February 02, 2014
Actor Phillip Seymore Hoffman Dead After Apparent Drug Overdose (According to Police)
— Ace Wow.
— Ace Wow.
While the country is discussing the possibility of legalizing drugs, it should always be remembered and frequently be stated that drugs are very dangerous, and even when they don't kill you, they tend to corrupt you and enfeeble your mind.
I think it's a legitimate question as to whether it is better to dissuade drug use through criminal intervention or through public persuasion and warnings, but we must at least have the latter.
The media has treated the decriminalization of marijuana in Colorado as a social advance to be openly celebrated (as they openly celebrate gay marriage). Very often their cheerleading on the subject displaces all sense of responsibility in reminding the public that every intoxicant, from alcohol to pot to heroin, poses risks to the user, from the relatively minor yet still bad (habituation, changes in personality, lack of ambition, an increasing centrality of the drug in one's priority of needs) to the major (unemployability, domestic strife and violence) to the terminal (death due to overdose).
One of the fears of those who favor continued prohibition -- a well-justified fear -- is that without anti-drug laws and police enforcement of them, there will be no social or cultural backstop to reduce what they believe will ultimately be an explosion in drug use (and, therefore, an explosion in the negative consequences of drug use).
With reports such as this one -- with Anderson Cooper getting the giggles over the possibility that his reporter in Colorado might herself be high -- we see that the prohibitionists have a point.
The prohibitionists claim that the country (and its media) is simply not mature enough, or nuanced enough it its thinking, to simultaneously campaign for decriminalization while also remaining anti-drug-use as a social/cultural/personal matter.
That is, the prohibitionists fear that the country is simply not mature enough in its thinking on social issues, and so cannot conceive of a category of "legal and yet harmful and so to be avoided." And that this immaturity of thought then permits only two realistic regimes:
1. Drugs are bad and thus must be illegal, or
2. Drugs should not be illegal, and in fact, are pretty darned good so why not try some drugs?
If those are the only two choices on the menu, then I myself -- currently in favor of experimental decriminalization -- will have to revert to a prohibitionist stance.
I would like the more mature option -- "legal and yet harmful and thus to be avoided" -- to be on the table.
But if the organs of public information and cultural signaling cannot themselves conceive of that third option, and will immaturely take "legality" to mean "benevolence" themselves, then the anti-prohibitionist movement will be over pretty quickly.
Posted by: Ace at
10:03 AM
| Comments (490)
Post contains 480 words, total size 3 kb.
2
It's a lot like abortion, right? We went from Roe v. Wade to "safe, legal and rare" to Wendy Davis in a generation.
Posted by: Matt at February 02, 2014 10:06 AM (l+6ME)
6
This is why I only do ecstasy and only the ones with obama's face, you can trust any drug with his face stamped into it. I'm sure of it.
Posted by: traye at February 02, 2014 10:09 AM (iL9QP)
7
I liked him best in that one with Matt Damon playing the impostor. "The Talented Mr Ripley."
Hoffman was Freddie Miles.
Posted by: the littl shyning man at February 02, 2014 10:10 AM (tmFlQ)
8
That is sad.
Guy was obviously hugely talented.
First thing I ever saw him in was Scent of a Woman where he plays the spineless weasel trust fund kid. He was great. So hateable, perfect heel. I remember wanting to actually punch him through the scree he was so weaselly.
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 02, 2014 10:10 AM (ZPrif)
9
How many people die every year from marijuana overdoses?
How many die from alcohol poisoning, cirrhosis and DUI accidents?
How many die from alcohol poisoning, cirrhosis and DUI accidents?
Posted by: Lucky Pierre at February 02, 2014 10:10 AM (5fSr7)
10
Well he doesn't have to worry about it any more.
Posted by: deepred at February 02, 2014 10:10 AM (RHYM4)
11
So....he's not going to be needing the rest of his stash, right?
Posted by: Charlie Sheen at February 02, 2014 10:10 AM (MMC8r)
12
Criminalization did not save him. All those people jailed in vain.
Posted by: tmitsss at February 02, 2014 10:11 AM (aVsJj)
14
Natural Selection will always be with us.
All we as a society should do is try to persuade people not to be selected out.
If we do more than that we will create new problems that are even worse.
And that is exactly what we have done.
Posted by: eman at February 02, 2014 10:11 AM (AO9UG)
15
Of course, one of the biggest problems with the legalization movement is that people who chronically use drugs, including cannabis, become the "disabled" people we end up supporting.
If you could foolproof (pun intended) this for me, show me that we're not spending a dime of public funds to support those who disable themselves by their drug use, then I'd be all for legalization.
Until then, ILLEGALLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you could foolproof (pun intended) this for me, show me that we're not spending a dime of public funds to support those who disable themselves by their drug use, then I'd be all for legalization.
Until then, ILLEGALLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: BurtTC at February 02, 2014 10:11 AM (BeSEI)
16
People get onstage to get the attention their parents never gave them. People do drugs to numb the feeling that no one pays attention to them. Generally.
I liked his work, but am utterly unsurprised by his passing, or that of any other thespian.
Posted by: Oschisms at February 02, 2014 10:11 AM (y9dfJ)
17
There certainly seems to be every indication that our society is immature and getting more so every day and so I think more social permissiveness + immaturity is going to end up about as well as the sexual revolution did. That said, if people aren't smart enough to not ruin their productiveness and talent with abusing drugs, fine by me. Less competition for my kids. Cream rises to the top.
Posted by: Republic of Texas 2: Electric Boogaloo at February 02, 2014 10:11 AM (Gk2GE)
18
Marijuana while arbitrarily classified as a Schedule I drug isn't nearly as harmful as alcohole, much less heroine... Not in the same ballpark. Not even in the same goddamn league.
Posted by: Will at February 02, 2014 10:11 AM (LfOC4)
20
He was very talented. Too often it seems like great talent comes along with powerful demons, like addiction. I still don't fully understand it.
Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at February 02, 2014 10:12 AM (GmTxn)
21
I did see that a lot of ods have occurred in the NE due to heroin being mixed with fentanyl.
Posted by: Judge Pug at February 02, 2014 10:12 AM (NRYdU)
22
Very very sad . Very talented actor .
Another example of the very troubled times in which we live
Posted by: Extremely grumpy momma bear at February 02, 2014 10:12 AM (muyS6)
23
There is wisdom in Just Say No, and yet you laughed.
Posted by: tmitsss at February 02, 2014 10:12 AM (aVsJj)
25
it's interesting watching the people who are normally offended when all guns are impugned when a psycho nut goes on a shooting spree impugning drugs when a user overdoses and dies.
Posted by: obamuh at February 02, 2014 10:12 AM (2whSJ)
26
Someone must have finally told him how overrated he was.
Posted by: Tom Servo at February 02, 2014 10:13 AM (hTDbY)
27
from the last thread...loved him as Lester. Bangs in Almost Famous.
Terrific Actor, he was good in every movie he was in, even the goofball tornado chasing Bill Paxton sidekick in Twister.
Posted by: Goldilocks at February 02, 2014 10:13 AM (vrZxx)
28
The Creative Spark requires one hell of an extinguisher.
Posted by: ChampionCapua at February 02, 2014 10:13 AM (KZi9D)
29
I'm shocked that Hoffman was only 46 at the time of his death.
He's had that "creepy old child molester" look for about 15 years now and wouldn't have needed a lot of prosthetic help to play a live-action version of Family Guy's "Herbert The Pervert".
Before I saw his age, I'd guessed he'd have died of a heart attack because he didn't exactly look very healthy.
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at February 02, 2014 10:13 AM (4eDvT)
30
Decriminalization of something can only lead to more widespread use, this isn't arguable.
More widespread use leads to an equal rise in resultant consequences. This also is not arguable.
Posted by: --- at February 02, 2014 10:14 AM (MMC8r)
31
Someone wrote in the last thread that although he looks gay, he wasnÂ’t & was famous for the women he had.
I donÂ’t believe drugs should be legalized. I skimmed article in Boston Herald this morning about pot shops being set up in MA. I didnÂ’t read it because the next one had me nearly flip out. It said ChristieÂ’s 2016 chances are gone & top advisors suggest Mitt again!
Posted by: Carol at February 02, 2014 10:14 AM (z4WKX)
32
Rush ALWAYS talked about abortion as a "heart" issue, meaning he talked about changing peoples heart on the subject as opposed to the law (or legality) itself. And you know, there has been a shirt there.
I don't want pot legalized (stats and common sense say it will increase use, Prager nails this) on the other hand encouraging people not to spend lots of their time drunk or stoned is a not a bad thing.
Posted by: Seems legit at February 02, 2014 10:14 AM (A98Xu)
33
I have heard medical doctors discuss drugs and argue that heroin, pure heroin, is less harmful to your body than whiskey.
Posted by: navybrat at February 02, 2014 10:14 AM (AW7Gr)
34
He's had that "creepy old child molester" look for about 15 years now
Just a lad.
Posted by: Woody Allen at February 02, 2014 10:14 AM (MMC8r)
35
>>>How many people die every year from marijuana overdoses?
How many die from alcohol poisoning, cirrhosis and DUI accidents?
...
absolutely you're right as far as the worst possible health effects.
However, marijuana has a lot of bad lesser effects. The fact that many people can cope with these effects or avoid them should not cause us to lose sight that many people *can't.*
Gambling is largely illegal. Well, less so now. But it was made it illegal because many people can't handle it and will gamble themselves into the poorhouse. And gambling will cause crimes-- desperate people who've lost everything will often do something desperate about that.
We generally do not prohibit things with an eye to the part of the population which can handle them fairly well with few adverse side effects. We prohibit things because part of the population will NOT be able to handle them.
There are many "Pot Winners." These are people who do not and probably will not suffer any bad side effects or negative consequences from pot.
But there are also a lot of "Pot Losers." Let's not forget about them. Even if the drug should be decriminalized, it hardly should be celebrated.
Posted by: ace at February 02, 2014 10:15 AM (/FnUH)
36
Mature conversation? Let's talk instead about how great it is that Mooch is staying an extra week in Hawaii on your dime.
Posted by: MFM at February 02, 2014 10:15 AM (Aif/5)
37
There is no law anymore. What is called "law" nowadays is just an expression of politics. It's all politics, all the time. Whatever people want is instantly translated into governmental action, with ZERO regard for the concept that there are some aspects of society that government just doesn't belong, even concerning "bad" things.
Don't like what the Duck Dynasty guy said? --> It should be illegal to say it.
Hate racists? --> Racism should be a crime.
Like drugs? --> Drugs should be legal.
Don't like drugs? --> Drugs should be banned.
Look how far we've fallen from a basic understanding of law and government over the last 100 years. When the Progressives wanted to ban alcohol as part of their social engineering agenda, they actually bothered to pass a Constitutional amendment to authorize Prohibition. Then, when it failed (as prohibitions always do), America passed ANOTHER Constitutional amendment to abolish Prohibition.
Now, the issue of the Constitutionality of Prohibition (of drugs, this time) isn't even on the radar screen. Whatever people feel is now assumed to be what they want the law to be.
Don't like what the Duck Dynasty guy said? --> It should be illegal to say it.
Hate racists? --> Racism should be a crime.
Like drugs? --> Drugs should be legal.
Don't like drugs? --> Drugs should be banned.
Look how far we've fallen from a basic understanding of law and government over the last 100 years. When the Progressives wanted to ban alcohol as part of their social engineering agenda, they actually bothered to pass a Constitutional amendment to authorize Prohibition. Then, when it failed (as prohibitions always do), America passed ANOTHER Constitutional amendment to abolish Prohibition.
Now, the issue of the Constitutionality of Prohibition (of drugs, this time) isn't even on the radar screen. Whatever people feel is now assumed to be what they want the law to be.
Posted by: Phinn at February 02, 2014 10:15 AM (KOGmz)
38
pierre, talking raw #s is stupid when one drug is used massively more than another.
You can intelligently compare the risks of various drugs by comparing the rates of addiction, overdose, criminality, etc on a per user or per 1,000 users basis.
But raw #s is obviously useless.
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 02, 2014 10:15 AM (ZPrif)
39
Guess heroin doesn't always make you skinny.
Posted by: NCKate at February 02, 2014 10:15 AM (Eed4A)
40
Mike Judge, genius. A sage. We are living in the transitional years... a few years from Idiocracy..
Posted by: Yip at February 02, 2014 10:15 AM (/jHWN)
41
While the country is discussing the possibility of legalizing drugs, it
should always be remembered and frequently be stated that drugs are very
dangerous, and even when they don't kill you, they tend to corrupt you
and enfeeble your mind.
Never heard of this guy but I am still for at least decriminalizing drugs. Face it Ace, we lost the war after spending trillions on it and turning all the police departments into military thugs who kill your dog.
And as far as people like this guy killing himself with drugs. Hey it sucks but Darwin still applies. My advice to women who are married to drug users is the same as those who are married to wife beaters, get out and take the kids with you.
Never heard of this guy but I am still for at least decriminalizing drugs. Face it Ace, we lost the war after spending trillions on it and turning all the police departments into military thugs who kill your dog.
And as far as people like this guy killing himself with drugs. Hey it sucks but Darwin still applies. My advice to women who are married to drug users is the same as those who are married to wife beaters, get out and take the kids with you.
Posted by: Vic[/i] at February 02, 2014 10:15 AM (T2V/1)
42
Before I saw his age, I'd guessed he'd have died of a heart attack because he didn't exactly look very healthy.
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at February 02, 2014 02:13 PM (4eDvT)
---------
Yeah, I hadn't followed him well enough to know about his recent stint in rehab, so my first guess was related to heart health or diabetes, too. I also thought he was older than 46.
Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at February 02, 2014 10:15 AM (GmTxn)
43
I think Ace leaves out the most important aspect.
People do not comprehend what drugs will do to them and their lives.
Introducing a person to drugs is an INJURY.
Injuring people is wrong, even for Libertarians.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 10:15 AM (bb5+k)
45
Marijuana while arbitrarily classified as a Schedule
I drug isn't nearly as harmful as alcohole, much less heroine... Not in
the same ballpark. Not even in the same goddamn league.
Posted by: Will at February 02, 2014 02:11 PM (LfOC4)
I could not agree more. And I don't really buy into the "gateway drug" canard, either. Anybody who's going to end up on heroin or crack or whatever is going to get there whether they burn a couple of fatties on the way or not.
Posted by: Peaches at February 02, 2014 10:16 AM (8lmkt)
46
i have no idea who this guy was, and now i don't have to care.
i know people keep trying to convince me that inhaling the kulturesmog is important, but i have yet to see why...some idiot with more talent & money than sense kills himself because he's bored?
yawn.
GI suicides are more important to me, even if society doesn't care.
i know people keep trying to convince me that inhaling the kulturesmog is important, but i have yet to see why...some idiot with more talent & money than sense kills himself because he's bored?
yawn.
GI suicides are more important to me, even if society doesn't care.
Posted by: redc1c4 at February 02, 2014 10:16 AM (q+fqH)
47
There's, of course, a gulf between heroine and pot. Heroine is one of those "Don't even take it once" kind of drugs because (1) it's easy to get hooked and (2) it's hard to live a normal life once you are.
And he had to be pretty well hooked because you can get all sorts of prescription opiates a lot easier than the truly illegal stuff.
