The issue is that these people can not be threatened with prison to change their behavior, they need education and treatment.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
I have seen comments from many people talking about the safe use of drugs. Its a valid, if not narrow view, on the issue. Not everyone will use the drugs as recreational or in a safe manner, like alcohol and prescription drugs.

It is immoral to imprison people because a minority of people can't use drugs responsibly.

Not everyone who uses drugs needs to be helped or deserves to be attacked.

Originally posted by Maslo
Using drugs directly leads to criminal behaviour, because you cannot control yourself when you use them and are addicted, so you become a threat to society when under the influence of drugs

Most people use potentially addictive drugs with no problem; regardless of the drug.

The people that have serious problems with drugs have underlying emotional and psychological issues.

Threats of prison does not help these people.
Prohibition does not help these people because there always something to abuse.

Originally posted by Maslo
In addition, it leads to serious health problems which society must pay to cure, because all hard drugs are toxic, and we cant leave people to die in the streets.

This is propaganda talking.

Drug addiction is physically dangerous, not responsible drug use.

The moderate use of coc aine or heroin is physically benign compared to alcohol, tobacco, and many prescription drugs.

But even if it was physically damaging, we don't outlaw fatty foods, we simply educate people about nutrition and deal with the emotional issues that cause self destructive behavior (overeating).

The "War on Drugs" is exactly what has created this ignorance about drugs.

This violent war does not help anyone because it does not deal with the real problem.

You can not physically prevent people from getting and doing drugs, so all we do is imprison people and this doesn't help anyone.

People have a right to do drugs responsibly; and the people who can't do them responsibly can be dealt with separately.

The "War" wastes billions of dollars and resources.
It creates ignorance and this facilitates abuse and addiction.

Most importantly it imprisons innocent people and turns society against law enforcement.

Originally posted by Maslo
There is no such thing as recreational use of hard drugs.

Don't be ridiculous man...

You are not talking from an informed position...

reply to post by Jezus



And again the people who chose to take the illegal drug made their own bed. There are laws that say you cannot be in possession of a controlled substance Heroin, Meth, Marijuana, Cocaine, etc). There are pretrial diversion programs and treatment these people can get, in addition to the fact they don't have to take drugs to begin with.

The opposite argument can be made that the atrocity occurring are the number of people who opted to do drugs in the first place. Again though, there are laws governing this, and breaking the law can land you in trouble IE convicted of a crime, meaning not innocent.

The people who have psyche issues who are taking illegal drugs need treatment, I will agree with that. It still does not justify the use of the drugs in the first place. Even more so when the use of said drugs will magnify the problem the person may have.

Is it immoral to put people in jail / prison for driving while intoxicated / driving under the influence?

People argue drugs should be either legalized or decriminalized, that their should be no jail time, and treatment should be a must.

I only see these arguments though when it comes to getting caught with drugs. Why can't the people who choose to do illegal drugs, also choose to not do drugs, as well a choose to get treatment on their own?

If not, then why not?

Any answer that revolves around addiction issues, altered status, health issues etc only confirm that the drugs we are referring to are not helping anyone, but continuing to escalate the underlying problems.

Any answer that deals with treatment, is acknowledging that the drugs are bad. If they were not, then there would be no need for treatment.

reply to post by Jezus

Most people use potentially addictive drugs with no problem; regardless of the drug. The people that have serious problems with drugs have underlying emotional and psychological issues.

That statement is just false. It depends very heavily on the drug. Most people use soft drugs like alcohol, marijuana etc. with no problem. But if we deal with strongly addictive and harmful drugs like heroin, very small minority is able to control themselves if they took them more than a few times. Even if they are strong and healthy in the begining.

Threats of prison does not help these people.

I agree. But is helps to lower the amount of drugs on the market, therefore it protects healthy people from becoming them.

Prohibition does not help these people because there always something to abuse.

I have no big problem with voluntary abuse of soft drugs. Those are not physically addictive, so people with enough will can stop at any time (with exception of nicotine). Also, they are not so toxic.

This is propaganda talking. Drug addiction is physically dangerous, not responsible drug use. The moderate use of coc aine or heroin is physically benign compared to alcohol, tobacco, and many prescription drugs.

