Let's End Drug Prohibition

[Kablizzy]

Clovic

everything you have posted has made me want to criminalize more drugs. You just sound like a drug addict trying to justify his habits.

Bahahahahahahaha! I don't know who you are, sir, but I sure do like the cut of your jib.

[SkyPanda]

And that's cool if you think I'm crazy, but then you are dismissing a huge IF.

The magnitude of the craziness is no reason to not dimiss it ;)

I could argue that I am unable to function normally without the use of psychedelics to clear and sort out my mind. But is this reasoning any more valid than wanting to explore the powers of the substance? We explore other things all around us, why are these specific substances any different, they should not also be explored?

You've used the word 'explore' alot in other posts too-
If you mean explore as in 'research', then yes, there would be benefits in researching drugs. But this research needs to be conducted in a lab, not by Jack Smith on his bathroom floor.

If you mean explore as in travelling, then what on earth are you talking about? No such exploration occurs.


Heya clovic, would it be alright if you said who you were quoting? If you don't want to then no worries, it's not a big deal.

[DemonzLunchBreak]

Clovic

everything you have posted has made me want to criminalize more drugs. You just sound like a drug addict trying to justify his habits.

It's completely fine for you to think this, but cite some examples of things clovic has said and/or give us some reasoning process to justify this statement.

[Tanner]

Reading through this thread, I had a hard time deciding whether I was in the drug camp or the dry camp and I as I got to the end I realized that it was all an exercise in futility. Know why? Because you're both wrong. Clovic, I fucking love him and I love talking to him, but you want a messed up (albeit entertaining) conversation, you talk to good ol' Daddy Braddy when he's whacked out his gourd on pot or booze or both. Still, I defy you to talk to him when he's stoned and fear for anyone's health except maybe his own. He's not a danger to anyone. He might fall down the stairs but he'll probably still be alright. Even if he does fall down the stairs, not your responsibility, SkyPanda. Not yours, not mine, not the government's. Clovic is an adult now. Clovic is da boss of Clovic. He gets that. You should too.

Now as far as hurting other people goes, we as a society seem to flip-flop all over the place. Do you not find it strange that there are no laws to prohibit smoking or drinking alcohol (you know, legal drugs) during pregnancy? Laws to restrict the propagation of harmful second-hand smoke are even now just creeping along at a snails pace. Bullying in schools? Is Oprah the person you want to leave all this stuff to? If you're interested in protecting the innocents how about you start with the serious problems. Let's see you get out your pen and paper and write a letter to congress demanding a cessation of the slaughter of baby girls in China. The scary thing would be if you were, at this point, thinking that I'm holding you to too high a standard. Because this is more of an intellectual debate than anything let's not muddy the waters with what are ultimately social justice fantasies. Sort of a sucky philosophy. We don't operate in a vacuum. Still, if you want to cite altruistic fears for the the well-being of others as a reason not to use drugs, well, let's deal with the bigger issues first.

Despite this, we really shouldn't need to put this junk in our bodies. Speaking as one who has both experienced and enjoyed the use of legal toxins and their effects on my body, we should be able to get by without it. It is a poor commentary on us that we cannot get by without hitting up the pub on the way home from work. That we require caffeine to get our eyes fully open in the morning. Addiction is something to be feared and loathed. Unfortunately, prohibition doesn't help people with addictions. It hurts them. Makes them desperate.

And that's when people really start getting hurt.

[Clovic]

everything you have posted has made me want to criminalize more drugs. You just sound like a drug addict trying to justify his habits.

Really now? What has made me come off as an addict? Simply because I am pro-drug policies, I am an addict, or wait, would thug be a better description? In fact, I haven't been doing any drugs this year except a little censored; I've been focusing on my studies and will have a Masters in about one year. I'm definitely no addict and when you dismiss logical and reasonable positions on the grounds that you think the opposition is just a bunch of addicts, then that is your problem and I can't help you. It's fine if you don't want to associate yourself with these things, but do not try to attack me as a person when you don't even know me.

You've used the word 'explore' alot in other posts too-
If you mean explore as in 'research', then yes, there would be benefits in researching drugs. But this research needs to be conducted in a lab, not by Jack Smith on his bathroom floor.

If you mean explore as in travelling, then what on earth are you talking about? No such exploration occurs.


Heya clovic, would it be alright if you said who you were quoting? If you don't want to then no worries, it's not a big deal.