Let us not also forget the omnipresent welfare state. People are not forced to deal with the consequences of their bad choices. We are paying for them.
Posted by: AmishDude at February 02, 2014 10:16 AM (xSegX)
48
34 He's had that "creepy old child molester" look for about 15 years now
Just a lad.
---
Woody may be a more famous one, but I swear that PSH's casting in Doubt, about a priest accused of child molestation, was the casting department cashing in on the image he gave off.
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at February 02, 2014 10:16 AM (4eDvT)
49
- Vin Diesel movies are harmful on society.
- People who partake of Vin Diesel movies are bad people.
- Some Vin Diesel fans take the behavior too far and kill themselves and others (eg, drag racing)
- I do not support the criminalization of Vin Diesel movies.
Posted by: wooga at February 02, 2014 10:16 AM (jgnqm)
50
Obviously, acting needs to be banned, since it's a gateway profession to hard drug usage.
Posted by: scrood at February 02, 2014 10:16 AM (wvPFe)
51
Here, here. Sense has no place in this discussion. The obamabots want weed, we must give them weed. They want same-sex whatever, we must give them same-sex whatever. They want illegal alien friends, we must give them more illegal alien friends. They want no oil and coal, we must make sure none are available. They want the 16th Century (but with Obama phones!), we must give them the 16th Century....
Posted by: dfbaskwill at February 02, 2014 10:16 AM (ndlFj)
52
His horrific role in Twister aside, I enjoyed his work. Sad, yet another bright mind ruined. I pray for his family.
Posted by: Pug Mahon, Hibernian Hooligan at February 02, 2014 10:16 AM (qTirZ)
53
another reason 'non-aggression' is so beautiful. it only cares whether or not you use force against someone. it doesn't care if you do or don't do drugs. it's perfectly fine to note that someone was on drugs when aggression was used, but drugs don't kill people, people kill people.
Posted by: obamuh at February 02, 2014 10:17 AM (2whSJ)
54
Drugs make you feel good, that's why people take them.
Posted by: MikeH at February 02, 2014 10:17 AM (bRL1M)
55
HAVE FUN WITH HEROIN!
Bad teethInflammation of the gumsConstipationCold sweatsItchingWeakening of the immune systemComaRespiratory (breathing) illnessesMuscular weakness, partial paralysisReduced sexual capacity and long-term impotence in menMenstrual disturbance in womenInability to achieve orgasm (women and men)Loss of memory and intellectual performanceIntroversionDepressionPustules on the faceLoss of appetiteInsomnia
Bad teethInflammation of the gumsConstipationCold sweatsItchingWeakening of the immune systemComaRespiratory (breathing) illnessesMuscular weakness, partial paralysisReduced sexual capacity and long-term impotence in menMenstrual disturbance in womenInability to achieve orgasm (women and men)Loss of memory and intellectual performanceIntroversionDepressionPustules on the faceLoss of appetiteInsomnia
Posted by: OG Celtic-American at February 02, 2014 10:17 AM (vHRtU)
56
9 How many people die every year from marijuana overdoses?
How many die from alcohol poisoning, cirrhosis and DUI accidents?
I'd take DUI accidents out of that. Driving while high is about good an idea as driving while drunk.
I don't often cite Joe Scarborough, but I agree with him on recent dust up. The problem with marijuana isn't that it'll kill you, it's what it does to your brains and your ambition--particularly when people become potheads at a young age.
How many die from alcohol poisoning, cirrhosis and DUI accidents?
I'd take DUI accidents out of that. Driving while high is about good an idea as driving while drunk.
I don't often cite Joe Scarborough, but I agree with him on recent dust up. The problem with marijuana isn't that it'll kill you, it's what it does to your brains and your ambition--particularly when people become potheads at a young age.
Posted by: AD at February 02, 2014 10:18 AM (6qlyR)
57
By raw #s driving a car is more dangerous than being a professional daredevil stunt driver.
By raw #s driving a car is more dangerous than being a crop duster.
Using rates, not raw #s, we know that being a crop duster is one of the most dangerous jobs you can have. They tend to hit a lot of power lines and things like that and have a very high fatality rate.
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 02, 2014 10:18 AM (ZPrif)
58
33 I had a Psychology Prof that said Heroin had no negative physiological health effects. It was the method of delivery that was the problem. That guy was whippet thin and would go into prisons to do counseling. I wonder if was doing smack.
Posted by: Boss Moss at February 02, 2014 10:19 AM (6bMeY)
59
I am tired of people who decry cigarettes, even e cigarettes, because of nicotine but cheerlead for pot
Pot, like booze, is not harmless. It is immature to dry something as all good or all bad. Very few things in life are.
Alcoholism runs in my family. Mother, father, sister, brother. Oddly, not me. They would do no better with pot, or anything that alters the mind, than they do with booze.
Do I insist the rest of the world not drink. No. Do I drink. Yes. Do I think its an OK for my kids, with their genetic inheritance, to experiment with drugs, even pot. No. Absolutely not. I have been very frank with them about drugs and alcohol their whole lives.
I am tired of the dishonesty. Some sports reporters are now claiming, with zero proof, that pot will help brain injury. Fine. Then give players THC pills for pain. No, they don't want the pills. Not social, not "fun".
Its all BS. Pot is not the devil, its up to people to regulate their own behavior. But I am tired with the foolishness pretending its some harmless panacea. Its not
Posted by: thunderb at February 02, 2014 10:19 AM (zOTsN)
60
I don't think it's appropriate to compare gun "abuse" with drug abuse. Guns do not alter a person's mind. Just sayin'.
Posted by: Y-not (@MoxieMom) at February 02, 2014 10:19 AM (zDsvJ)
61
35 -
There are studies that indicate chronic cannabis users lose on average about 8 IQ points.
That number may not seem high, but it is.
There are studies that indicate chronic cannabis users lose on average about 8 IQ points.
That number may not seem high, but it is.
Posted by: BurtTC at February 02, 2014 10:19 AM (BeSEI)
62
Ahh shit, fing software, sorry about the format... I'll be in the barrel...
Posted by: OG Celtic-American at February 02, 2014 10:19 AM (vHRtU)
63
People OD on methadone a lot. The high is different and when they feel that they are coming down from it, they take more not realizing that they will have a toxic level.
Posted by: Judge Pug at February 02, 2014 10:19 AM (NRYdU)
64
OK, from the comments I see who he was now. Didn't recognize the name.
Posted by: Vic[/i] at February 02, 2014 10:19 AM (T2V/1)
65
Why do we listen to these Hollywood people for so much as the time of day??
Posted by: Andrew X at February 02, 2014 10:19 AM (r/Dlx)
66
Those who propose that legalization/decriminalization will not increase consumption should look at what happened when gambling, another activity illegal almost everywhere, went legit almost everywhere. Before legalization it was a black market activity, limited to illegal sports and off-track betting, policy and numbers rackets, and admittedly a lot of illegal card and dice games. After Atlantic City led the way, people could go almost anywhere to gamble legally and did. Compulsive gambling went up and so did all of the accompanying social problems connected. Now, tens of millions of people spend money on everything from the lottery to Indian casinos. You can argue that the trade-offs in getting rid of the black market and OC involvement were worth it but you can't argue that participation didn't increase hugely.
Posted by: Mongoose at February 02, 2014 10:20 AM (DXfkx)
67
it's interesting watching the people who are normally offended when all guns are impugned when a psycho nut goes on a shooting spree impugning drugs when a user overdoses and dies.
Guns aren't mind-altering and addictive, but it's totes the same.
Posted by: --- at February 02, 2014 10:20 AM (MMC8r)
68
>>> Decriminalization of something can only lead to more widespread use, this isn't arguable.
More widespread use leads to an equal rise in resultant consequences. This also is not arguable.
...
Inarguable, as you say. However, I'm not sure that we'll have what the prohibitionists fear, which is runaway drug abuse in a decriminalization regime. Much more "experimentation," yes. Much more light use. But how much more problem use?
I think that the problem use section (the one we have to really worry about) will not skyrocket as the other categories probably will.
Why do I believe this?
Because i believe that most of the people with the self-destructive, self-escaping impulse -- those at a high risk for addiction and problematic overuse of drugs -- are already using them.
I can't prove this, so if a prohbitionist wants to call bullshit, I can't really say "NO THIS IS A FACT!!!"
But it seems logical to me that given drugs' wide availability under the current prohibitionist regime, those people most at risk -- those most attracted to a walk on the wild side, an escape from the self, a numbing of the mind, etc. -- are already on drugs.
Now there will be additional new addicts and problem users, to be sure. Some people, who otherwise would not do drugs in a prohibitionist regime, will try them in a decriminalization regime, and will find, to their chagrin, they have the particular neurochemistry that will make them an addict and cause them to come to grief.
But it's my hunch that MOST such people are already on drugs, even in a regime of criminalized usage.
Posted by: ace at February 02, 2014 10:20 AM (/FnUH)
69
61 35 -
There are studies that indicate chronic cannabis users lose on average about 8 IQ points.
That number may not seem high, but it is.
Posted by: BurtTC at February 02, 2014 02:19 PM (BeSEI)
Explains President Choom acting like he has an IQ of 80
Posted by: MikeH at February 02, 2014 10:20 AM (bRL1M)
70
But if the organs of public information and cultural signaling cannot themselves conceive of that third option, and will immaturely take "legality" to mean "benevolence" themselves, then the anti-prohibitionist movement will be over pretty quickly.
***
Hasn't there a big backlash to the open drug culture in the Netherlands?
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 02, 2014 10:21 AM (DmNpO)
71
Never heard of this guy but I am still for at least decriminalizing drugs. Face it Ace, we lost the war after spending trillions on it and turning all the police departments into military thugs who kill your dog.
Posted by: Vic at February 02, 2014 02:15 PM (T2V/1)
I see libertarians (and other people who don't know any better) repeating this endlessly. The measure of success, they claim, is elimination of all usage and all availability. The idea that this is completely irrational simply never seems to occur to these people.
The "War on Drugs" is a holding action, and so far it has successfully held addiction down to 2% for the past 100 years.
If people comprehended that the NORMAL PROGRESSION is a logistical growth function, they would stop babbling that nonsense about the "War on Drugs" being a failure, and they would realize that it has kept us in a stable holding pattern for a very long time.
If any aspect of it is problematic, it is the ever increasing cost, but that is a function of the normal tendency of government to excessive growth, and not a fundamental problem with the concept of interdiction and deterrence.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 10:21 AM (bb5+k)
72
I have come full circle on drugs use. Principally because the cure (war on drugs) has become more of a threat than the drugs themselves. Yes there will be those that are collateral damage to some based on legalization, but there is already many of the same based on the war on drugs. Just count the number of botched drug raids that have ended in death.
Posted by: PissAntinPA at February 02, 2014 10:21 AM (RHBWt)
73
>>>You can argue that the trade-offs in getting rid of the black market and OC involvement were worth it but you can't argue that participation didn't increase hugely.
most honest anti-prohibitionists freely admit this (or, perhaps, *reluctantly* admit this).
Posted by: ace at February 02, 2014 10:21 AM (/FnUH)
74
You touched on it and I believe you are grasping part of it. I believe that the media is unfortunately a bastion of infantile personalities. There is no leavening of maturity because such is derided as "paternalistic" and probably "phallocentric" - so we have a major area of culture dominated by people who giggle at poo.
So their outlook is like all adolescents - that they are Right and all else -especially those who are older and act differently - are Wrong and Probably Criminal To Contemplate.
You get culture by the childish and infantile. Juvenelia versus journalism, childish tantrums instead of debate.
Posted by: Inspector Cussword at February 02, 2014 10:21 AM (FApZx)
75
I loved Seymour Phillip Hoffman in Star Wars.
Posted by: soothsayer at February 02, 2014 10:21 AM (w0eFo)
76
I also don't understand those that HATE cigarette smoking and are obnoxious about it but smoking pot (and pot smoke) is fine.
Posted by: Seems legit at February 02, 2014 10:21 AM (A98Xu)
77
61 There are studies ,Harvard I think, that show water Fluoridation costs us 10 IQ points.
Posted by: Boss Moss at February 02, 2014 10:21 AM (6bMeY)
79
Marijuana is awesome, and it's totally, like, good for you, man. Did you hear, the Marijuanologists discovered a cure for cancer? Then forgot it 5 minutes later.
Awwww! Who cares, dude! I've got Doritos!
Awwww! Who cares, dude! I've got Doritos!
Posted by: Dr. Schmokenpuff at February 02, 2014 10:22 AM (+H33W)
80
Well, Phillip Seymour Hoffman died doing what he loved, drugs.
_
... too soon?
Posted by: BumperStickerist at February 02, 2014 10:22 AM (NQyj0)
81
>>>Hasn't there a big backlash to the open drug culture in the Netherlands?
no idea. sounds plausible though.
even in countries you'd expect to be a little permissive on such things, there is a lot of cultural disgust at stuff like heroin squats.
Posted by: ace at February 02, 2014 10:23 AM (/FnUH)
82
Let us not also forget the omnipresent welfare state. People are not forced to deal with the consequences of their bad choices. We are paying for them.
Posted by: AmishDude at February 02, 2014 02:16 PM (xSegX)
And there is the salient aspect for Libertarian opposition, but it is one which they eschew.
They are all for principles, as long as they are principles which permit them to get high.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 10:23 AM (bb5+k)
83
If the Media did its job of educating the public about drugs, instead of simply cheerleading because progressivism, then drugs wouldn't be a problem. People would know the dangers and either decide it's worth it, or not worth it.
But the Media has long given up on anything other than propaganda for the Left, and decriminalizing drugs is a Left goal.
But the Media has long given up on anything other than propaganda for the Left, and decriminalizing drugs is a Left goal.
Posted by: Null at February 02, 2014 10:24 AM (xjpRj)
84
A few years ago when professional wrestlers started dropping like flies in their 30s and 40s, a number of people made the point that if any other sport had even a fraction of the mortality, there would be public outcry, congressional investigations and general handwriting. Isn't Hollywood at the same point? Where's the media outcry demanding Hollywood change its ways? When is Hollywood asked to look inward and re-examine itself?
Posted by: uuddlrlrbastart at February 02, 2014 10:24 AM (7gMa8)
85
Like I exclaimed after Jerry Garcia died - JADJ - just another dead junkie.
Turn the page.
Posted by: Inspector Cussword at February 02, 2014 10:24 AM (FApZx)
86
77 61 There are studies ,Harvard I think, that show water Fluoridation costs us 10 IQ points.
-----------
But studies showed iodine delivered via salt is the likely reason IQ scores increased by nearly a standard deviation in the 30s-50s.
So, it all equals out, apparently.
Posted by: BumperStickerist at February 02, 2014 10:24 AM (NQyj0)
87
81 Those fuckers even started wearing wooden shoes and planting tulips everywhere.
Posted by: Boss Moss at February 02, 2014 10:24 AM (6bMeY)
88
it's interesting watching the people who are normally offended when all guns are impugned when a psycho nut goes on a shooting spree impugning drugs when a user overdoses and dies.
The following were all habitual pot users to the point that it was the defining characteristic according to their acquaintances: Holmes, Loughner, Cho and Tsarnaev.
I'd say it's a 2-1 chance that if you hear of a mass killing in the US that the perpetrator was a mentally ill person who was also a pothead.