There is no such thing as responsible use of hard drugs, physical addiction develops even after first few doses, unlike alcohol or tobacco.
The effects of heroin or coc aine are far worse than effects of moderate alcohol usage. I have to ask, what is your background in the matter, if you make such bold false claims? Are you familiar with effects of different drugs on human body?
Prescription drugs are treatment, they are taken for a medical reason, only when pros outweight the adverse effects.

But even if it was physically damaging, we don't outlaw fatty foods, we simply educate people about nutrition and deal with the emotional issues that cause self destructive behavior (overeating).

Fatty foods can, in contrast to hard drugs, be used responsibly. And fatty foods by far are not as damaging, and are not physically addictive. The analogy differs in many important points to be relevant.

The "War on Drugs" is exactly what has created this ignorance about drugs.

Prove it.

This violent war does not help anyone because it does not deal with the real problem.

te]

Which is? I remind you, what you cannot change is by definition not a problem. Human nature is not a problem.

You can not physically prevent people from getting and doing drugs, so all we do is imprison people and this doesn't help anyone.

You can significantly lower the amount of people doing hard drugs by making them illegal, compared to situation if they were legal.

People have a right to do drugs responsibly; and the people who can't do them responsibly can be dealt with separately.

There is no such thing as responsible use of hard drugs, so all people who do them "must be dealt with separately."

The "War" wastes billions of dollars and resources.

And saves more billions.

It creates ignorance and this facilitates abuse and addiction.

How? Prove it.

Most importantly it imprisons innocent people and turns society against law enforcement.

I agree, we should not imprison victims, but only dealers. Posessing small amount of hard drug with no intent to sell it, even repeatedly, should be only a minor offense with no jailtime attached, punished by fine or public work only.
But increase penalties for dealers and manufacturers.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
The people who have psyche issues who are taking illegal drugs need treatment, I will agree with that. It still does not justify the use of the drugs in the first place.

Drug use doesn't need to be justified. It is not immoral.

Putting people in prison needs to be justified. Repeatedly saying "it's the law" is not moral justification.

The minority of drug users that can not control themselves are potentially dangerous but again, these people are not influenced by threats of imprisonment so prohibition does not help the situation.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Is it immoral to put people in jail / prison for driving while intoxicated / driving under the influence?

This comparison shows ignorance.

People should be able to do drugs as long as they can control themselves, many people can.

Putting drug users in prison become some people are drug addicts is an atrocity.

Originally posted by Maslo
There is no such thing as responsible use of hard drugs, physical addiction develops even after first few doses, unlike alcohol or tobacco.

This is completely absurd.

Many people use "hard" drugs without hurting people or themselves.

It is all about self control, and many people are able to responsibly use hard drugs.

Originally posted by Maslo
The effects of heroin or coc aine are far worse than effects of moderate alcohol usage.

False.

Drug addiction can be physically dangerous however getting drunk is MUCH worse for you than moderate heroin or coc aine use.

Cocaine and heroin (if it is pure and this can be difficult because of the "War on Drugs") is like poking a specific part of your brain with a needle for a specific effect.

Alcohol is like hitting your skull with a hammer for the side effects.

Originally posted by Maslo

It creates ignorance and this facilitates abuse and addiction.

How? Prove it.

You are perfect example.

The propaganda that is spread because of the "War on Drugs" is exactly why you think coc aine and heroin are physically more damaging than alcohol.

In realty these drug are benign compared to alcohol.

Addiction is the problem; regardless of the drug, and it is not fought with guns and prisons.

Also, the "War on Drugs" has not decreased the amount of drugs in the United States. So while it is still available for people it is controlled by criminals who control price, purity, and the information. This makes drugs MORE dangerous.

reply to post by Jezus

This is completely absurd. Many people use "hard" drugs without hurting people or themselves. It is all about self control, and many people are able to responsibly use hard drugs.

Show me examples or actual statistics, because I dont believe you, I personally know noone who was able to regularly use hard drugs for long period of time without his life deteriorating. I know many examples which show otherwise.

False. Drug addiction can be physically dangerous however getting drunk is MUCH worse for you than moderate heroin or coc aine use. Cocaine and heroin (if it is pure and this can be difficult because of the "War on Drugs") is like poking a specific part of your brain with a needle for a specific effect. Alcohol is like hitting your skull with a hammer for the side effects.

