It would never work. I don't want some bloody ass drug head with well trained troops in a highly dynamic combat environment that will not follow orders. And you just pass the problem of these people to the Military. The addiction is to strong.

Death rates alone do not tell the story.
That would be an incorrect assumption.

Your assumption is that drug users seekers are rational people who can control their urges and desires. Another false assumption.

There are whole textbooks written on the subject. The effects of LSD drug abuse are highly documented.

The studies are very well documented as are the deaths and effects of long term use of MDMA. This is not a new thing here guys. You talk like this is some new fangled thing that people are just playing with on the side. And granted there may be people like that. IMHO the the health risks well out weigh any minor benifit of getting you jollies for a night of bliss.


Correct, same negative effects.

Less stupid? An individual is certainly in much less control under the influence of shrooms or LSD, alcohol is at least something that you can graduate.


Completely and utterly incorrect. That option went out in the 70's.

Cannon fodder, sweetie. Clearing landmines the easy way. They don't need to follow orders, just drop 'em off and leave 'em to it! ;)

I'm sure there are plenty, since LSD is probably the most heavily documented drug of all.

But I'm not basing that statement on studies--I'm basing it on personal knowledge from contact with people who have overdone this particular drug.

??

"LSD is not considered an addictive drug since it does not produce compulsive drug-seeking behavior as do cocaine, amphetamine, heroin, alcohol, and nicotine."
http://www.drug-addiction.com/what_is_lsd.htm

"I must emphasize that there is no danger of death or injury from overdose of LSD, which must have about the highest therapeutic index of any drug known (the ratio of fatal dose to effective dose is unknown since no human being has ever died from an overdose of LSD, but must be very high, as individuals have mistakenly ingested hundreds of doses at a sitting; this is a way of saying that the drug is not at all toxic)."
http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_dose.shtml

When did I ever make an absolute statement? There are rational and irrational drug users, what makes this issue any different than alcohol?

From the many friends that I've known that has taken acid and shrooms, no one has done anything really stupid, though none of them took large doses and most of them are in fairly good control when under the influence of other drugs as well.

Researchers might say LSD is not addictive, but I disagree. You may not have 'withdrawal symptoms' when you decide to stop taking it, but it is definitely a drug that's hard to refuse once you've had a 'good trip'. What I mean of course is that it's a drug that's habit forming even if it's not addictive. Similar to marijuana for example although I think LSD is more harmful because for one thing, it's a chemical and you really never know what you're going to get. For another, some people make some very very very bad decisions when they're on a trip.

I almost killed myself twice while shrooming. Once chasing a frisbee off a cliff at the Sleeping Giant Mountain and another time doing something VERY STUPID at a concert. It involved lots of electricity and my body as a conductor. The fatality rate is not just from the drug itself, but also what one's perception of while "intoxicated."

So it's as addictive as bacon?

Well you know, once you have one rasher, it's hard to stop. ;)

mmmmm...

Much worse. Although I do have a mild bacon addition, only if very crispy.;)

When I'm very crispy, I'll eat just about anything. :lol:

Nice editorial piece on this

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,...719872,00.html

"What the drugs themselves have not destroyed, the warfare against them has. And what once began, perhaps, as a battle against dangerous substances long ago transformed itself into a venal war on our underclass. Since declaring war on drugs nearly 40 years ago, we've been demonizing our most desperate citizens, isolating and incarcerating them and otherwise denying them a role in the American collective. All to no purpose. "

The author sounds like he is looking for sympathy for poor choices people make of their own free will. I have little of it. At least in this opening sentance he admits that drug use destroys the life of the user and that the substances are dangerous. Statements like, "a venal war on our underclass" and "demonizing our most desperate citizens" only try to garner sympathy for losers who choose to throw their lives away, steal, lie, cheat, in some cases injur and murder others, and kill themselves slowly through drug use. Poor fellas.

The point is, the war on drugs has not changed this one iota. It's still happening despite the distraction of the police away from what they should be doing.

re: merc:

Yeah, cause the war on drugs actually is working?

You may have no sympathy for anyone, but that doesn't mean that the fact that this "war" isn't working isn't true.

Man, you live in a black and white world and know how all things should be, don't you? Maybe HLJ would let you borrow his user name.

You take it wrong. I never said the war on drugs was working. I know there are much better ways to do it. I have already stated my position on the decriminalization of pot, no big deal to me. The rest of it I would never support. I don't support putting drug addicted people into jail and not giving them treatment. I do not support the whole scale legaliztion of drugs, that would be a huge mistake.

No, I just have an opinion about this issue. Others have other opinions.

Sorry, it is not my place to say your opinion is wrong (bad day, bad news hitting me every direction I turn.)

I do know that we are opposites when it comes to many issues; my perception is that you do believe you know exactly how people should be and what should govern their "choices" and not just this issue.

But lord knows my perception has been wrong a million times before.