Posted by: AmishDude at February 02, 2014 10:24 AM (xSegX)
89
There are studies ,Harvard I think, that show water Fluoridation costs us 10 IQ points.
This is why I only use non-fluoridated water in my bong.
Posted by: garrett at February 02, 2014 10:24 AM (K73ax)
90
Rather than 'Gateway Drug,' phrase the question as 'Overton Window.'
Will legalization of more drugs bring harder drugs into the range of acceptability?
Posted by: --- at February 02, 2014 10:25 AM (MMC8r)
91
my sister the alcoholic, was also a regular pot smoker. She spent two decades not being able to get to sleep without it. All while being a very high functioning, productively employed, addict. She is now sober, and doing great. She blames some memory issues she has on her long term use of pot.
Posted by: thunderb at February 02, 2014 10:25 AM (zOTsN)
92
>>But there are also a lot of "Pot Losers." Let's not forget about them. Even if the drug should be decriminalized, it hardly should be celebrated.
Then why do we celebrate booze? Big Booze is a ubiquitous supporter of sports, holiday events, you name it, they sponsor it.
I just don't buy the argument that booze is in any way less harmful to society than weed.
Posted by: JackStraw at February 02, 2014 10:25 AM (g1DWB)
93
This is your brain on drugs. Nobody will ever be able to convince me that recreational drug use is ever a good thing. Way too many bad outcomes.
Posted by: frying pan at February 02, 2014 10:25 AM (HF2US)
94
What kind do society do we want?
One that maximizes freedom and lives with the consequences, or one that minimizes freedom and lives with the consequences?
I pick the former, while I am still free to do so.
Posted by: eman at February 02, 2014 10:25 AM (AO9UG)
95
Those who are presently addicted to drugs are those willing to break the laws to acquire/use them. When drugs are legalized then law-abiding citizens who do not now partake, will.
The incidence of drug use and, consequently, drug abuse, will rise.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 02, 2014 10:25 AM (DmNpO)
96
Oh, and now they're saying he had a needle in his arm. Way to keep it classy, Phil, ya putz.
Posted by: Peaches at February 02, 2014 10:25 AM (8lmkt)
97
There are studies ,Harvard I think, that show water Fluoridation costs us 10 IQ points.
Told ya.
Posted by: Brig. Gen. Jack D. Ripper at February 02, 2014 10:25 AM (MMC8r)
98
- I do not support the criminalization of Vin Diesel movies.
Posted by: wooga at February 02, 2014 02:16 PM (jgnqm)
I do not support false analogies. Chemicals have direct physiological effects on people who dose themselves.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 10:25 AM (bb5+k)
99
>>>And there is the salient aspect for Libertarian opposition, but it is one which they eschew.
They are all for principles, as long as they are principles which permit them to get high.
...
and yet I have no desire to get high at all, and when I was in more more social phase and would go out with people, I was constantly offered pot (it was ubiquitous) and always turned it down.
i can't scold you for making this claim -- an attack on the character of the persons advancing the position, rather than the position -- because i used to say this all the time myself.
Still. It's not true.
Posted by: ace at February 02, 2014 10:25 AM (/FnUH)
100
Too often it seems like great talent comes along with powerful demons, like addiction. I still don't fully understand it.
I've often wondered if so many HWood and music types OD because of their personality type or because they have enough money to but all they want. Probably some of both.
I've often wondered if so many HWood and music types OD because of their personality type or because they have enough money to but all they want. Probably some of both.
Posted by: pep at February 02, 2014 10:26 AM (6TB1Z)
101
If it becomes legal to do heroine, I call dibs on Wonder Woman.
Posted by: --- at February 02, 2014 10:26 AM (MMC8r)
102
Three words:
Purity Of Essence.
_
Posted by: BumperStickerist at February 02, 2014 10:26 AM (NQyj0)
103
A friend got out of opiate rehab back in November. He said half the guys in there were Iraq Afghanistan vets.
Posted by: traye at February 02, 2014 10:26 AM (iL9QP)
104
Humans have evolved the ability to process alcohol. Different ethnic groups have genes that allow them to process alcohol better than other groups.
If I lived in a society that was 95%+ amerindian I would support the prohibition of alcohol because amerindians did not evolve to process alcohol as well as europeans did.
When dealing with actual chemicals on actual human bodies, resorting to overly simplistic bromides isn't very useful.
Depending on the severity of the danger, some things need to be prohibited.
I'll listen to arguments that the danger of a prohibited substance has been exaggerated and isn't that bad. But the argument that "prohibition" is inherently bad holds no water.
Obviously we would ban any drug that gave the world's greatest high but caused heart attacks on the 3rd use 90% of the time.
Many chemical compounds will always have to be prohibited. We also aren't going to let you experiment at home with dangerous viruses and bacteria just because you get intellectual enjoyment from it and promise to be careful.
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 02, 2014 10:27 AM (ZPrif)
105
94 What kind do society do we want?
One that maximizes freedom and lives with the consequences, or one that minimizes freedom and lives with the consequences?
I pick the former, while I am still free to do so.
Posted by: eman at February 02, 2014 02:25 PM (AO9UG)
Good point.
Posted by: Seems legit at February 02, 2014 10:27 AM (A98Xu)
106
>>Well, Phillip Seymour Hoffman died doing what he loved, drugs.
Lot better than the way he went out in Red Dragon.
Posted by: JackStraw at February 02, 2014 10:27 AM (g1DWB)
107
The problem with marijuana isn't that it'll kill you, it's what it does to your brains and your ambition--particularly when people become potheads at a young age.
Posted by: AD at February 02, 2014 02:18 PM (6qlyR)
I know someone who started as a teen. Now he's 40 years old, no career, no job, lives with mama, has a child but doesn't provide support.
Sure manages to find him some weed though.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 10:27 AM (bb5+k)
108
>>But there are also a lot of "Pot Losers." Let's not forget about them. Even if the drug should be decriminalized, it hardly should be celebrated.
Then why do we celebrate booze? Big Booze is a ubiquitous supporter of sports, holiday events, you name it, they sponsor it.
--------
This. It's overuse/irresponsible use of alcohol and drugs that should be socially condemned, not all use.
Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at February 02, 2014 10:27 AM (GmTxn)
109
"prohibitionist" is a loaded term no? Alcohol was prohibited after it'd been legal for some time. Pot and harder drugs have never been legal.
while it's a simplification to say legalization=encouragement (cuz you could find examples of stuff that's technically legal but frowned upon,) it applies in a lot of cases I think, and I've never bought the "banning it just makes it more attractive!" argument a lot of people use. Sure, it might be kinda true...when you're 13.
Posted by: JP at February 02, 2014 10:27 AM (TP6sz)
110
#30
The hell it isn't arguable.
Marijuana was not a problem before it was chosen as a substitute to keep employed a legion of men who had dealt with alcohol enforcement during prohibition. Hardly anyone knew what marijuana or cannabis even was before the Hearst papers went on a campaign to demonize it. Without decades of taxpayer funded PR campaigns to promote it, marijuana use would be no more common than the dozens of other plants native to North America that have similar properties but are completely ignored by the law.
Take away the forbidden fruit attraction and you'll see a lot of people never take an interest in it. They'll instead seek out something else to exercise their need to rebel.
The hell it isn't arguable.
Marijuana was not a problem before it was chosen as a substitute to keep employed a legion of men who had dealt with alcohol enforcement during prohibition. Hardly anyone knew what marijuana or cannabis even was before the Hearst papers went on a campaign to demonize it. Without decades of taxpayer funded PR campaigns to promote it, marijuana use would be no more common than the dozens of other plants native to North America that have similar properties but are completely ignored by the law.
Take away the forbidden fruit attraction and you'll see a lot of people never take an interest in it. They'll instead seek out something else to exercise their need to rebel.
Posted by: Epobirs at February 02, 2014 10:27 AM (bPxS6)
111
Purity Of Essence.
Which means what, exactly?
Posted by: soothsayer at February 02, 2014 10:27 AM (w0eFo)
112
Of course, one of the biggest problems with the legalization movement is that people who chronically use drugs, including cannabis, become the "disabled" people we end up supporting.
If you could foolproof (pun intended) this for me, show me that we're not spending a dime of public funds to support those who disable themselves by their drug use, then I'd be all for legalization.
*ding* *ding* *ding*
Until then, ILLEGALLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: BurtTC at February 02, 2014 02:11 PM (BeSEI)
I decriminalize weed and leave the rest, as is.
Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at February 02, 2014 10:28 AM (apWU9)
113
@101 Isis was kinda hot, too. I'll pass on Amelia Earhart, though.
Posted by: Gran at February 02, 2014 10:28 AM (nPMjI)
114
Chemicals have direct physiological effects on people
You'll love my box!
Posted by: BF Skinner at February 02, 2014 10:28 AM (K73ax)
115
Why is it harder to get Pseudofed than actual narcotics now?
Posted by: Boss Moss at February 02, 2014 10:28 AM (6bMeY)
116
Once the government approves something, it's no longer immoral!
Posted by: Rev. Lovejoy at February 02, 2014 10:28 AM (AymDN)
117
damnit.....
Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at February 02, 2014 10:28 AM (apWU9)
118
>>>Then why do we celebrate booze? Big Booze is a ubiquitous supporter of sports, holiday events, you name it, they sponsor it.
I just don't buy the argument that booze is in any way less harmful to society than weed.
...
i agree but I rather think the problem here is a cultural bias in favor of drunkeness rather than, as you seem to put it, a cultural bias against pot.
In other words, what i mean, is that this whole "Let's get FUCKED UP BRO" attitude is a bad one, and the culture is somewhat sicker than it should be for it.
I do not favor alcohol addiction, of course!
Alcohol is a real problem for society. As with pot, there are "Booze Winners" (people without hte alcoholism gene) and "Booze Losers" (those with it, who will almost universally come to bad outcomes).
The fact that our culture over-encouraging booziness is not an argument in favor of over-encouraging marijuana use.
Posted by: ace at February 02, 2014 10:28 AM (/FnUH)
119
The man got a view of Marisa Tomei that few men will ever have.
Posted by: SARDiver at February 02, 2014 10:29 AM (ci7Fe)
120
Checking Wiki, it seems that the laws in the Netherlands have become consistently more restrictive since implementation.
http://bit.ly/1bhpBqu
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 02, 2014 10:29 AM (DmNpO)
123
I see someone mentioned the "banning it just makes people want it more" line immediately after my comment lol
Posted by: JP at February 02, 2014 10:29 AM (TP6sz)
124
Purity Of Essence.
Which means what, exactly?
---
line from 'Dr. Strangelove' - said by the aforementioned Gen. Ripper.
Posted by: BumperStickerist at February 02, 2014 10:29 AM (NQyj0)
126
94 What kind do society do we want?
====================
I dunno. Maybe one where the citizens aren't stoned or high.
Posted by: grammie winger at February 02, 2014 10:30 AM (P6QsQ)
127
So, where did he get his heroin?
Are there still celebrity drug dealers? Don't they test their heroin?
Did he get it from a "friend"?
Did he get it from some tranny hooker down on the corner?
When I lived in NYC in 79-80, you couldn't walk down the street without being solicited to buy drugs. I couldn't figure out what was happening because people would just pass you and whisper various name of drugs.
Posted by: Judge Pug at February 02, 2014 10:30 AM (NRYdU)
128
71 Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 02:21 PM (bb5+k)
Not true, the normal way they measure success is the street price of drugs. If you allow for inflation and
Obama bucks they haven't increased the price, much less come even close to eliminating them.
We have lost this war. The rate of usage may go up short term, but as Darwin exerts himself it will go back down. What evidence do I have? Before the government got involved there was no law against most of these drugs and there was no great problem other than a few localities like SF where the Chinese brought in the opium dens.
If it was left up to me I would:
Take all federal drug laws off the books because they are unconstitutional.
Require zero drug use for people receiving any federally supporting assistance. If they can do that for 55 mph speed limit and highway funds they can do it for welfare.
Make it a capital crime with execution required within 30 days for selling any hard drugs drugs to a minor under the age of 18. That would also include reefer
Not true, the normal way they measure success is the street price of drugs. If you allow for inflation and
Obama bucks they haven't increased the price, much less come even close to eliminating them.
We have lost this war. The rate of usage may go up short term, but as Darwin exerts himself it will go back down. What evidence do I have? Before the government got involved there was no law against most of these drugs and there was no great problem other than a few localities like SF where the Chinese brought in the opium dens.
If it was left up to me I would:
Take all federal drug laws off the books because they are unconstitutional.
Require zero drug use for people receiving any federally supporting assistance. If they can do that for 55 mph speed limit and highway funds they can do it for welfare.
Make it a capital crime with execution required within 30 days for selling any hard drugs drugs to a minor under the age of 18. That would also include reefer
Posted by: Vic[/i] at February 02, 2014 10:30 AM (T2V/1)
129
>>>"prohibitionist" is a loaded term no? Alcohol was prohibited after it'd been legal for some time. Pot and harder drugs have never been legal.
no, it's not a loaded term. I don't like these silly semantic arguments. Those in favor of prohibiting something are prohibitionists.
It's just what the word means.
I didn't say "Blue noses" or anything.
Posted by: ace at February 02, 2014 10:30 AM (/FnUH)
130
Hellooooooooooooooooo... anyone up there?
Also, smoking ANYTHING is stupid. If you like your pot, eat it.
Also, smoking ANYTHING is stupid. If you like your pot, eat it.
Posted by: OG Celtic-American at February 02, 2014 10:30 AM (vHRtU)
131
I'm for legalizing pot when one of the proponents ( Libetarians for one ) will argue also for all restrictions on cigarette smoking lifted and age restriction to buy to 12 or something. Same with beer. 100 years ago if a teen could afford it, they could buy it.
Why not? DUI laws... too strict. Ruin lives. Why can't you drive open-container like the olden days?
To me, too many in the legalize pot crowd are fine with restrictions on the non-politically correct, but want to be left alone to do what they want with pot. To some extent I guess same with harder drugs. Ace's point is exactly where I'm at.
Personally, I think the case against smoking and drinking is waaaayyyy overdone, but it's PC. I am against pot legalization or normalization in the macro, but generally not a hill I'd die on if we could stop the crusades of PC heath-busy-bodies.,
Why not? DUI laws... too strict. Ruin lives. Why can't you drive open-container like the olden days?
To me, too many in the legalize pot crowd are fine with restrictions on the non-politically correct, but want to be left alone to do what they want with pot. To some extent I guess same with harder drugs. Ace's point is exactly where I'm at.
Personally, I think the case against smoking and drinking is waaaayyyy overdone, but it's PC. I am against pot legalization or normalization in the macro, but generally not a hill I'd die on if we could stop the crusades of PC heath-busy-bodies.,
Posted by: Yip at February 02, 2014 10:30 AM (/jHWN)
133
None of those three options is reasonable.
Because "drugs" is an umbrella that covers everything from the old recipe for Hydroxycut to Crystal Meth. There's nothing you can reasonably say about the harmfulness of "drugs".
Because "drugs" is an umbrella that covers everything from the old recipe for Hydroxycut to Crystal Meth. There's nothing you can reasonably say about the harmfulness of "drugs".
Posted by: Lehosh at February 02, 2014 10:30 AM (DAmuQ)
134
Legalize, and regulate the street gangs and cartels out of the supply and you will see the downfall of crime related to the trafficking and sell of drugs.