False. Here you go:
Drug comparison chart

Spectrum

If you think heroin, meth or other synthetic drugs are only "neural stimulants" much like THC, and do not negatively affect the brain and rest of the body, you are very mistaken. Both long and short term negative effects are worse than that of soft drugs and addictive potential also (excluding nicotin, but physical addiction to both nicotin and alcohol requires longer time to develop, and does not always develop):

Heroin

Cocaine
Side effects

Pervitin
Pervitin - side effects

Long term alcohol abuse rivals negative effects of hard drugs, but alcohol is far less addictive - so majority of people are able to use it responsibly. That is not the case with hard drugs, their addictive potential ensues that almost noone is able to use them responsibly for longer periods of time. Also, alcohol is so deeply rooted in our culture, and is easy to produce, that it would be impossible and counterproductive to ban it effectively. Hard drugs are different.

Cocaine is the only substance I would consider at least debatable in terms of legalization, because its addictive potential is not that big and its a natural drug. But risk of overdose and health effects speak against it.

The propaganda that is spread because of the "War on Drugs" is exactly why you think coc aine and heroin are physically more damaging than alcohol. In realty these drug are benign compared to alcohol.

Benign? You must be kidding. They may be comparable to long term abuse of hard liquors in terms of health damage, but addictive potential is far greater. They are certainly NOT less dangerous.

Addiction is the problem; regardless of the drug, and it is not fought with guns and prisons.

Addiction (and health damage) is the problem, but have can you say "regardless of the drug", if all drugs have different addictive potentials? Risk of developing physical addiction to weed or soft alcohol is miniscule compared to heroin.
Developed addiction cannot be fought with guns and prisons, but prevalence of the drug on the streets (risk of spreading of addiction among the population) can.

Originally posted by Maslo
If you think heroin, meth or other synthetic drugs are only "neural stimulants" much like THC, and do not negatively affect the brain and rest of the body, you are very mistaken.

The fact that you would compare heroin and meth like this shows how ignorant you are on this subject.

Meth and alcohol are in their own league when it comes to physical harm.

Originally posted by Maslo
Long term alcohol abuse rivals negative effects of hard drugs, but alcohol is far less addictive - so majority of people are able to use it responsibly.

So you actually claim that no one uses hard illegal drugs responsibly but the "majority of people" use alcohol responsibly?

You are really being ridiculous now...

Do you have any idea how many pounds of these "hard" drugs are sold in the United States?

MOST people use them without incident.

I know the propaganda might make this difficult to understand but addictive potential is not really an issue to a responsible drug user who understands the power of a drug and can practice moderation.

Originally posted by Maslo
Developed addiction cannot be fought with guns and prisons, but prevalence of the drug on the streets (risk of spreading of addiction among the population) can.

You really need to start doing some research.

Sine we have started this "War on Drugs", spending billions of dollars and imprisoning millions of people we have NOT decreased drug use. Drug prices have decreased and purity hasincreased.

So we have not in any way stopped the spread of addiction.

When you understand the psychological issues behind drug abuse and addiction it becomes very obvious why.

Originally posted by Jezus
Drug use doesn't need to be justified. It is not immoral.

And others think it is immoral, so are they wrong also? If morality was left up to the person practicing it, we would have a lot more murders in the United States, all claiming their actions were not immoral.

Originally posted by Jezus
Putting people in prison needs to be justified. Repeatedly saying "it's the law" is not moral justification.

And again I will point out the levels of Jail / Prison. Felony convictions resulting in a year or more of incarceration is a Felony. Anything less is a misdemeanor. I have provided links that show people who are going to jail for drug possession have other charges in addition to, and have a prior criminal history that also affects sentencing. So please stop trying to portray ALL drug users as innocent misunderstood angels, they are not.

There are stats I provided that shows how many people were on drugs while they were committing a crime. These stats were directly from the suspects mouth.

Repeatedly saying drug use is not immoral and people going to jail for drug possession are all innocent does not make it true either.

Originally posted by Jezus
The minority of drug users that can not control themselves are potentially dangerous but again, these people are not influenced by threats of imprisonment so prohibition does not help the situation.

They are not influenced by it because they have a serious problem, and don't care what it takes to get their next fix. Making an argument based on availability is irrelevant, because all it does is prove that people will go to extremes to get the item they want. That should also tell people that the item itself is a problem, and probably should continue to be restricted / prohibited.