Let me ask you something, when Hoffman first synthesized LSD and accidentally ingested it through his hands, why do you think his experience was so incredible? Have you even read any of his journals/experience reports? He knew nothing about the substance and yet he had this unexpected, amazing bicycle ride. The positive, life-changing effects are known, but the stigma does not allow people to see them in a positive light.

And I can't explain what there is to explore, it's totally impossible to put it into words, that's my point.

I don't understand your last comment either, was it a slight on me? I have been quoting only myself and my beliefs, please don't try to cheaply insult me simply because I oppose your world-view.

http://www.maps.org/

Have you ever heard of astral projection? Or maybe drugs don't help with meditation, that's ridiculous.

[scythe]

Attention urban legend believers:
LSD cannot be absorbed through the skin.
LSD cannot be adulterated with any other drug: LSD doses are smaller than those of any other drug but fentanyl (which is rarely, if at all, used recreationally).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_urban ... _about_LSD

Indeed, the idea of drug prohibition is based on two beliefs:
Drugs are different from other dangerous activities in that they are addictive
Making drugs illegal is an effective way to combat their use

Very few people will argue that taking heroin is a safe activity-you'd have to be out of your mind (then again, you'd also be wrong to believe the line that heroin can addict you with a single dose-it can't, and some long-term users never become addicted). In fact, the safety-or "naturalness"-of these chemicals was never the intention of this thread. rennaT has it right on the mark, really: drug prohibition is ineffective at preventing drug use across the board, is a drain on our government's resources, and is the single reason that we have the highest imprisonment rate in the world in America.
To combat addiction, treatment should be readily available, cheap, and drug users should not be stigmatized. Treatment should not require drug users to subscribe to a religion, as Alcoholics Anonymous does (incidentally, AA has only a ten percent success rate for treating alcoholism, while experimental use of LSD to treat alcoholism displayed a fifty percent success rate).
The point of the Wall Street Journal article, and this thread, was pragmatism and economics, not "let's all take druuuuuugs". I don't use [most] drugs, but I fully agree with the author of the article.
By the way, there's a whole ton of poisoning the well on both sides of your little debate. You should both cite sources, and you should both read the other person's sources.
It'd do you some good.

[SkyPanda]

If you're interested in protecting the innocents how about you start with the serious problems. Let's see you get out your pen and paper and write a letter to congress demanding a cessation of the slaughter of baby girls in China.

I'm not as strict about adhering to the rules of debate as others can be, but i'm pretty sure you just broke two of them. :p
First, my personal action is irrelevant, as are my personal beliefs.
Second, the stance taken on other problems is not relevant to the stance taken on the problem up for debate. Something about suggesting that a person should not care about an issue simply because there are bigger issues out there. There's a term for this, scythe you may be able to help me out here :p

I don't understand your last comment either, was it a slight on me? I have been quoting only myself and my beliefs, please don't try to cheaply insult me simply because I oppose your world-view.

Y'know, whenever I stumble around offending people, I feel really bad, and I think about how I can avoid it. But trying to avoid offense is an impossible task sometimes!
In this instance, I was actually referring to quoting in posts of other people who have posted in the thread, using the thread code. Like so: (quote="clovic")(/quote)
So the name goes up the top and we can see who said what.
But again, if you don't really want to, then no worries, it's not a big deal.

[scythe]

If you're interested in protecting the innocents how about you start with the serious problems. Let's see you get out your pen and paper and write a letter to congress demanding a cessation of the slaughter of baby girls in China.

I'm not as strict about adhering to the rules of debate as others can be, but i'm pretty sure you just broke two of them. :p
First, my personal action is irrelevant, as are my personal beliefs.
Second, the stance taken on other problems is not relevant to the stance taken on the problem up for debate. Something about suggesting that a person should not care about an issue simply because there are bigger issues out there. There's a term for this, scythe you may be able to help me out here :p

Fallacy of the false dilemma.
Also, speaking of rules of debate, you kind of ignored rennaT's main point in order to focus on something minimally relevant.