Posted by: Holger at February 02, 2014 10:30 AM (rIk1N)
135
why can't America as a culture just have decided that it's OK with the effects of certain alcohol use in a way it isn't with pot, and why isn't that OK? All the alcohol vs. pot analogies try to be superduperobjective and nothing is really like that.
Posted by: JP at February 02, 2014 10:31 AM (TP6sz)
136
I [ace] do not favor alcohol addiction, of course!
=
Ass - hic - hole.
_
Posted by: Foster Brooks at February 02, 2014 10:31 AM (NQyj0)
137
I thought Wolf of Wallstreet glorified drug use. Drugs and greed. Scorcese is a one trick pony.
Posted by: Judge Pug at February 02, 2014 10:31 AM (NRYdU)
138
114 Chemicals have direct physiological effects on people
You'll love my box!
Posted by: BF Skinner at February 02, 2014 02:28 PM (K73ax)
*******
I wouldn't touch that with Rachel Maddow's dick.
Posted by: George Orwell's Ghost at February 02, 2014 10:31 AM (RJMhd)
139
If only the Police had stopped and frisked him, he might still be alive.
Posted by: Boss Moss at February 02, 2014 10:31 AM (6bMeY)
140
That's very sad. How tragic for his family and friends. What a fine actor. So good in so many things; I particularly enjoyed his work in the movie "Doubt."
Posted by: Fenelon Spoke at February 02, 2014 10:31 AM (7kkQJ)
141
Chemicals in food make us fat, lazy and stupid and we rail against that fat ass Michelle Obama telling us what we can and cannot eat. Ditto that dick Bloomberg.
We are either free to self destruct or we are not. Responsible citizens don't live off Pop Tarts although I admit, I'd like to.
Posted by: Seems legit at February 02, 2014 10:31 AM (A98Xu)
142
I'm fine with this experiment in decriminalizing/legalizing pot. I'm skeptical it will end well.
But what it won't end is the War on Drugs. That's an illusion. Unless you also decrim/legalize the hardest drugs available. And society will rightfully recoil from open air drug markets.
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 02, 2014 10:31 AM (ZPrif)
143
122 Barrel!
Posted by: Gran at February 02, 2014 02:29 PM (nPMjI)
Yeah, I fixed it. I'm bringing the bong, though....
Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at February 02, 2014 10:31 AM (apWU9)
144
#109
Wrong. There wasn't any government control exercised over such things until the early 20th Century. Pot was outlawed in the 30s largely as an excuse to continue employing Prohibition agents during a period of economic distress.
Heroin was sold legally for many years. You can find it in old Sears catalogs, along with cocaine.
I don't care for the company of drunks or junkies. But I've yet to see any evidence of outlawing the substances having any benefit.
Wrong. There wasn't any government control exercised over such things until the early 20th Century. Pot was outlawed in the 30s largely as an excuse to continue employing Prohibition agents during a period of economic distress.
Heroin was sold legally for many years. You can find it in old Sears catalogs, along with cocaine.
I don't care for the company of drunks or junkies. But I've yet to see any evidence of outlawing the substances having any benefit.
Posted by: Epobirs at February 02, 2014 10:32 AM (bPxS6)
145
Free Krokodil. Cases and cases of the stuff. With free needles and spoons.
That'll sort things out.
That'll sort things out.
Posted by: Dr. Schmokenpuff at February 02, 2014 10:32 AM (+H33W)
146
If I'm remembering correctly, he started doing drugs again via the "gateway" of legal pain killers. I'm not sure if they were legally prescribed to him, however.
Posted by: Lauren at February 02, 2014 10:32 AM (hFL/3)
147
Drug legalization is a nice goal, assuming you've already killed off the welfare state. Otherwise we'll shield people from the consequences of their actions. What you subsidize, you incentivize.
Posted by: kartoffel at February 02, 2014 10:32 AM (07vvi)
148
We humans will NEVER be mature enough to handle absolute freedom. The problem with drugs is that some drugs are addictive, and when you do mature and want to stop taking it, you can't.
From the French Revolution on, various societies have tried and failed to construct Utopia, where everyone is "free to be you and me."
From the French Revolution on, various societies have tried and failed to construct Utopia, where everyone is "free to be you and me."
Posted by: PJ at February 02, 2014 10:33 AM (ZWaLo)
149
Alcohol presents a continuum for use. In small amounts, it has demonstrable positive effects on health.
Marijuana is a dichotomous choice: You are stoned or not. It also is bad for you period over the long haul.
Responsible use of alcohol and abstinence from pot SHOULD be something that one acquires when becoming a mature human being. Sorry, libertarians, I don't want to be around significant numbers of stoners anymore.
Marijuana is a dichotomous choice: You are stoned or not. It also is bad for you period over the long haul.
Responsible use of alcohol and abstinence from pot SHOULD be something that one acquires when becoming a mature human being. Sorry, libertarians, I don't want to be around significant numbers of stoners anymore.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 02, 2014 10:33 AM (ltdV/)
151
Ace (I believe) and others have touched briefly on the decriminalization aspect of drugs ... it's not like the dealers and infrastructure that supports them is suddenly going to get real jobs once the profit potential is crushed.
... another recurring thought I have is this : who will produce the product in this newly legal environment? What company, having seen the demonization of tobacco and alcohol companies, is going to willing enter in the production and distribution market if / when it is legalized?
... what happens to the destabilized countries where marijuana, cocaine, and opium are produced?
If you have an answer that doesn't include Underpants Gnomes business model I'd love to hear them.
... another recurring thought I have is this : who will produce the product in this newly legal environment? What company, having seen the demonization of tobacco and alcohol companies, is going to willing enter in the production and distribution market if / when it is legalized?
... what happens to the destabilized countries where marijuana, cocaine, and opium are produced?
If you have an answer that doesn't include Underpants Gnomes business model I'd love to hear them.
Posted by: Pablo Escobar at February 02, 2014 10:33 AM (0F6Sg)
152
129 first I've heard. as for "something" I only hear it in reference to actual Prohibition and people trying to (negatively) associate banning drugs with that, even if that's not what you're doing.
Posted by: JP at February 02, 2014 10:33 AM (TP6sz)
153
Posted by: ace at February 02, 2014 02:20 PM (/FnUH)
I am very interested to see the long term consequences of what Washington and Colorado has done.
I have my own preconceived notions about what I expect to happen, but they are suspicions, not facts. If the facts come in and demonstrate that the consequences are not as serious as I expect, then I will change my view on the topic.
I am amenable to changing my position based on a positive outcome from our experimenting States, but I shall be very surprised if we should get a positive outcome.
More like more Democrat Welfare voters trying to suck more financial life out of us.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 10:33 AM (bb5+k)
154
Posted by: ace at February 02, 2014 02:20 PM (/FnUH)
It depends on the drug. Some are just "do not try, ever" drugs. In the case of pot, you're probably right. Those who would want to be debilitated by it already are.
But for other drugs, the effects of the drugs themselves significantly alter the person's mind.
Posted by: AmishDude at February 02, 2014 10:33 AM (xSegX)
155
I have physiological reactions to Blurred Lines Brunette.
Posted by: garrett at February 02, 2014 10:33 AM (K73ax)
156
143 122 Barrel!
Posted by: Gran at February 02, 2014 02:29 PM (nPMjI)
Yeah, I fixed it. I'm bringing the bong, though....
Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at February 02, 2014 02:31 PM (apWU9)
There's probably some hallucinogenic fungus growing in there.
Posted by: Insomniac at February 02, 2014 10:33 AM (UAMVq)
157
"Marijuana is a dichotomous choice: You are stoned or not. It also is bad for you period over the long haul."
word
Posted by: JP at February 02, 2014 10:33 AM (TP6sz)
158
Legalize, and regulate the street gangs and cartels out of the supply and you will see the downfall of crime related to the trafficking and sell of drugs.
***
From Wiki, re the Netherlands:
Results of the drug policy
Criminal investigations into more serious forms of organized crime mainly involve drugs (72%). Most of these are investigations of hard drug crime (specifically cocaine and synthetic drugs) although the number of soft drug cases is rising and currently accounts for 69% of criminal investigations.
Legalizing weed does not appear to get organized crime out of the weed business.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 02, 2014 10:34 AM (DmNpO)
159
But I've yet to see any evidence of outlawing the substances having any benefit.
Posted by: Epobirs
Where have you seen it legal to examine the difference between legal and illegal?
Posted by: Epobirs
Where have you seen it legal to examine the difference between legal and illegal?
Posted by: Dang at February 02, 2014 10:34 AM (MNq6o)
161
Switzerland decriminalized drugs to the point of handing out needles and I think drugs. Very shortly they had addicts all over their very tidy parks and public spaces
Posted by: thunderb at February 02, 2014 10:34 AM (zOTsN)
162
I think legalization will lead to more excuse making when something bad happens..a typical liberal out.
Posted by: Puncher at February 02, 2014 10:34 AM (LhAqq)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 02, 2014 10:34 AM (DTrmb)
164
126 94 What kind do society do we want?
====================
I dunno. Maybe one where the citizens aren't stoned or high.
Posted by: grammie winger at February 02, 2014 02:30 PM (P6QsQ)
Or drunk?
Or even just a bit tipsy?
Posted by: eman at February 02, 2014 10:34 AM (AO9UG)
165
Who hasn't celebrated the Super Bowl with a little shot of heroin?
Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at February 02, 2014 10:34 AM (oFCZn)
166
I have no problem with states criminalizing drug use. The Feds have taken too much power tht is nt rightfully theirs. RIP PSH.
Posted by: Baldy at February 02, 2014 10:34 AM (2bql3)
167
73 >>>You can argue that the trade-offs in getting rid of the black market and OC involvement were worth it but you can't argue that participation didn't increase hugely.
most honest anti-prohibitionists freely admit this (or, perhaps, *reluctantly* admit this).
Posted by: ace at February 02, 2014 02:21 PM (/FnUH)
This is why I hate the phrase "Prohibition didn't work". It most certainly did work. What happened was that "Prohibition had significant destructive unintended consequences".
Posted by: AmishDude at February 02, 2014 10:35 AM (xSegX)
168
162 but they took away the mystery and intrigue of using! How can this be?? plus freedom n shit.
Posted by: JP at February 02, 2014 10:35 AM (TP6sz)
169
While a lot of people have demons it seems artists have them in disproportionate numbers, maybe they're more susceptible to them or maybe having such demons is a prerequisite to becoming an artist, in any event following their political prescriptions may not be the best course of action.
Posted by: Dr Spank at February 02, 2014 10:35 AM (P1WNR)
170
>>i agree but I rather think the problem here is a cultural bias in favor of drunkeness rather than, as you seem to put it, a cultural bias against pot.
And I believe the cultural bias is a big part of the problem. People will always seek out the forbidden fruit, saw a report that hookers are flocking to NYC to partake in the SB celebration and of course that isn't legal in NY.
De-stigmatize it and I think a big part of the problem goes away. A lot easier to regulate it and control the issues just like we do with alcohol.
Posted by: JackStraw at February 02, 2014 10:35 AM (g1DWB)
171
Holy shit--
Wings and Caps now tied up.
Posted by: George Orwell's Ghost at February 02, 2014 10:35 AM (RJMhd)
172
With fatass Mooch hectoring people constantly on their freely chosen food intake being bad for their health, isn't this a particularly bad time to be contemplating legalizing drugs?
Posted by: Captain Hate at February 02, 2014 10:36 AM (yQyBg)
173
Drug legalization is a nice goal, assuming you've already killed off the welfare state. Otherwise we'll shield people from the consequences of their actions. What you subsidize, you incentivize.
***
Right now, there are states trying to pass laws to screen welfare recipients for drugs. I'm all for the testing.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 02, 2014 10:36 AM (DmNpO)
174
Wings and Caps now tied up.
I know...I keep trying to leave the house and they keep reeling the Caps back in.
Posted by: garrett at February 02, 2014 10:36 AM (K73ax)
175
Legalize, and regulate the street gangs and cartels out of the supply
and you will see the downfall of crime related to the trafficking and
sell of drugs.
to say nothing of the tax revenues and the billions saved by discontinuing the astonishingly stupid "war on drugs"
to say nothing of the tax revenues and the billions saved by discontinuing the astonishingly stupid "war on drugs"
Posted by: Peaches at February 02, 2014 10:36 AM (8lmkt)
176
72 I have come full circle on drugs use. Principally because the cure (war on drugs) has become more of a threat than the drugs themselves.
Posted by: PissAntinPA at February 02, 2014 02:21 PM (RHBWt)
If you are arguing that the danger of a police state is greater than the danger to society from drug addiction, I agree with you.
I will however point out, that we are getting a police state with or without the war on drugs.
I will also point out, if we collapse society due to massive drug addiction, we will still get a police state.
China is an example of how this works in history.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 10:37 AM (bb5+k)
177
Alcohol really is different though because we literally evolved to consume it. At least a large % of humans did, especially europeans. But even there there is a lot of variation due to genetics.
Slavs have much higher rates of alcoholism because alcohol was introduced later and they have genes that process it less efficiently.
Italians handle alcohol better than, say, Russians, due to genetics, not culture. The culture is a reflection of the underlying gene pool.
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 02, 2014 10:37 AM (ZPrif)
178
Marijuana is a dichotomous choice: You are stoned or not. It also is bad for you period over the long haul.
----
Yeah, bullshit. People can be buzzed, not stoned, from a little marijuana. People can be out of their minds from smoking/ingesting a lot of marijuana (or from having a little when they're not used to it, or having a very potent strain). There are likely some minor medicinal benefits when it is ingested in food rather than smoked (breathing in fire is always going to be a bad idea).
Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at February 02, 2014 10:37 AM (GmTxn)
179
saw a report that hookers are flocking to NYC to partake in the SB celebration
Urban legend.
Alcohol presents a continuum for use. In small amounts, it has demonstrable positive effects on health.
Hey now. Let's not let facts get in the way of the stoners' self-righteous preening.
Urban legend.
Alcohol presents a continuum for use. In small amounts, it has demonstrable positive effects on health.
Hey now. Let's not let facts get in the way of the stoners' self-righteous preening.
Posted by: HR at February 02, 2014 10:37 AM (hO8IJ)
180
Lost me at "cheerleading." I live in Colorado I do not see anything resembling cheerleading. Maybe the writer does and maybe the writer can has cogent examples in mind, but I have not. Unless "cheerleading" means taking a serious position for freedom and well chuffed when one is finally vindicated then never mind.
Posted by: bour3 at February 02, 2014 10:37 AM (5x3+2)
181
goddamn tarians are artarded and have the worst most reductive arguments. all I can say.
RIP
Posted by: JP at February 02, 2014 10:37 AM (TP6sz)
182
127 -
Heroin is a bit of a practical joker. One of the funny things it will do is force people to go into rehab. These people then stop introducing heroin into their systems for a few days/weeks/months, but this drug, jokester that it is, will have left few traces of itself in their systems.
Which means... when they go back to using, they go back using the amounts they were using before they got clean, and their bodies are physically unable to handle the amount.
They die.
Happens a lot. Heroin thinks it's funny when it does.
Heroin is a bit of a practical joker. One of the funny things it will do is force people to go into rehab. These people then stop introducing heroin into their systems for a few days/weeks/months, but this drug, jokester that it is, will have left few traces of itself in their systems.