Not to mention how do you guys ignore the testimonials from people about what drugs did to their lives? Do we ignore these people as nothing more than quitters? Abused drugs beyond their level of control?

Originally posted by Jezus
This comparison shows ignorance.

How does it show ignorance? We have talked about Alcohol being part of the drug problem. It is a restricted and regulated item, with laws in place for it, with the possibility of going to jail for abusing it. So I repeat the question, based on your information, is it immoral to send people to jail / prison for DWI/DUI?

Originally posted by Jezus
People should be able to do drugs as long as they can control themselves, many people can.

And many many more people cannot. The argument you are making is because you are able to control yourself on drugs, everyone else should, or at least the majority, and restricting these drugs based on other peoples inability to do these drug's restricts your ability to do them.

This argument is like the drunk at the party stumbling around for his keys saying, no, I'm ok to drive, everyone else is drunk. I will be fine.

Originally posted by Jezus
Putting drug users in prison become some people are drug addicts is an atrocity.

Being an addict, or occasional drug user has nothing to do with why they went to jail. They went to jail for breaking the law. You think the laws are immoral, and people think the laws are not strong enough.

As I stated, decriminalizing a few drugs with a focus on treatment is fine, because the ultimate goal is to assist the person to get off drugs. Arguing for decriminalization with nothing in place for treatment, is a defacto legalization of drugs.

The law Portugal has in place focuses on treatment for those who want it, and penalties / jail time for those who don't want the help. The Netherlands is re-evaluating their marijuana laws based on issues they have been having.

Drug use is not moral, nor is it immoral - it is however Illegal, and until that changes, we are back to where we started from. You get caught with drugs, you go to jail. Call it an atrocity, call it justice for breaking the law.

What I think people don't take into account is what lies beyond themselves. So you can do drugs and control yourself. It doesn't mean everyone is like this and I for one am tired of working fatality accidents that involve drugs and alcohol. I have delivered to many death notifications that family members are dead, while the moron who is drunk or under the influence survives the accident.

People can control themselves... So far with alcohol this has not been the case. So far with hard drugs this has not been the case. I can provide statistics where even the "soft" drugs, Marijuana, have been the cause of severl DUI accidents.

All it takes is one person who "thinks" they can control it to kill other. Just like a cop can make a bad decision and kill someone.

All it takes is the one incident, and usually, its one incident to many.

Originally posted by Jezus
The fact that you would compare heroin and meth like this shows how ignorant you are on this subject.

Meth and alcohol are in their own league when it comes to physical harm.

Alcohol is classified as a depressant, and Meth falls under the Amphetamine grouping. Cocaine is a stimulant, Heroin is an opiate.

They all have nasty side effects. Lets take a look at a few:

Meth - Side effects of Meth
Cocaine - Side effects of Cocaine
Heroin - Side effects of Heroin
Marijuana - Side effects of Marijuana
Alcohol - Side effects of Alcohol
Nicotine - Side effects of Nicotine


I don't quite think they are in their own categories, as they all have nasty side effects, and have a devestating effect on society.

Originally posted by Jezus
So you actually claim that no one uses hard illegal drugs responsibly but the "majority of people" use alcohol responsibly?

You are really being ridiculous now...

If people can't use alcohol responsibly, why would we assume people can use hard illegal drugs responsibly? Especially when alcohol is easier to get.

Originally posted by Jezus
Do you have any idea how many pounds of these "hard" drugs are sold in the United States?

No, and neither do you. All we have are statistical answers that take into account the amount seized prior to distribution, and the amount seized during personal contacts, then the guesstimated amount that is not seized. This is the same for "soft" drugs as well.

Originally posted by Jezus
MOST people use them without incident.

...and most of them don't, which is evident by the number of people who go to jail for possession, manufacturing, distribution, use etc. By your argument, the people who are in jail are there for what? Were these people doing their drugs responsibly? Or were they being irresponsible in their drug use since they got caught?

Originally posted by Jezus
I know the propaganda might make this difficult to understand but addictive potential is not really an issue to a responsible drug user who understands the power of a drug and can practice moderation.

Propaganda... Sometimes its hard to see the trees when you are in the middle of the forest. There are many, many studies that have been done on drugs, world wide, regarding side effects on the brain, body, long term, short term, behavioral. Are we to assume all of these places are in a huge conspiracy?