[blue_tetris]

Attention urban legend believers:
LSD cannot be absorbed through the skin.
LSD cannot be adulterated with any other drug: LSD doses are smaller than those of any other drug but fentanyl (which is rarely, if at all, used recreationally).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_urban ... _about_LSD

Meanwhile, elsewhere on Wikipedia!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSD

"While re-synthesizing LSD-25 for further study on April 16, 1943, Hofmann became dizzy and was forced to stop work. In his journal, Hofmann wrote that after becoming dizzy he proceeded home and was affected by a "remarkable restlessness, combined with a slight dizziness". Hofmann stated that as he lay in his bed he sank into a not-unpleasant "intoxicated like condition" which was characterized by an extremely stimulated imagination. He stated that he was in a dreamlike state, and with his eyes closed he could see uninterrupted streams of "fantastic pictures, extraordinary shapes with intense, kaleidoscopic play of colors." The condition lasted about two hours after which it faded away. Hofmann had attributed the psychoactive effects he experienced to accidentally absorbing a tiny amount of LSD-25 into his skin. Three days later he would take a much larger dose in order to test its effects further; this day would later be referred to as the "Bicycle Day"."

[origami_alligator]

Responding to Clovic and scyth33:

I meant to extract the cocaine from the coca leaves, farmers will use a concrete mixture and a type of gasoline, among other things to extract cocaine from the leaves. It comes out in a pulp and smells awful. I was watching some documentary on it and they filmed a farmer during this process. It looked fairly disgusting.

As for cocaine being cut, that's just adding other substances to it to increase its weight so it can be sold for more, which I'm sure both of you know already.

You've used the word 'explore' alot in other posts too-
If you mean explore as in 'research', then yes, there would be benefits in researching drugs. But this research needs to be conducted in a lab, not by Jack Smith on his bathroom floor.

If you mean explore as in travelling, then what on earth are you talking about? No such exploration occurs.

I'm currently reading a book called The Teachings of Don Juan by Carlos Castaneda in which Carlos, an anthropologist, would like to learn about the medicinal and spiritual reasons for ingesting/smoking certain types of plants, as well as the properties of psychedelic plants in Mexico. He meets Don Juan, an old shaman of the Yaqui tribe from southern Mexico and inquires about the properties of psychedelic plants.
The first half of the book is a collection of his journal entries, in which Carlos is told that to learn about the plants he must see for himself (in other words, he has to take psychedelics to learn of them). This is his research. He records his experiences, his journeys and his explorations of Mescalito (peyote), devil's weed (datura) and "little smoke" (psychedelic mushrooms of Southern Mexico that are smoked, rather than ingested) so that he can refer back to it later. Sometimes to learn about and share the properties of certain types of drugs you have to indulge in them to research them yourself. And yes, this sometimes requires doing them in someone's bathroom, or front porch, or in the middle of the desert.

As for your very last sentence quoted, exploring in the sense of traveling is possible, it just requires the experience of exploring/traveling to understand it. I understand what Clovic is saying, it's exploring the world through a different paradigm, exploring the self and everything around you based on input from this different perception of the world. The definition you think of as "exploring" is much different than the connotation of exploring in the sense of psychedelics.

As to your second point, that is why it must be synthesized! Does the fact that it is not automatically in it's pure form make it somehow "wrong"?

No, not at all. I'm on the same side as you in this argument, good sir.

[SkyPanda]

Fallacy of the false dilemma.

Ah thanks :)

[Atilla]

There's also a difference between something done for giggles and something done for far more serious reasons. I could argue that I am unable to function normally without the use of psychedelics to clear and sort out my mind. But is this reasoning any more valid than wanting to explore the powers of the substance? We explore other things all around us, why are these specific substances any different, they should not also be explored?

If they're required for you to function normally, that can be diagnosed by a suitable medical professional, and it falls under therapeutic use rather than recreational. As for the other, these substances are restricted because they are believed to pose a danger or drain on society; for example, you're not allowed to explore driving at 200 kph on public roads because it's believed to be a threat to the safety of others.

...and when they're used for legitimate medicinal purposes, it falls under the therapeutic use of drugs, rather than recreational, and is thus already legal. It is not implicit that something which is suitable for medicine is also suitable for recreation, so the mere fact that something can be used as a medicine is not grounds to lift the ban on recreational use, over the counter sales, etc. Also, the form of the drug used in medicine may be different to that used for recreation; and therapeutic drugs often use very small, carefully measured doses, while recreational users frequently do not. Thus, recreational use is not comparable to medicinal use in most cases.

Actually, you hit on one of the strongest points that pro-drug argument has to offer. The reason the dutch, among other countries, are experimenting with their drug laws is because there is not one formula that works. By banning it like we have, we endanger those people choosing that path. Even if you disagree with their choices, is it fair to endanger them? It is proven that it is impossible to eliminate drug use, so why not make it a little safer? If drugs were legalized and distributed, it would be monitored and clean. There would be far less danger in using and the stigma would go down even further.