I've been watching The Wire lately on DVD and they really keep pounding this point home. I think it's a valid one.

It used to be that cops would walk a beat and get to know the people of a neighborhood. They would know every kid by name and stop to talk to the citizens as they went around. If anything ever happened, the cop would hear about it from the law abiding citizens. They were approachable.

Now, with the war on drugs, virtually everyone in places like West Baltimore knows someone who has been locked up in the war on drugs. Maybe they have been locked up. Maybe it's their father or brother. Maybe a friend. The cops took that freedom away, and they are the enemy. Nothing good comes from talking to a cop. So the cops don't get any breaks. Homicide witnesses won't come forward. The cops are the enemy.

Get rid of the war on drugs, and the cops can go back to protecting a neighborhood from real crime with the help of the citizens.

Such as....

Yea...well...I was pulled over once in the past 2 years because I was driving in a "bad neighborhood". I was pulled into the back of a cop-car to answer questions about people I know that do drugs (suggestively selling the question) and where they live.....heh. Yea...No probable cause and interrogation...I'm not sure if there is a question about enemies. That isn't how you make friends. I insisted that I myself don't do drugs a couple of times but they tore apart the car anyway...and of course...nothing.
:)

I was going to the Texas Steak House to pick up my to-go order......It was cold by the time I got it.

And I know your wondering and the answer is: hell no.

Did you get the steaks well done?

oh you've already answered never mind

You really don't think it is that simplistic do you. BTW I love The Wire.

I do think that cops walking a beat is a good thing, we just restarted that in a major city near us. But the practicality of it no longer fits todays demographic, not to mention the fact that you can't hire a person for $17,000 a year and expect him to love life walking in a neighborhood war zone the size of many small US towns. To much area, to many ingrained thoughts and ideas, to many generations removed from any fantasy that all cops are good guys, cause they are not. They are not paid to be either. Crime in general is to much and there are not enough good people available to do the job effectively, and one reason is there are to many people to police.

Cops are not the enemy because of the War on Drugs, that is but one small element. Much of the violent crime is related to the struggle between factions that want to control drugs. Legalization will not change that. People will just look to circumvent the system, legal or not, to keep their income and piece of the power pie.

Legalization will absolutely change that.

Who is going to buy drugs of unknown quality from a shifty character on a street corner when you can get a known, quality controlled product made by Pfizer or Merck from the corner drugstore for half the price? The criminal dealers will be left out in the cold. Nobody will buy from them. The violence associated with the supply side will disappear overnight.

Also, those areas are far more densely populated than they were before and the people are far more transient than they were 20 - 30 .... years ago. There just isn't that constant where people grew up and stayed in one place anymore.

Like alcohol. MOST people go to the nearest grocery, bar, or liquor store. They don't meet up with Guido on the street corner to get their Absolut cheaper.

You all think weed is harmless?

Shoulda made that puppy watch Reefer Madness.

I don't buy it. The same thugs who can't afford anything other than their FUBU hoodie and $120 nikes will still be ripping off the guy who has the cash to buy the drugs legally. This continues to be an issue that is not simplified by discussing legalization. Even when opium dens were legal and readily available the drug use ruined many lives.

I was talking about the violence associated with the supply side. Now you're bringing up the violence associated with the demand side. I agree that demand side crime and violence isn't going to change very much if drugs are legalized. Addicts will still commit crimes to feed their habit.

That is why I said it is not simplistic. I am and was bringing up the violence and health effects of the whole deal. Legalization only deals with a small part of the problem.

We have a black market here and across both borders in legal drugs as well.

Neither of these:
will support a war zone:
Despite the end of prohibition, people still make their own alcohol, and in some situations they still do so illegally, but there is no longer a war between moonshiners and cops. Commercially available alcohol is safer, and in many (most?) cases better and cheaper than anything you'd buy out of a pickup.


It sounds like you're letting the lack of the perfect be the enemy of the good. The fact that all crime and poverty won't end with the drug war doesn't mean that drastically reducing it is too simplistic. Drastically reducing is a good goal in itself.

Dude, you are not going to convince a pharmacy company to produce low cost recreational drugs to a point where it would cheap for you to use and expensive enough for them to make a profit. What I said was that crime and poverty associated with drug use would not change, I doubt it will be reduced a little. Of course neither you or I have any proof that legalization of any kind will or will not work either.

RJ Reynolds and Absolut produce what I am told are passable products for prices that many can afford, and they have very few gun battles over turf.

And they don't spend billions in R&D for new types of drink and smoke. All drugs are regulated by the FDA. These manufactures do not have to go through the hoops required. You compare Apples and oranges. Not even close in your best fantasy of legalized highs.

Why wouldn't a pharmaceutical company manufacture a legal drug?

That is not the question.

And Pfizer... we can include Viagra in that group.

Companies love products where demand is constant and there are few alternative products. (If apples are too expensive, eat pears. If smack is too expensive...)