Are we to assume the people who go on the record talking about their drug histories and problems associated with it are part of that same propaganda?

Originally posted by Jezus
You really need to start doing some research.

Good advice on all side of this equation

Originally posted by Jezus
Sine we have started this "War on Drugs", spending billions of dollars and imprisoning millions of people we have NOT decreased drug use. Drug prices have decreased and purity hasincreased.

Which means the drug war is not working and we need to come up with a new strategy to combat this epidemic. Reviewing Portugal's Laws and seeing how it could work here would be a good first step.

Originally posted by Jezus
So we have not in any way stopped the spread of addiction.

Well actually this is not true. Avoid using phrases like this because there are people who have had their addiction stopped by drug treatment programs in prison, pretrial diversion plans, etc. So the current system has stopped some addiction.

What gets me though in this argument, are those who defend the use of drugs, who turn around and say the war on drugs is not working. The reason I find this argument intriguing is the hypocrisy, or naivety, involved in saying it.

It's readily admitted the war on drugs does not work by people who do/did drugs. Its admitted that we need treatment over incarceration by people who do/did drugs

While at the exact same time, they are arguing for decriminalization with no treatment, that what we put in our bodies is no business of anyone else, and the immorality of putting people in jail who refuse to do treatment or stop the use of drugs, an illegal substance.

The argument is circular. The War on drugs is not working, but we should decriminalize / legalize and the Government should stay out.

Originally posted by Jezus
When you understand the psychological issues behind drug abuse and addiction it becomes very obvious why.

When you accept the fact that drugs affect people differently, from physical to mental, and this is more than just the people in this forum, you might understand the opposing view point.

The simple fact that we continue to bring into this argument Psychological issues tells me that using illegal drugs are probably not the best idea when their are known/unknown psychological factors at play, with unknown data on how street drugs might affect that psychological problem. Factor in how illegal drugs are generally not created in the same manner, same ingredients, with unknown affects by combining drugs that normally are not combined, and we are doing nothing but hurting the person who needs help, and possibly doing more damage, where any chance of help might be destroyed.

reply to post by Maslo




You are a perfect example of someone who has zero knowledge on drugs, believing every single piece of propoganda that the government spills out of it's vile mouth.



I laughed out loud when you said the majority of people can use alcohol responisibly.


Do you know what scientists consider to be binge drinking? Any more than 2 drinks in one sitting, anythin above that is considered irresponsible use of alcohol.


Go and read up on the facts before you come in here and tell us theres no such thing as recreational use of hard drugs, you obviously have no idea.


Alcohol is the hardest drug available !

reply to post by Sacri


Its dangerous to believe every bit of Propaganda out there, on both sides of this fence. Not everything the Government puts out is wrong, and not everything the drug industry puts our is right either.

Its advertising. Of course people will go on the offensive when the Government, any Government, says this illegal drug is bad. If everyone believed it, the people who make the drugs would go out of business. In order to stay in business, they put out information countering the governments, which is not always accurate or correct either, in an effort to keep their customers.

And in the end, that's all you are.. A customer they have, who is buying their product, in hopes that you will keep coming back.

Don't wanna take my word for it, look at the Alcohol and Cigarette industry and the lenghts they go to to keep customers and money rolling in.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

What gets me though in this argument, are those who defend the use of drugs, who turn around and say the war on drugs is not working. The reason I find this argument intriguing is the hypocrisy, or naivety, involved in saying it.

It's readily admitted the war on drugs does not work by people who do/did drugs. Its admitted that we need treatment over incarceration by people who do/did drugs

While at the exact same time, they are arguing for decriminalization with no treatment, that what we put in our bodies is no business of anyone else, and the immorality of putting people in jail who refuse to do treatment or stop the use of drugs, an illegal substance.

It's simple but mate because it is NOBODYS Business what I put in my body, my body is my body, and as long as alcohol, tabacco, fatty foods, ect readily available, it's infurating, that the government thinks they have the right to tell me it's ok to abuse my body in one way and not another. It's such a joke.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
Reminds me of that city area outside of Detroit, that has been removed from emergency services. No police, EMTs, or fire will respond to that area, due to budget constraints.

I live in the Metro Detroit Area and have no idea of what you are talking about. One city is getting rid of it's Police force but the County Sheriffs will be the defacto Police. Other than that, I haven't heard of anything like you describe here.