Which means... when they go back to using, they go back using the amounts they were using before they got clean, and their bodies are physically unable to handle the amount.
They die.
Happens a lot. Heroin thinks it's funny when it does.
Posted by: BurtTC at February 02, 2014 10:38 AM (BeSEI)
183
While I do not partake of the cannabis sativa, I don't agree on it's danger that has been thrown at the American public for the past 6-7 decades. I also don't think it should be illegal, any more than alcohol or tobacco.
Pills and powders...that bothers me the most.
Pills and powders...that bothers me the most.
Posted by: Underwater Walker at February 02, 2014 10:38 AM (vwjH6)
184
>>>And I believe the cultural bias is a big part of the problem. People will always seek out the forbidden fruit, saw a report that hookers are flocking to NYC to partake in the SB celebration and of course that isn't legal in NY.
De-stigmatize it and I think a big part of the problem goes away. A lot easier to regulate it and control the issues just like we do with alcohol.
...
This is a speculation which is plausible and yet in no ways proved. It is just a speculation. One could just as easily speculate that anti-drug laws dissuade people from trying the forbidden fruit.
And, frankly, I think it is far more plausible that more people are dissuaded by the forbidden fruit's forbiddeness than are attracted to it for its forbiddenness. There is no doubt in my mind that both types exist -- people who wish to stay within social norms and people who actively seek to go outside them. It seems to me a pretty safe guess that there are more of the former than the latter.
Posted by: ace at February 02, 2014 10:38 AM (/FnUH)
185
saw a report that hookers are flocking to NYC to partake in the SB celebration
Urban legend.
***
Yeah. We heard that in Jax too. Didn't happen.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 02, 2014 10:38 AM (DmNpO)
186
Police said they were investigating a death at the home on Bethune St. They were alerted to the death around 11:15 a.m.
A source said Hoffman, a father of three, was found alone with a needle in his arm in the bathroom of the apartment. Sources said the actor used heroin.
Guess the wife and kids were out of town. How tacky! Needle in arm in bathroom.
Posted by: Judge Pug at February 02, 2014 10:39 AM (NRYdU)
187
When you try to save the self-destructive you support self-destructive behavior and give it permission.
Posted by: Holger at February 02, 2014 10:40 AM (rIk1N)
188
the same recovering alcoholic sister runs an AA group for young people after work now. She says pot is more potent now than it was in the 70s and 80s. She sent me two articles, one from Harvard, that said for people predisposed to mental illness, like schizophrenia or bi-polar, pot may act like a "trigger".
Posted by: thunderb at February 02, 2014 10:40 AM (zOTsN)
189
Super Sunday isn't the same when you don't have a wife to beat.
Posted by: garrett at February 02, 2014 10:40 AM (K73ax)
190
I dunno. Maybe one where the citizens aren't stoned or high.
Posted by: grammie winger at February 02, 2014 02:30 PM (P6QsQ)
Or drunk?
Or even just a bit tipsy?
Posted by: eman at February 02, 2014 02:34 PM (AO9UG)
-------
Or nosy, or gossipy or lazy. Or sexually promiscuous.
More laws to pass!
Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at February 02, 2014 10:40 AM (GmTxn)
191
It's a myth that hookers flock to the Super Bowl.
It's up there with the Super Bowl causing wife beating.
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 02, 2014 10:40 AM (ZPrif)
192
I think legalization will lead to more excuse making when something bad happens..a typical liberal out.
No, then we'll need a government program to 'fix' the bad consequences.
Posted by: --- at February 02, 2014 10:40 AM (MMC8r)
193
76 I also don't understand those that HATE cigarette smoking and are obnoxious about it but smoking pot (and pot smoke) is fine.
Posted by: Seems legit at February 02, 2014 02:21 PM (A98Xu)
I don't smoke, but I can't stand cigarette smoke. Pot smoke doesn't bother me for some reason. Neither do cigars. Must be particulate size or something.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 10:40 AM (bb5+k)
194
"I would like the more mature option -- "legal and yet harmful and thus to be avoided" -- to be on the table."
It is on the table, in that it is my personal philosophy (more to the point, "too much risk, too few benefits"). Anyone other than you (or each of us individually) get to decide otherwise?
It is on the table, in that it is my personal philosophy (more to the point, "too much risk, too few benefits"). Anyone other than you (or each of us individually) get to decide otherwise?
Posted by: A message at February 02, 2014 10:40 AM (fFh95)
195
Happens a lot. Heroin thinks it's funny when it does.
Posted by: BurtTC
Interesting stuff that I did not know.
Posted by: BurtTC
Interesting stuff that I did not know.
Posted by: Dang at February 02, 2014 10:40 AM (MNq6o)
196
Another brilliant libtard goes to hell * blows noisemaker and pops hand held confetti fireworks.*
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at February 02, 2014 10:40 AM (JFUyc)
197
In my opinion option 2 will eventually lead to the middle ground ace seeks. Why? One word: Darwinism. The reality is there is a large chunk of the country that is afflicted with terminal stupidity. This is an incurable malady that will follow those who possess it until there dying days. This is usually sooner rather than later, for when one becomes absolutely dedicated to performing needlessly risky and self destructive behavior there is only so much society can do to keep them alive for one more day. Eventually their bad decisions catch up to them, their luck runs out, and the obituary is written. Ultimately, only by allowing enough of the irresponsible adherents of chemical hedonism to die, will the culture shift to shaming and deriding drug use, while still allowing legalization to occur so as end the Drug War and all the nasty side effects that come with it.
Tl; Dr The hopelessly dumb must die so that liberty and sensible drug policies/ cultural values regarding drugs may live.
Tl; Dr The hopelessly dumb must die so that liberty and sensible drug policies/ cultural values regarding drugs may live.
Posted by: Captain_Cookie at February 02, 2014 10:40 AM (qJPSp)
198
Its the socialism that keeps me from endorsing a full legalization or decriminalization of now illicit drugs. I don't even like whatever taxes go to treating alcoholics. Nor the taxes on alcohol either.
Its the socialism that keeps me from endorsing a full legalization or decriminalization of now illicit drugs. I don't even like whatever taxes go to treating alcoholics. Nor the taxes on alcohol either.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 02, 2014 10:41 AM (n0DEs)
199
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 02:27 PM (bb5+k)
D-Lamp,
Someone down the street is 45 or so and lives with his mother, has no job, except with his “band”, no car, smokes weed & cigarettes. He’s a nice guy, but let’s be realistic. If his music career isn’t a hit by now, get a job.
Posted by: Carol at February 02, 2014 10:41 AM (z4WKX)
200
We should point out the reason Terry Bradshaw is not in NY covering the Superbowl is because his father died, I believe of a meth overdose.
Posted by: Dr Spank at February 02, 2014 10:41 AM (P1WNR)
201
A heroin OD is awful.
Weed isn't heroin.
Reefer Madness and Cheech and Chong movies have long dominated and thus, warped the debate on pot legalization for far too long.
Posted by: SGT Ted at February 02, 2014 10:41 AM (gxI+K)
202
I would think any room in the house would more sanitary for IV drug use.
Posted by: Boss Moss at February 02, 2014 10:41 AM (6bMeY)
203
Yeah, bullshit. People can be buzzed, not stoned, from a little marijuana.
You're talking to someone who spent most of the effing 1980s in radio and music. I know what from pot. A little "buzzed" is like the "couple of beers" excuse from someone who just blew a .25 on a breathalyzer.
I'm not going to debate the decriminalization angle. Clearly, we've sent a great many people to prison that shouldn't be there for possession. But let's not pretend hordes of baked people are preferable to hordes of drunks. It's bad for them individually and it's bad for the culture.
You're talking to someone who spent most of the effing 1980s in radio and music. I know what from pot. A little "buzzed" is like the "couple of beers" excuse from someone who just blew a .25 on a breathalyzer.
I'm not going to debate the decriminalization angle. Clearly, we've sent a great many people to prison that shouldn't be there for possession. But let's not pretend hordes of baked people are preferable to hordes of drunks. It's bad for them individually and it's bad for the culture.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 02, 2014 10:41 AM (ltdV/)
204
Circa, #161:
"Hoffman was fantastic in Charlie Wilson's War."
Oh, how did I forget that?
"For twenty-four years, people have been trying to kill me. People who know how. Now, do you think that's because my dad was a Greek soda pop maker, or because I am an American spy? Fuck you, you fucking child!"
Posted by: JPS at February 02, 2014 10:42 AM (9ziuC)
205
>>>Marijuana is a dichotomous choice: You are stoned or not. It also is bad for you period over the long haul.
----
Yeah, bullshit. People can be buzzed, not stoned, from a little marijuana. People can be out of their minds from smoking/ingesting a lot of marijuana (or from having a little when they're not used to it, or having a very potent strain).
...
yeah this is a popular argument -- O'Reilly makes it a lot, and Ann Coulter too -- which I think is belied by facts.
I know pot smokers and many smoke to what we'd call in alcohol terms the buzzed and loose state, not visible inebriation.
Many pot smokers do on occasion smoke to get absolutely zonked out, and problem pot smokers do this all the time.
But I do not think the claim that all pot smokers only smoke to get mentally demolished is true.
I have drank alcohol while others smoked pot. If there was a great difference in our respective levels of intoxication, I didn't notice it.
Posted by: ace at February 02, 2014 10:42 AM (/FnUH)
207
He also played Capote and didn't he win something in Magnolia?
Posted by: Judge Pug at February 02, 2014 10:42 AM (NRYdU)
208
Require zero drug use for people receiving any federally supporting assistance.
Hi, Vic, real world here.
The legalization crowd doesn't get to pick and choose the fantasy legal regime they want to have.
If you remember, just recently Rachel Maddow actually considered it a scandal that a law would be proposed calling for exactly that. And that, in fact, the Koch bros., were enemy #1 for supporting it. (Of course, they weren't but it is considered an article of faith on the left that only the most vile of people would want drug testing for welfare recipients.)
You get what you get in CO and WA. Legalization and nothing else.
Posted by: AmishDude at February 02, 2014 10:42 AM (xSegX)
209
We had and have laws punishing the behaviors attributed to drug abuse. Too many laws is the same as no law.
Posted by: Huggy at February 02, 2014 10:42 AM (4WPfa)
210
Basic rule about laws: If you make something illegal, then only criminals do it.
In other words, laws have little effect on regulating behavior and generally result only in creating more criminals. If someone wants to do something, they will find a way to rationalize it for themselves.
I could care less what is legal or illegal on social issues, since either option has little impact on actions.
It's all about personal responsibility and accountability.
Like the commenter above said, I'm also sick of classifying peoples choices as a disease or disability. If you want to do drugs, you will do drugs. You can also make the choice not to do drugs. (Insert any other behavior or choice in place of drugs and it comes out the same) I really don't care which you choose, so long as it doesn't deteriorate my ability to pursue life, liberty and happiness.
If you do drugs in your backyard and it results in me getting a contact high while mowing my lawn, I have a problem with your behavior and will ask nicely- once- for you to pursue what you are doing in a more responsible way. If you refuse, then I feel that I have every right to take whatever action is necessary to stop your behavior and choices from impacting my life.
Instead of trying to regulate behavior with laws and convey extra "rights" to people for their "disorders", how about we simply make one law that say- do whatever you want, but if it screws with some else's life, they are guaranteed the right to take equal and opposite actions up to the point that the problem is eliminated.
Simple and effective in every scenario.
Posted by: Damiano at February 02, 2014 10:43 AM (j0wOO)
211
Will legalization of more drugs bring harder drugs into the range of acceptability?
Posted by: --- at February 02, 2014 02:25 PM (MMC8r)
Most assuredly. Libertarians are even now arguing for it.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 10:43 AM (bb5+k)
212
This thread would be a lot better if we all socked characters from Dr Strangelove with our comments about the Menace Of Drugs.
I know, I know, serious thread.
I'll leave.
brb, goin to Market Basket..
Posted by: soothsayer at February 02, 2014 10:43 AM (w0eFo)
214
Based on nothing but five decades of paying attention, and some passing associations with Hollywood folks, my take is that a good many of our "stars" these days are surrounded by enablers and takers, who not only indulge the stars' impulses to do drugs in excess but who facilitate the procurement of the drugs and hide most of what goes on from a press and a public that doesn't want to come to grips with how out of control things have become, especially in Hollywood and NYC.
To illustrate how pernicious and pervasive these paths to ODs have become among the star-class, pause for a moment and try to list even ten morally upstanding Hollywood A-List stars.
Posted by: Don't OD on my law at February 02, 2014 10:44 AM (5Q1ZU)
215
Damn. Now we need to find someone else to play Hillary in the propaganda film we're putting out in 2016!
Posted by: Hollywood at February 02, 2014 10:44 AM (1j9qS)
216
Posted by: soothsayer at February 02, 2014 02:43 PM (w0eFo)
Posted by: Holger at February 02, 2014 10:45 AM (rIk1N)
217
94 What kind do society do we want?
One that maximizes freedom and lives with the consequences, or one that minimizes freedom and lives with the consequences?
I pick the former, while I am still free to do so.
Posted by: eman at February 02, 2014 02:25 PM (AO9UG)
How about one that weighs consequences and optimizes probabilities?
Social morality evolved over thousands of years of human history and the parts we kept are the parts that worked.
Evolution in action.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 10:45 AM (bb5+k)
218
Will legalization of more drugs bring harder drugs into the range of acceptability?
This is our concern, Dude.
Posted by: Brent at February 02, 2014 10:45 AM (K73ax)
219
Our bodies make 2-3 ounces of alcohol a day, all natural.
Just to be sure I supplement most days, just be safe. Like a vitamin pill.
Alcohol, MJ, LSD, and hallucinogenic containing plants/fungus are, RELATIVELY SPEAKING, the least medically harmful of the recreational drugs. Responsible low end use in safe settings that don't involve operating machinery or shopping Amazon Prime with a credit card on file is fine for those that can self limit.
The problem is when those that can't self limit due to genetics and/or social reasons go overboard and injure themselves and society...
How do we allow yet restrict?
Just to be sure I supplement most days, just be safe. Like a vitamin pill.
Alcohol, MJ, LSD, and hallucinogenic containing plants/fungus are, RELATIVELY SPEAKING, the least medically harmful of the recreational drugs. Responsible low end use in safe settings that don't involve operating machinery or shopping Amazon Prime with a credit card on file is fine for those that can self limit.
The problem is when those that can't self limit due to genetics and/or social reasons go overboard and injure themselves and society...
How do we allow yet restrict?
Posted by: OG Celtic-American at February 02, 2014 10:45 AM (vHRtU)
220
The important thing is the Jennifer Garner is still smoking hot.
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 02, 2014 10:45 AM (ZPrif)
221
You're talking to someone who spent most of the effing 1980s in radio and music. I know what from pot. A little "buzzed" is like the "couple of beers" excuse from someone who just blew a .25 on a breathalyzer.
I'm not going to debate the decriminalization angle. Clearly, we've sent a great many people to prison that shouldn't be there for possession. But let's not pretend hordes of baked people are preferable to hordes of drunks. It's bad for them individually and it's bad for the culture.
***
It is a truly wonderful fact that most Morons did not grow up in an environment filled with drugs. Those of us who did, however, have seen the damage it does, first-hand, and KNOW that weed is, indeed, a gateway drug.