I bet there are more regular users of viagra and cialias then there are regular users of pot.

They spend plenty. And, despite the restrictions in place, they probably spend even more on advertising. Common drugs wouldn't have to be researched all that much. Generic drug companies could jump in immediately. Production methods already exist for research purposes, so all that would be needed would be production facilities.

If a comany thought they could make a patentable version, they might want to pump in the R&D, but it would hardly be a requirement.

Ain't happening dude, not in the US on a Federal level.

I didn't say it was. But that's a completely different issue from whether it would decrease the violence.

What are you talking about? That's the whole point of this thread.

If the laws are changed so that drugs that are currently illegal are made legal, why wouldn't a pharmaceutical company manufacture them?

Economics will not be the issue, because large pharma companies have the factories in place to make this stuff cheaply and efficiently.

We moved from the violence issue to economics, now you want to go back and rehash the violence issue. Go ahead make your case. You think it would decrease violence. I do not. Explain to me how it would decrease violence.

Go back? You switched to economics to claim that the price of legal drugs would keep the demand-side violence up. I disagree, but even if I grant that, the supply side of the violence would be gutted.

Like I said, corporate turf wars in the US seldom devolve to gun battles. If you owe money on a legit transaction, you don't turn up dead.

And, back on the demand side, legit drugs would be known strength and purity, which would drastically reduce OD deaths and deaths due to poisoning from whatever it would have been cut with on the street. So again, even if demand-side violence stayed constant, deaths would decrease.

So you think that OD deaths are due to what they cut them with? Not. Other health problems are caused that.

No, what I said is even if you legalized them violence will continue. To think that the supply side would go away, sort of like carjacking, armed robbery, stealing to support your now legal habit? none of that would go away to support a now legit habit.

Maybe you might minimize some of the supply side violence, but I doubt it. People are not going to just jump out of the business if they can still get you product. How it is done and the quality of the black market may go up in response. What I have said is that none of these problems can go away over night because of legalization, in fact I think it will just open up an new can of worms we have not seen.

OK Merc, look at it this way.

When alcohol was illegal, who did all the bootlegging and standovering?

The Mob. (mostly, in conjunction with the Irish)

When alcohol was legalized, what did The Mob get involved in?

Drugs.

It's a natural progression, but basically, violence over alcohol supply evaporated overnight almost.

If you legalize drugs, the same thing would happen.

Yes there'd still be people who try to undercut the drug companies or come up with some new and better drug, but mainstream users would go the legal route because it's easier, and less dangerous. Exactly the same thing that happened with alcohol.

Ok we legalise pot. What about skunk?

The fact is humans are inherently stupid. Melbourne laxed it's liquer laws and now we have problems in some districts of the city where people are out of control. Riots are not uncommon. Melbourne is being held up as an example of why other cities around Australia will not change their liquer lisencing laws.

On the other hand I do have a sick sister who's doctor would love to prescibe pot to help her but he can't . she relies now on others who risk jail so as to help her. So I'm all for medicinal pot.

I can't believe that we are going to compare viagra to pot. Viagra does not cause a state of psychosis in the person who takes the drug. A guy driving a car after taking Viagra is just uncomfortable. A guy driving a car after smoking pot, is uncomfortably dangerous. That's a good idea.

We already have a problem with drunk drivers, lets put a few more on the road only high on pot, LSD, heroin, and what ever else they want to put into their body? I don't think this is a smart thing to do.

Next thread after we legalize drugs will be how all the people put in jail for driving under the influence of LSD, and pot are victims of the system and the jails are now REALY over crowded. I can see it coming. Oh wait, then we'll just have to change the driving laws too. Only sober drivers allowed from 0900 until sundown, after that drive at your own risk...have to accommodate the drug users.

Oh, and after your sister OD's on heroin, sue the drug dealer. Already precedence set in Canada.

Do you have roadside drug testing like roadside alcohol testing?

Over here the same sort of penalties apply to driving while under the influence of drugs as they do for alcohol.

You raise a good point Joe, although I really don't think legalizing drugs could make the problem any worse than it is.

No, I think that poisoning deaths are due to the cutting, and OD deaths are due to ODing. Both would be reduced if the drug were of a known strength and quality.Those are demand side. For the sake of argument, I granted that that could stay at the same level.They will if someone else is providing higher quality product with no fear of cops and much more conveniently and safely for customers. I doubt the junkies will be particularly loyal to their original suppliers.If the black market becomes as cheap and safe as a supermarket, that would be a good result in itself.Overnight is irrelevant.

Actually the whole discussion is irrelevant because it is a fantasy to think it will ever happen. Drugs will never be legalized in this country the way you invision.

Well, thanks for starting it, I guess... :yelsick:

:lol:

You are welcome.:)

Hippies....

Next thing you know those koalas will be walking naked down main street. Damn long-hair pinko whippersnappers.

Then we will have to start the WOK.

{war on koalas}