What? Harm minimization strategies are one for the best arguments for legalisation/decriminalisation, but it doesn't really have anything to do with the use of drugs in medicines. Unless you're saying we should abolish doctors and just have everyone self-medicate or something.

Let me pause to ask a question here. How come you care so much about what is "legal"? You think the people making the rules are perfect? There's a lot of fucked up rules out there. Have you ever seen Reefer Madness? And you believe that's even close to what happens? When it came out it was a driving force in the negative laws and portrayal of marijuana. Now, even in the negative light the media gives it, it's obvious it was over the top, yet the results it caused remain.

I haven't said any of that, or even that I do care about what is legal. I've merely disagreed with your reasoning, because I believe is it fallacious; equating medical use with recreational use and arguing that something must be okay if it is "natural".

Actually, Nightshade is more than one type of plant. Some are more deadly than others. Some give some pretty astounding effects which should be researched in my opinion. Datura is an amazing plant when used responsibly, yet people choose to skip this step and it results in a bad view of the plants.

Actually, Deadly Nightshade is a specific species of plant, atropa belladonna. It's not a good idea to eat the berries because they're poisonous for humans (hence the name).

Also, I do focus on the actual effects of them. Whereas the things you name make one sick and poisoned, the substances I've mentioned give astounding experiences and mystical, life-changing introspections. Of course you wouldn't eat arsenic, why would you? I can answer that question for these substances in many different contexts - religious, personality development alteration, meditation, exploration. Arsenic and salmonella don't do any of these things. There's the difference.

Many people would argue that some illicit drugs also make you sick and poisoned; hence addiction, death from OD, liver cancer, etc. In any event, that's not the point; the point was that these things were also "natural" and yet it's clearly stupid to consume them. As I said earlier, whether something is "natural" has no bearing on whether it should be used or not.

Firstly, chewing a leaf is different from taking processed cocaine. Modern drugs are vastly more potent because they are specifically created and processed for their mind-altering properties. It's like the difference between eating an apple, which contains some sugar, and eating a cup of straight sugar. Or between eating a poppy-seed bun and smoking opium.

Actually, sir, you are wrong. Street cocaine, the stuff you're talking about, is going to be cut with so much shit that it will be nowhere close to what that leaf once was. Sucking on the leaves, or making a tea, gives an experience of the purest kind, so yes, it is different from processed cocaine - it is stronger!

Yes, I know it's cut. The typical proportion is ~40% cocaine / 60% baking powder or what have you. However, the leaves aren't exactly 100% pure crack; most of them is just leaf. It's certainly possible to get the effects from chewing leaves, but it's not quite the same as injecting it into the bloodstream.

But you seem to be obliged to approve of the laws set forth just because some old fuckers set them forth.

Again, not what I said.

[scythe]

Another relevant article.

[jean-luc]

Although I am in support of the legalization of several drugs, I do not support the complete legalization of all controlled substances. I do think that the status of controlled substances should be based upon real science, not popular outrage.

I will remind you that scientifically speaking, many drugs are dangerous. However, current policy for controlled substances is not based in sound science, and needs to be revised.

[bluenin]

I used to think that drug law reform was just around the corner, at least in the case of pot, but now I'm not so sure. The following is only a theory, and I don't have anything to back it up, but it sounds right to me.

The pharmaceutical companies are one of the biggest lobbyists in Washington, and the synthetic drugs their making will create enormous profits for them in the future. Do you think they want to see pot legalized when they can sell it a pill form? I don't think so.
From the law enforcement stand point, it can never happen. The seizures of homes cars and other assets from drug arrests are staggering. And they are necessary to support the the ever expanding police presence in the U.S., and I would assume around the world.

However, I really don't think the government should be concerned with drug use at all, until some crackhead starts robbing people to support his habit. Then charge him robbery and put him in jail.

A little off topic, but I found this post on CL R+R. This is scary, and it's legal.
http://buffalo.craigslist.org/rnr/957315092.html
(follow the links)

[Amadeus]

Honestly?
People are stupid.
Someone needs to reign them in.

[Amadeus]

I don't see how so
I've stated my opinion on the matter, and done nothing offensive

[Tanner]

I don't see how so
I've stated my opinion on the matter, and done nothing offensive

You revived a two month old thread. You didn't really contribute anything original to the thread and certainly nothing worth reviving something this dead. You implied that everyone who uses drugs is stupid. You further compounded your mistake by feigning ignorance. Shall I go on?