I will remain open-minded to the debate but I am willing to admit that I am likely to remain very skeptical of the arguments for legalizing it.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 02, 2014 10:45 AM (DmNpO)
222
Posted by: soothsayer at February 02, 2014 02:43 PM (w0eFo)
Mr President! We cannot afford a crystal meth gap!
There, happy?
Posted by: General Buck Turgidson at February 02, 2014 10:46 AM (rIk1N)
223
Pot was outlawed in the 30s largely as an excuse to continue employing Prohibition agents during a period of economic distress.
Boy, I've heard a lot of the Great Pot Conspiracies but this is a new one.
Posted by: AmishDude at February 02, 2014 10:46 AM (xSegX)
224
>>This is a speculation which is plausible and yet in no ways proved. It is just a speculation. One could just as easily speculate that anti-drug laws dissuade people from trying the forbidden fruit.
Well sure it is, many of the argument both pro and con for legalizing weed are speculation.
But its not like we don't have real working examples. Even if you don't buy the prohibition example, which I find pretty compelling, we can look at Amsterdam or what is happening in Colorado and Washington.
Amsterdam has been selling weed for years and the city hasn't completely crumbled. Just the opposite, its a very prosperous tourist mecca. And theres little point in buying the stuff on the black market when you can walk into any of numerous coffee shops and order from a menu of choices perfectly legally.
I suspect we will see a lot more states going the route of Colorado unless there is an unforeseen breakout of reefer madness.
Posted by: JackStraw at February 02, 2014 10:46 AM (g1DWB)
225
The important thing is the Jennifer Garner is still smoking hot.
****
I noticed how very Jackie-O she looked last night.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 02, 2014 10:46 AM (DmNpO)
226
How about one that weighs consequences and optimizes probabilities?
No, thanks.
Live your life and I'll live mine.
Posted by: garrett at February 02, 2014 10:46 AM (K73ax)
227
Hey there are set of keys attached to a kubotan down here... there's a p-38 on the key ring... anybodies?
Posted by: OG Celtic-American at February 02, 2014 10:46 AM (vHRtU)
228
Oh no. I loved the guy in "Charlie Wilson's War".
Posted by: boulder terlit hobo at February 02, 2014 10:47 AM (30eLQ)
229
Just speaking for me personally, I've never smoked pot because it's illegal and I have a family and I don't want to risk going to jail over something so stupid.
However, if I were in a place were it were legal, and I did not have my kids with me, I may do it once or twice.
So legalization takes me from the "never ever ever" camp to the "sure, why not try it out on vacation" camp. I don't know if that's a positive thing for society, but I can't imagine that I'm the only one who feels this way.
Posted by: Lauren at February 02, 2014 10:47 AM (hFL/3)
230
>> And, frankly, I think it is far more plausible that more people are dissuaded by the forbidden fruit's forbiddeness than are attracted to it for its forbiddenness.
Many of those attracted to it (for whatever reason) have been doing a decades-long marketing job to make the forbidden fruit more attractive, or at least to say "Your parents are liars."
Posted by: Meekle at February 02, 2014 10:47 AM (kqHcW)
232
He was found in NYC, where the prohibition is still in full effect. So clearly prohibition does nothing to stop this, which we already knew. The laws in place have never worked, do not work, and will never work. Maybe the problem will get worse without prohibition, but certainly it will never go away with prohibition. I suspect that it would get worse for a little while, until people see first hand and for themselves that things like the "faces of Meth" aren't just propoganda. Eventually, things will settle down to about the current levels of use, but without the gang-crime and armed-for-WWIV SWAT teams.
Some people sniff glue. Hundreds die every year from it, according to the National Inhalant Prevention Coalition (though obviously they have an interest in that number). Should we outlaw glue? It's even glamourized: Ramones, "Now I Wanna Sniff Some Glue;" Lloyd Bridges in 'Airplane!', "Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue!" Most glue victims are children, we have to do something FOR THE CHILDREN. Right?
The fact is, you can't have a law that protects people from their own stupid choices.
Posted by: The Atom Bomb of Loving Kindness at February 02, 2014 10:47 AM (jqHOY)
233
Jennifer Garner has been on ESPN all week, promoting something I assume, probably a sports movie. She appears to have not aged.
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 02, 2014 10:48 AM (ZPrif)
236
The problem with legalization is that the Childish among us, the Liberals, will still want society to be there for the Self-Destructive. These are the people who want their cake and eat it to.
A much more mature option: We legalize it, but we will not protect you from your own behavior. You OD, the parameds do not come to save your life, they come to take you to the coroner because you will not suck up resources for more responsible people.
Posted by: Harvrath at February 02, 2014 10:49 AM (rIk1N)
237
This thread would be a lot better if we all socked characters from Dr Strangelove with our comments about the Menace Of Drugs.
I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed, Mister President, but I do say not more than ten to twenty million dead depending on the breaks.
Posted by: Gen. Buck Turgidson at February 02, 2014 10:49 AM (MMC8r)
238
Laws or no laws, if you do something that diminishes your capacity to think rationally, you are putting yourself in a potentially dangerous situation. Could be wine, could be beer, could be pot, could be heroin, could be crack. Doesn't matter. Genetics plays a part, but sensible adults do not, as a general rule, get stoned or drunk or whatever and then expect to be able to be productive members of society. They do so in order to NOT be.
Those of us who live with chronic alcoholics or stoners know that it doesn't matter the vehicle, the result is the same. Just because I CAN drive 55 mph on an ice-covered highway doesn't mean I should do so. Either way, society is gonna end up bailing my ass out, or delivering me to the morgue.
Those of us who live with chronic alcoholics or stoners know that it doesn't matter the vehicle, the result is the same. Just because I CAN drive 55 mph on an ice-covered highway doesn't mean I should do so. Either way, society is gonna end up bailing my ass out, or delivering me to the morgue.
Posted by: tcn at February 02, 2014 10:49 AM (fwcEs)
239
I'm not even gonna dignify that with a response.
PSH: Yeah, yeah, you're dignifying her in the ass at the Jefferson Hotel, room 1210
PSH: Yeah, yeah, you're dignifying her in the ass at the Jefferson Hotel, room 1210
Posted by: boulder terlit hobo at February 02, 2014 10:49 AM (30eLQ)
240
Jennifer Garner has been on ESPN all week, promoting something I assume, probably a sports movie. She appears to have not aged.
***
And despite being married to that ass, she remains as charming as ever.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 02, 2014 10:49 AM (DmNpO)
241
For a while they were doing this campaign in the UK where they were publishing photos of heroin ODs. These were mostly young kids in dorm rooms. It was not a pretty sight. Very sad.
Posted by: Judge Pug at February 02, 2014 10:49 AM (NRYdU)
242
214
This thread would be a lot better if we all socked characters from Dr Strangelove with our comments about the Menace Of Drugs.
I know, I know, serious thread.
I'll leave.
brb, goin to Market Basket..
Posted by: soothsayer at February 02, 2014 02:43 PM (w0eFo)
********
That would be ***** buckets of awesome.
Posted by: George Orwell's Ghost at February 02, 2014 10:49 AM (RJMhd)
243
>>Basic rule about laws: If you make something illegal, then only criminals do it.
>>In other words, laws have little effect on regulating behavior and generally result only in creating more criminals
The consequences of breaking laws regulate behavior. If your law is failing to regulate, you either have a problem on the enforcement end (corrupt cops, or the law itself has effectively become a slush fund for police departments, which is what happened to the "war on drugs") or the consequences are not severe enough. We seem to have difficulty with accepting severe consequences any more. Remember what a felony used to be.
>>In other words, laws have little effect on regulating behavior and generally result only in creating more criminals
The consequences of breaking laws regulate behavior. If your law is failing to regulate, you either have a problem on the enforcement end (corrupt cops, or the law itself has effectively become a slush fund for police departments, which is what happened to the "war on drugs") or the consequences are not severe enough. We seem to have difficulty with accepting severe consequences any more. Remember what a felony used to be.
Posted by: kartoffel at February 02, 2014 10:50 AM (07vvi)
244
Zurich's six year experiment that may have some relation to the current situation in the United States where certain areas are more tolerant of drug use. To whit to reduce the incidence of HIV amongst needle users, Zurich started to distribute clean needles while relaxing police enforcement in a designated area. It went about as well as refugees in the Super Dome.
http://opioids.com/switzerland/needle-park.html
Letter to the editor New York Times about Zurich's Needle Park.
http://tinyurl.com/l42k6ad
http://opioids.com/switzerland/needle-park.html
Letter to the editor New York Times about Zurich's Needle Park.
http://tinyurl.com/l42k6ad
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 02, 2014 10:50 AM (DTrmb)
245
Just stick the drugs on the same aisle as the poison and let people have as much as they want. It is a self-limiting problem within a generation if these substances are as bad as they seem to be. The only drugs there is a legitimate societal interest in controlling would be ones like antibiotics where their efficacy is tied to how commonly they are used.
Drug addiction is a health problem and should be between a person and their doctor. There will be less harm to innocent third parties if their use is not criminalized, and the state really has no justification for preventing someone from harming themselves. People do dangerous, self-destructive things all the time. It is not for us to choose which activities they engage in. We can counsel them, and warn them, but ultimately they must decide whether the risks of rock climbing, auto racing, hanging off towers, taking drugs, voting socialist, having unprotected sex etc... is worth it to them.
I don't even drink myself, but I don't feel the need to make that decision for everyone else.
Drug addiction is a health problem and should be between a person and their doctor. There will be less harm to innocent third parties if their use is not criminalized, and the state really has no justification for preventing someone from harming themselves. People do dangerous, self-destructive things all the time. It is not for us to choose which activities they engage in. We can counsel them, and warn them, but ultimately they must decide whether the risks of rock climbing, auto racing, hanging off towers, taking drugs, voting socialist, having unprotected sex etc... is worth it to them.
I don't even drink myself, but I don't feel the need to make that decision for everyone else.
Posted by: Thatch at February 02, 2014 10:50 AM (qYvEa)
246
I heard Pot was outlawed in 1927 the same year they outlawed Tesla's free energy and the zero-emission electric car!! It was Big Oil, Big Alcohol, and the Freemasons, man!
Posted by: It's True Man! at February 02, 2014 10:50 AM (ZPrif)
247
u're talking to someone who spent most of the effing 1980s in radio and music. I know what from pot. A little "buzzed" is like the "couple of beers" excuse from someone who just blew a .25 on a breathalyzer.
----
Dude. You're not the only person here who's tried pot, or grew up with it around. Yes, there is a difference between having a little pot and having a lot. It is possible to be "buzzed" and not "stoned" just like it's possible to be "buzzed" and not "drunk". Now, I don't think people who are "buzzed" on alcohol or weed are safe to drive, but it's silly to pretend that it's a dichotomous "you're either stone-cold sober or stoned" thing.
Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at February 02, 2014 10:51 AM (GmTxn)
248
>>>saw a report that hookers are flocking to NYC to partake in the SB celebration
Urban legend.
***
Yeah. We heard that in Jax too. Didn't happen.
...
it's hard for me to believe it doesn't happen. I think it's well known that many Vegas prostitutes actually live in southern california, near the beaches, and fly in for the weekends.
I know anecdotally from several SoCal'ers that it's always nice to take a Friday flight to vegas, because the plane is fairly studded with hot young women traveling alone.
Posted by: ace at February 02, 2014 10:51 AM (/FnUH)
250
#81
On the two occasions I spent a week in Amsterdam I noticed that a lot of the obvious junkies were also not locals. They'd speak with plainly American or UK accents. I suspect the problem for the Netherlands is their policies caused them to become a magnet for druggies from all over Europe and North America, with the collection of human debris becoming too annoying to tolerate any longer.
Colorado may see the same effect. You'd get the same problem with anything else a portion of the populace cannot handle responsibly. Imagine if there were only a small portion of the country that didn't outlaw gun ownership. That region would attract a lot of people who place a high priority on gun ownership. A certain portion of those people would be the sort of idiots who cannot exercise the responsibility to be trusted with a gun and you'd soon have a disproportionate amount of gun-related violence. At least, until the idiots had had managed to convince their neighbors to shoot them and make everyone safer.
Now, if the entire EU had adopted the same policies, no one place would see the concentration of wastoids Amsterdam received. They'd just all have their native portion.
I don't know what can be done about those wired to self-destruct, much as there is no easy answer for those unable to regulate their food intake when surrounded by abundance they weren't evolved to enjoy. Criminalization only appears to serve to make evil people wealthy without much or any reduction in the problem.
On the two occasions I spent a week in Amsterdam I noticed that a lot of the obvious junkies were also not locals. They'd speak with plainly American or UK accents. I suspect the problem for the Netherlands is their policies caused them to become a magnet for druggies from all over Europe and North America, with the collection of human debris becoming too annoying to tolerate any longer.
Colorado may see the same effect. You'd get the same problem with anything else a portion of the populace cannot handle responsibly. Imagine if there were only a small portion of the country that didn't outlaw gun ownership. That region would attract a lot of people who place a high priority on gun ownership. A certain portion of those people would be the sort of idiots who cannot exercise the responsibility to be trusted with a gun and you'd soon have a disproportionate amount of gun-related violence. At least, until the idiots had had managed to convince their neighbors to shoot them and make everyone safer.
Now, if the entire EU had adopted the same policies, no one place would see the concentration of wastoids Amsterdam received. They'd just all have their native portion.
I don't know what can be done about those wired to self-destruct, much as there is no easy answer for those unable to regulate their food intake when surrounded by abundance they weren't evolved to enjoy. Criminalization only appears to serve to make evil people wealthy without much or any reduction in the problem.
Posted by: Epobirs at February 02, 2014 10:51 AM (bPxS6)
252
One element to add to the legalize side of the equation is that people would be less likely to OD if the quality of the drug was regulated. When buying street drugs, the purity and the composition of the substance used to cut the drug are going to vary widely. If it were legal, it would be like the alcohol market.
During prohibition, people were blinded and killed by consuming wood alcohol and other adulterated mixes. True, people today still overindulge and still injure or kill themselves with alcohol, but it is very rare for anyone to be harmed because the alcohol they bought was something different then what they thought they were buying.
During prohibition, people were blinded and killed by consuming wood alcohol and other adulterated mixes. True, people today still overindulge and still injure or kill themselves with alcohol, but it is very rare for anyone to be harmed because the alcohol they bought was something different then what they thought they were buying.
Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at February 02, 2014 10:51 AM (IN7k+)
253
Do you know kids are now making a "tea" out of opium. under the theory if you don't smoke it or shoot it, its not so bad. Kids are going to rehab for addiction to this "tea". My sister works with a guy whose kid has been to rehab twice for this tea. Doesn't help his sobriety that the Dad and his sister are chronic pot smokers, and they smoke with the kid when he is home from rehab. In CA. Cause pot is "harmless".
Posted by: thunderb at February 02, 2014 10:51 AM (zOTsN)
254
Anyhoo, PSH's death is definitely something to keep in mind for those going to and, more to the point, driving back from Super Bowl parties this evening
Posted by: boulder terlit hobo at February 02, 2014 10:51 AM (30eLQ)
255
Don't want my tax dollars going to investigate/prosecute/incarcerate dumbasses that want to fry their brains.
Those resources would be better spend going after violence and theft.
Posted by: Jose at February 02, 2014 10:52 AM (zc/sw)
256
Sorry, libertarians, I don't want to be around significant numbers of stoners anymore.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 02, 2014 02:33 PM (ltdV/)
It does get old.
Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at February 02, 2014 10:52 AM (apWU9)
257
Guess the wife and kids were out of town. How tacky! Needle in arm in bathroom.
Posted by: Judge Pug at February 02, 2014 02:39 PM (NRYdU)
Sometimes referred to as "The Lenny Bruce Gambit".
Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at February 02, 2014 10:52 AM (oFCZn)
258
219 94 What kind do society do we want?
One that maximizes freedom and lives with the consequences, or one that minimizes freedom and lives with the consequences?
I pick the former, while I am still free to do so.
Posted by: eman at February 02, 2014 02:25 PM (AO9UG)
How about one that weighs consequences and optimizes probabilities?
Social morality evolved over thousands of years of human history and the parts we kept are the parts that worked.
Evolution in action.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 02:45 PM (bb5+k)
Right. That is why you maximize freedom.
That is how it is done in nature.
Every squirrel is free to walk up to a bobcat and slap it in the face.
Posted by: eman at February 02, 2014 10:52 AM (AO9UG)
259
Sounds like ace's dealer is out to town.
This is way to heavy for a football weekend,
Let' see some elbows and a elbow poll.
SERIOUSLY.
Posted by: Nip Sip at February 02, 2014 10:52 AM (0FSuD)
260
"Should we outlaw glue? "
They pretty strictly regulate the sale of products that are used for that sort of thing. Just ask a sad AP student who just got turned down while trying to buy some spray paint for her project.
Posted by: Lauren at February 02, 2014 10:53 AM (hFL/3)
261
I think we need to see how pot use among age groups changes in Colorado and Washington. it needs to be closely tracked and monitoring and all raw data collected must be released to the public.
Commercial production, wholesale distribution and retail sales end user date must be available to the general public.
Beer, wine and liquor are regulated and taxed by percent alcohol content. I'd like to see a comparable system for marijuana THC content per ounce.
Low THC comparable to 3.2% - 6% beer.
Medium THC comparable to 7-15% barleywine/wine.
High THC comparable to grain alcohol.
Commercial production, wholesale distribution and retail sales end user date must be available to the general public.
Beer, wine and liquor are regulated and taxed by percent alcohol content. I'd like to see a comparable system for marijuana THC content per ounce.
Low THC comparable to 3.2% - 6% beer.
Medium THC comparable to 7-15% barleywine/wine.
High THC comparable to grain alcohol.
Posted by: 13times at February 02, 2014 10:53 AM (fGPLK)
262
250 -
Yeah, I don't know about SB week, but I knew a guy in NYC who was "friends" with a tranny hooker. He said she would more or less disappear during fleet week.
Hookers are in business to do business. Why would they NOT flock to NYC during Super Bowl week?
Yeah, I don't know about SB week, but I knew a guy in NYC who was "friends" with a tranny hooker. He said she would more or less disappear during fleet week.
Hookers are in business to do business. Why would they NOT flock to NYC during Super Bowl week?
Posted by: BurtTC at February 02, 2014 10:53 AM (BeSEI)
263
Detroit is a de facto drug park we should just put up the fences...
Posted by: OG Celtic-American at February 02, 2014 10:53 AM (vHRtU)
264
The important thing is the Jennifer Garner is still smoking hot.
This is as good an argument against drug use as I can think of. She's always struck me as gaunt and horsey.
This is as good an argument against drug use as I can think of. She's always struck me as gaunt and horsey.
Posted by: pep at February 02, 2014 10:53 AM (6TB1Z)
265
Possession of mary jane in Amsterdam is illegal, it's just not prosecuted if you possess like 5 grams or less.
Posted by: Dr Spank at February 02, 2014 10:54 AM (P1WNR)
266
Personally, I don't care if someone wants to stick a needle in their arm, stuff cocaine up their nose or work at contracting every known STD on the planet.
I just don't want to pay for the consequences of their dissipated lifestyle. When they show up in the emergency room with abscesses due to shooting up with dirty/shared needles they best have the ability to pay for treatment. Same goes for whatever STD that's been contracted for whatever reason.
I'm dead set against people doing drugs and hopping from bed to bed. However, it is not my job to protect stupid people from doing stupid things. Nor is it my financial responsibility, though my government seems to think otherwise.
Posted by: Blake at February 02, 2014 10:54 AM (rvVUZ)
267
210 You get what you get in CO and WA. Legalization and nothing else.
Posted by: AmishDude at February 02, 2014 02:42 PM (xSegX)
I guess you didn't read the part where I said IF I had my way. And yes, since the progressive era started in the early 1900s we have steadily eroded to a police State and the odds of changing that are almost nil.
Why? Because too many people want their way and their own favorite bans on evil by their own perception and too few just want to be left alone and not taxed to death to support the thugs knocking down doors to kill grandma and her dog.
Posted by: Vic[/i] at February 02, 2014 10:54 AM (T2V/1)
268
"Survival kit contents check. In them you'll find:
- One forty-five caliber automatic
- Two boxes of ammunition
- Four days' concentrated emergency rations
- One drug issue containing antibiotics, morphine, vitamin pills, pep pills, sleeping pills, tranquilizer pills, crystal meth, crack cocaine, cocaine powder, one vial of LSD, 6 pills of Ecstasy, one dime-bag of Mary Juana
- One miniature combination Russian phrase book and Bible
- One hundred dollars in rubles
- One hundred dollars in gold
- Nine packs of chewing gum, nine packs of nicotine gum
- One issue of prophylactics
- One Bottle of Viagra
- Three lipsticks
- Three pair of nylon stockings.
Shoot, a fella' could have a pretty good weekend in the White House with all that stuff."
Posted by: Major Kong at February 02, 2014 10:54 AM (rIk1N)
269
I don't mind sitting back for a few years and see how Washington state shapes up.
Of course, I would love to have defined expectations for "Success" and another for "Failure"
Of course, I would love to have defined expectations for "Success" and another for "Failure"
Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at February 02, 2014 10:55 AM (w3OHe)
270
Jack, I favor experimental decriminalization.
What I am arguing against is this idea that there is literally no downside to it.
Or almost none.
That's the way people talk when they're speaking as political advocates -- there is no downside to my policy, there is only upside.
Political advocacy always makes every argument dumber and cruder and less honest.
My position, which is probably somewhat close to yours, is simply: "Yes, let's try decriminalization for pot, but let's not propagate this false and dangerous idea that there is NO downside to heavy pot use."
One can think something should be legal while also thinking the population should have its eyes open about the downsides and risks of it.
Posted by: ace at February 02, 2014 10:55 AM (/FnUH)
272
162 Switzerland decriminalized drugs to the point of handing out needles and I think drugs. Very shortly they had addicts all over their very tidy parks and public spaces
Posted by: thunderb at February 02, 2014 02:34 PM (zOTsN)
Funny how that's an obscure case that would be directly analogous to our situation and never discussed by the pro (legalization) media.
Or, not.....
Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at February 02, 2014 10:55 AM (apWU9)
273
and yet I have no desire to get high at all, and when I was in more more social phase and would go out with people, I was constantly offered pot (it was ubiquitous) and always turned it down.
i can't scold you for making this claim -- an attack on the character of the persons advancing the position, rather than the position -- because i used to say this all the time myself.
Still. It's not true.
Posted by: ace at February 02, 2014 02:25 PM (/FnUH)
To you the topic is abstract and theoretical. To the ones to whom i'm referring, it is real and immediate.
I am pointing out that what they are doing is rationalization, not opining on objective principles.
As others have pointed out many times, Libertarians only seem to focus primarily on this, and not many far more ubiquitous and worse abuses of our freedoms.
Their interest in Libertarian principles only seems to extend to drugs and sex, but not to taxation, regulation, and overreach by the state.
Present company excepted of course. You have written many articles detailing other infringements of freedom far above and beyond the issue of drugs.
But you are not the usual Libertarian, at least not from my experience.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 10:55 AM (bb5+k)
274
She's always struck me as gaunt and horsey.
Yeah. She's Hot.
Posted by: Matthew Broderick at February 02, 2014 10:56 AM (K73ax)
275
A personal assistant found Hoffman in his underwear on a bathroom floor at 35 Bethune St. and called 911 around 11:30 a.m., sources said
Is this a new name for your mistress/misterist?
Someone doing heroin is not right. Remind me again who the fuck this guy is and why ace is upset?
Posted by: Nip Sip at February 02, 2014 10:56 AM (0FSuD)
276
there are hookers gearing up for the superbowl
there was a story in the NYPost a couple of days ago about people buying Superbowl "packages" of hookers and cocaine. Resulted in big arrests
When the NBA Allstar game was in Houston last fall, the whole city was flooded with hookers
Posted by: thunderb at February 02, 2014 10:56 AM (zOTsN)
277
You can't assume away the Welfare State and not count those costs.
If we legalize drugs the Welfare State is not going to go away, the # of deadbeats will go up, and you will be paying for their food, rent, and utility bills. And for their rehab.
If you want a change in policy you have to deal realistically with the costs that will incur in the real world. You can't just pretend those costs won't happen cause some other implausible policy change will happen, like eliminating the Welfare State.
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 02, 2014 10:57 AM (ZPrif)
278
@252
Imagine if there were only a small portion of the country that didn't outlaw gun ownership. That region would attract a lot of people who place a high priority on gun ownership.
Which is also the argument made by Bloomberg and the other nannystaters about VA. Gun control would totally work if they couldn't come to VA to buy their guns.
Imagine if there were only a small portion of the country that didn't outlaw gun ownership. That region would attract a lot of people who place a high priority on gun ownership.
Which is also the argument made by Bloomberg and the other nannystaters about VA. Gun control would totally work if they couldn't come to VA to buy their guns.
Posted by: pep at February 02, 2014 10:58 AM (6TB1Z)
279
I believe there's also been a backlash in the Netherlands against easy access to drugs and drug tourism.
Posted by: Dr Spank at February 02, 2014 10:58 AM (P1WNR)
280
Obviously Jennifer Garner has mental issues (as do most actresses) look who she friggen married. He's several braids short of a Thai stick.
Posted by: Seems legit at February 02, 2014 10:58 AM (A98Xu)
281
Such a loss to the acting world. I've never been a great fan of PSH's films since they're not to my taste, but there's no arguing that he was incredibly talented. Rest in peace, sir.
The prohibitionists claim that the country (and its media) is simply not mature enough, or nuanced enough it its thinking, to simultaneously campaign for decriminalization while also remaining anti-drug-use as a social/cultural/personal matter.
I'm reminded of this particular post over at Twitchy, about some music person named "Wiz" (yes, I'm very unhip and thus have no fucking clue who he is) who is apparently well-known for being ubiquitously stoned out of his gourd. So when he showed up on the Grammy's red carpet in sunglasses and clearly higher than a kite, everyone just treated it like, "Meh." I cant' speak for anyone else, but I have a problem with that.
TWITCHY: http://tinyurl.com/kqo8jzp
A sample tweet:
Wiz is clear high right now and gives no fuxs smh meanwhile Amber is giggling about it. Cute couple#Grammys—
Dr. Diva (@GiftedAndBlk) January 27, 2014
Yes. Adorable.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/i][/b] at February 02, 2014 10:58 AM (CA2NO)
282
193I think legalization will lead to more excuse making when something bad happens..a typical liberal out.
No, then we'll need a government program to 'fix' the bad consequences.
...case in point
Posted by: Puncher at February 02, 2014 10:58 AM (LhAqq)
283
Partaking of illegal drugs illustrates a lack of intelligence as well as a disregard for one's life and what you mean to others. Selfish prick.
Never have possessed a desire for any illegal drug.
Sticking a needle in me or smoking something that some stranger gave to me in a back alley is not my idea of fun.
Posted by: The Man from Athens at February 02, 2014 10:59 AM (RXQ2T)
284
it's hard for me to believe it doesn't happen. I think it's well known that many Vegas prostitutes actually live in southern california, near the beaches, and fly in for the weekends.
I know anecdotally from several SoCal'ers that it's always nice to take a Friday flight to vegas, because the plane is fairly studded with hot young women traveling alone.
****
My guess would be that if prostitutes are imported, they are the "dates" of those who attend rather than solicitors in hotel bars.
I am completely pulling this out of my ass, but I would think that with the increased police presence associated with an event such as the SB, combined with an unfamiliarity with local laws, customs, and layout f the town/businesses would make it more risky to pull off for out-of-towners.
I bet, however, that the locals clean up.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 02, 2014 10:59 AM (DmNpO)
285
- One Bottle of Viagra
Viagra does not come in a bottle, you have to say how many pills you want.
A friend told me.
Posted by: Nip Sip at February 02, 2014 10:59 AM (0FSuD)
286
Nip Sip, he was a legitimately good actor.
Posted by: Lauren at February 02, 2014 10:59 AM (hFL/3)
287
>Yeah. We heard that in Jax too. Didn't happen.
Accept it is happening.
>>Sitting in an operations center outside Washington, Josh Gearheart and his team have spent the last week tracing the digital footprints of Super Bowl sex traffickers with the same technology he once used to hunt insurgents in Afghanistan.
>>PraescientÂ’s team is scooping up reams of Internet data -- from telephone numbers in online ads to the coded language pimps use to signal the availability of an underage girl -- in the lead-up to this weekendÂ’s game at MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey. Preliminary data collected by the project show that prostitutes are being transported to the area from over half the states in the U.S.
http://tinyurl.com/lx3fn77
Posted by: JackStraw at February 02, 2014 10:59 AM (g1DWB)
288
when the oldest thunderboy is holding forth with opinions without facts, I tell him he is suffering from an "Affecktation"
Posted by: thunderb at February 02, 2014 10:59 AM (zOTsN)
289
>>>Social morality evolved over thousands of years of human history and the parts we kept are the parts that worked.
Evolution in action.
...
Eh. This is also an argument to keep abortion legal, then.
Your argument that society's current biases and beliefs are essentially teleologically perfect (in as much as we "evolve" towards the "perfect set of laws," and the best laws are the most current, as they are the most "highly evolved") would require you, if you were to apply this idea seriously, to accept every facet of current law, including abortion and Obamacare.
Rather than believing that society naturally "evolves' perfect laws and so the current regime is the most perfect, I prefer to believe that society is frequently stupid and always has been and so I can pick and choose which laws should be kept and which repealed.
Posted by: ace at February 02, 2014 10:59 AM (/FnUH)
290
Remember, email, tweet and FB against Animal Planet and the Puppy Bowl because they have Mooch the Scrunt on doing the endzone dance and giving out puppy soup recipes...
Posted by: OG Celtic-American at February 02, 2014 11:00 AM (vHRtU)
291
My cousin was a heroin addict. I didn't know until a few years ago. She has been clean for years and is a good person, she told me some stories that curled my hair. Thank God she came out of it. She always was and still is my favorite cousin.
Posted by: Infidel at February 02, 2014 11:00 AM (6bvBO)
293
What I am arguing against is this idea that there is literally no downside to it.
Or almost none.
Me, too, Ace. A logical libertarian philosophical upshot of legalization is an accompanying "if you screw up, you're screwed" set of policies. We're not there in ANY part of our current private mores or public policies right now.
Beware unforeseen consequences. They are legion.
Or almost none.
Me, too, Ace. A logical libertarian philosophical upshot of legalization is an accompanying "if you screw up, you're screwed" set of policies. We're not there in ANY part of our current private mores or public policies right now.
Beware unforeseen consequences. They are legion.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 02, 2014 11:00 AM (ltdV/)
295
We have lost this war. The rate of usage may go up short term, but as Darwin exerts himself it will go back down. What evidence do I have? Before the government got involved there was no law against most of these drugs and there was no great problem other than a few localities like SF where the Chinese brought in the opium dens.
Posted by: Vic at February 02, 2014 02:30 PM (T2V/1)
Vic, I normally value your opinion, but I think you need to read up on the history of Opium in China. It is my recollection that by 1900, Opium addiction in the adult male population of the province of Manchuria reached 50%. (I believe I found that factoid at DrugLibrary.org.)
China was utterly destroyed by Opium. You can argue drugs are not a Federal matter, but that presupposes they don't constitute an existential threat.
History argues the converse.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 11:01 AM (bb5+k)
296
I know that here in Baltimore, the number of deaths due to overdosing has jumped significantly.
And the rumor on the streets is that it's an unusually pure grade mixed with some kind of painkiller, like fentanyl.
37 dead in the last 90 days or so.
Reminds me of that Blue Bloods episode from last year about the uncut stuff killing people left and right.
And the rumor on the streets is that it's an unusually pure grade mixed with some kind of painkiller, like fentanyl.
37 dead in the last 90 days or so.
Reminds me of that Blue Bloods episode from last year about the uncut stuff killing people left and right.
Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at February 02, 2014 11:01 AM (w3OHe)
297
>>>As others have pointed out many times, Libertarians only seem to focus primarily on this, and not many far more ubiquitous and worse abuses of our freedoms.
Reason magazine has covered Obamacare frequently and harshly. As they have vigorously covered the NSA scandal, Obama's executive power grabs, etc.
The less one knows about a group the more one's imagination is free to conceive of them as buffoons, miscreants, and monsters.
You seem to be basing your claims on uninformed legends.
Posted by: ace at February 02, 2014 11:02 AM (/FnUH)
298
The hooker problem is real. Just remember that a good portion of the girls are underage and are essentially sex slaves.
Posted by: Lauren at February 02, 2014 11:02 AM (hFL/3)
299
Second best character actor living (when he was living).
Stanley Tucci is the best
Really?
Posted by: Brian Dennehy at February 02, 2014 11:02 AM (K73ax)
301
From wikipedia's entry on sniffin' glue:
"In the tragicomedy Love Liza, the main character, played by Philip Seymour Hoffman, plays a man who takes up building remote-controlled airplanes as a hobby to give him an excuse to sniff the fuel in the wake of his wife's suicide."
"Sniffing glue" also includes the propellant in cheezwhiz, gasoline, butane, aromatics in paints, the ink in sharpie pens, and a thousand other things. "They pretty strictly regulate the sale of products that are used for that sort of thing. Just ask a sad AP student who just got turned down while trying to buy some spray paint for her project." And yet I'm sure the abuse continues at about the same level as before, just now with more inconvenience and fewer rights for everyone else.
Posted by: The Atom Bomb of Loving Kindness at February 02, 2014 11:02 AM (jqHOY)
302
The missus - who told me this, I wasn't there - was smoking outside a building while wearing a fanny pack under a long winter coat, and so looked as though she might be pregnant, when some female busybody came up to her and said, "You must really hate your baby by smoking like that."
Upon hearing this, I told her that her retort ought to have been, "You must really hate your face by failing to mind your own business because, sooner or later, someone is going to punch it."
Posted by: Krebs v Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars™ [/i] [/b] [/s] at February 02, 2014 11:03 AM (HsTG8)
303
In my family, which is predisposed to addictive behavior, the alcoholics seem to become alcoholic in their later years. It developed over time. The stoners were stoners right away
Posted by: thunderb at February 02, 2014 11:03 AM (zOTsN)
304
Having known a plethora of people with various addiction problems, from Heroin addiction to alcoholism, and cocaine addiction, and also knowing more than a few that are dead from this, or in prison, it seems like a Libertarian wet dream that you are somehow going to isolate "social costs" from addiction problems.
As if there is going to be some pure "Darwinian" Solution (whatever that means) regarding addicts and watching them die on street corners or in some filthy crack house, just because they are some kind of substandard human being.
I think D-Lamp has it right. We risk having a police state to fight drug trafficking, but if we legalize and society decays from addiction, then we get a police state to restore order.
A good fraction of people are very compulsive, and either eat, smoke, drink or otherwise consume in compulsive ways. The external view is that this is "addicition", but the underlying drive is a kind of compulsive behavior. When I was a kid, few people were very obese. Now it is everywhere.
Why? I think because people who might have become compulsive cigarette smokers are now compulsive eaters. Cigarette smoking allegedly suppressed appetite. Cigarette smoking became stigamtized due to health issues, etc.
Now these same obsessive compulsives are eating like there is no tomorrow.
Personal experience with drug addicts does reveal to me that a lot of people under the age of 30 can't honestly control their impulses all the time. 30 is not some magic cut-off, as there are plenty OVER 30 that have problems. But most people that I know that have addiction problems (with drugs or alcohol) started in their teens or early 20's and could never really shake it. It's unusual for people to live normal lives through adolescence and young adulthood, and then become addicts of some kind in their late 30's or 40's.
Posted by: Ribald Conservative riding Orca at February 02, 2014 11:03 AM (+1T7c)
305
He had kids? How do you stick needles full of heroin in your arm when you have kids to take care of?
Posted by: grammie winger at February 02, 2014 11:03 AM (P6QsQ)
306
Second best character actor living (when he was living).
Stanley Tucci is the best
Really?
Stanley Tucci is the best
Really?
Posted by: Brian Dennehy at February 02, 2014 03:02 PM (K73ax)
{golf claps}
Posted by: Peaches at February 02, 2014 11:03 AM (8lmkt)
307
Yes, it's supposed to be a film about Sonny Weaver, but it's set in the present day,
Posted by: jeffrey pelt at February 02, 2014 11:04 AM (Jsiw/)
308
278-
Philip Seymour Hoffman was an American actor and director. He won the Academy Award for Best Actor for the 2005 biographical film Capote, and received three Academy Award nominations as Best Supporting Actor. He also received three Tony Award nominations for his work in the theater.
Movies include Doubt, Twister and the Hunger Games
Posted by: Fenelon Spoke at February 02, 2014 11:04 AM (7kkQJ)
309
Recent history suggests Hopium is more damaging to a Society than Opium.
Posted by: garrett at February 02, 2014 11:04 AM (K73ax)
310
China was utterly destroyed by Opium. You can argue drugs are not a
Federal matter, but that presupposes they don't constitute an
existential threat.
And I'd rather not have a Great Leap Forward to clean society up again.
And I'd rather not have a Great Leap Forward to clean society up again.
Posted by: pep at February 02, 2014 11:04 AM (6TB1Z)
311
Agreed, although Don Cheadle is also very good.
***
Love him in House of Lies
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 02, 2014 11:04 AM (DmNpO)
312
a huge number of hookers and other "sex workers" also have drug problems. Go figure
Posted by: thunderb at February 02, 2014 11:04 AM (zOTsN)
313
Cheech and Chong movies have long dominated...
lol remember the scene where one of them accidentally knocks over a can of Comet and the hippy chick thinks it's a line and proceeds to snort it...that was hilarious.
Posted by: Puncher at February 02, 2014 11:04 AM (LhAqq)
314
Local, state and fed bureaucracies already spend 99.5% of all revenue collected, legalizing pot only changes where tax revenue is spent.
Outlaw: money flows to LEO.
Legalize: money flows to social services.
It still adds up 99.5% outflow.
Outlaw: money flows to LEO.
Legalize: money flows to social services.
It still adds up 99.5% outflow.
Posted by: 13times at February 02, 2014 11:05 AM (fGPLK)
315
>>>I am completely pulling this out of my ass, but I would think that with the increased police presence associated with an event such as the SB, combined with an unfamiliarity with local laws, customs, and layout f the town/businesses would make it more risky to pull off for out-of-towners.
the increased police presence is there to guard against terrorism, riots, drunken brawls, and drunk driving.
Cops are not going to look for prostitutes. The prostitutes will likely be fairly discreet, waiting to be approached in hotel bars. Cops aren't going to go lookign for them when they have so much more serious stuff on their plates.
Posted by: ace at February 02, 2014 11:05 AM (/FnUH)
316
And we also can't pretend that decrim/legalizing pot will do much to empty the prisons or eliminate drug gangs and the hated "War on Drugs".
Very few people are in prison for pot possession. Crack and heroin and all sorts of other drugs will still be illegal. Hell, the sedation drugs giving to patients in medically induced comas have to be locked up to prevent thefts -- relatives coming in and siphoning off the drugs from the IV line.
And "regulation" still means limiting access to people who abuse it. Hospital drugs are heavily regulated. And people try to steal them and sell them on the street.
Drugs are a tough problem. There is no magic bullet. Every policy is going to have major downsides.
So you can always demagogue against the current policy by only counting the downsides and ignoring the negatives of your proposed solution.
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 02, 2014 11:05 AM (ZPrif)
317
He had kids? How do you stick needles full of heroin in your arm when you have kids to take care of?
***
Drug addiction does not leave room for rational thought nor for loyalty to anything other than the drugs.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 02, 2014 11:05 AM (DmNpO)
318
298 History argues the converse.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 03:01 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 03:01 PM (bb5+k)
I ave read up on all of this crap in the US. The problems in China of the 1800s are nothing like the current US.
You are just flat wrong on this stuff.
Posted by: Vic[/i] at February 02, 2014 11:05 AM (T2V/1)
320
>>The hooker problem is real. Just remember that a good portion of the girls are underage and are essentially sex slaves.
Yep. Read a story about a guy from Florida who was just arrested in a hotel in NYC for trying to pimp out his 15 year old daughter.
Another dude got busted for bringing women in from Connecticut for prostitution.
Yes, its very real.
Posted by: JackStraw at February 02, 2014 11:06 AM (g1DWB)
321
I think because people who might have become compulsive cigarette smokers are now compulsive eaters.
Man, don't I know it. I've been riding the white dragon for most of my life.
Man, don't I know it. I've been riding the white dragon for most of my life.
Posted by: Joey Paste Eater at February 02, 2014 11:06 AM (6TB1Z)
322
Diogenes is right:
"Report of the International opium commission, Shanghai, China, February 1 to February 26, 1909"
http://archive.org/stream/cu31924032583225/cu31924032583225_djvu.txt
Before the Anti-Opium Edict of 1906 the number of smokers was 50 per cent, greater, as since then there has been a decrease of one out of every three consumers.
"Report of the International opium commission, Shanghai, China, February 1 to February 26, 1909"
http://archive.org/stream/cu31924032583225/cu31924032583225_djvu.txt
Before the Anti-Opium Edict of 1906 the number of smokers was 50 per cent, greater, as since then there has been a decrease of one out of every three consumers.
Posted by: boulder terlit hobo at February 02, 2014 11:06 AM (30eLQ)
323
Speaking of the dangers of marijuana, deep down, you knew this would happen.
http://tinyurl.com/lo862xf
Posted by: WalrusRex at February 02, 2014 11:06 AM (E+uky)
324
I knew a doctor that stopped at on or off ramp every Friday night and gave a bum $50. His theory was they would OD and die off.
In a small town I worked in somebody bought CASES of rubbing alcohol and dumped them in alleys every week end. Had a LOT of dead and dying natives from methyl/iso alcohol poisoning in my ED...
In a small town I worked in somebody bought CASES of rubbing alcohol and dumped them in alleys every week end. Had a LOT of dead and dying natives from methyl/iso alcohol poisoning in my ED...
Posted by: OG Celtic-American at February 02, 2014 11:06 AM (vHRtU)
325
292 -
I'm not sure how abortion figures into your argument. In fact, abortion is one of those things that represents an abject rejection of thousands of years of human history.
Abortions have always been around. People did them in primitive times, and it was always something that was done OUTSIDE of society's bounds.
Now it's celebrated.
We are living in an age of rejecting all that has come before. Everything is on the table. Indeed, things that are done because that's how we've always done them are being rejected precisely because it's how we've always done them!
At best you can say, if you are going to overturn thousands of years of human historical behavior, you better have a really really REALLY good reason for it.
I'm not sure how abortion figures into your argument. In fact, abortion is one of those things that represents an abject rejection of thousands of years of human history.
Abortions have always been around. People did them in primitive times, and it was always something that was done OUTSIDE of society's bounds.
Now it's celebrated.
We are living in an age of rejecting all that has come before. Everything is on the table. Indeed, things that are done because that's how we've always done them are being rejected precisely because it's how we've always done them!
At best you can say, if you are going to overturn thousands of years of human historical behavior, you better have a really really REALLY good reason for it.
Posted by: BurtTC at February 02, 2014 11:07 AM (BeSEI)
326
You can't legislate the control of stupidity. People make bad choices. Sometimes Darwin intervenes, sometimes not. Laws, regs and the like won't make much difference. There are always going to be stupid people and others that will take advantage ot that. At some point self preservation will kick in or not.
Posted by: Infidel at February 02, 2014 11:07 AM (6bvBO)
327
I had printer issues & have to go out to CVS to pick up prescriptions.
If someone hasnÂ’t mentioned it, Drudge now says PSH was found with needle in his arm.
Posted by: Carol at February 02, 2014 11:07 AM (z4WKX)
328
He had kids? How do you stick needles full of heroin in your arm when you have kids to take care of?
Posted by: grammie winger at February 02, 2014 03:03 PM (P6QsQ)
Because he is a self-centered asshole? Or was, at least.
Posted by: tcn at February 02, 2014 11:07 AM (fwcEs)
329
no, it's not a loaded term. I don't like these silly semantic arguments. Those in favor of prohibiting something are prohibitionists.
It's just what the word means.
I didn't say "Blue noses" or anything.
Posted by: ace at February 02, 2014 02:30 PM (/FnUH)
And now who is playing silly semantic games?
Are we to designate those people who attempt to keep nuclear materials out of the hands of those who would misuse them "Prohibitionists"?
Anthrax? Explosives? Prescription narcotics? Chlorine Gas?
How about we recognize that any government has a legitimate need to regulate and control dangerous substances, especially those subject to abuse?
"Prohibitionist" is indeed a loaded term, and it is deliberately chosen to project an analogy between the 18th amendment supporters and enforcers and those people who believe dangerous narcotics should be controlled and\or regulated.
Usage of the term is a deliberate appeal to emotion, not reason.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 11:07 AM (bb5+k)
330
Like the commenter above said, I'm also sick of classifying peoples choices as a disease or disability.
Again...fantasy legal regime.
Thanks to the ADA, marijuana WILL be a drug that causes addiction and employers will have to accommodate that.
Posted by: AmishDude at February 02, 2014 11:07 AM (xSegX)
331
You seem to be basing your claims on uninformed legends.
Posted by: ace at February 02, 2014 03:02 PM (/FnUH)
I think it's less uninformed legends, ace, and more that the so-called "libertarians" many of us have encountered in our own lives are, first and foremost, libertarian because they want to legalize pot. That's certainly MY experience, and why most of the libertarians I've known I knew in college.
That isn't to say that libertarianism is entirely about legalizing marijuana; it's not, especially not Big L libertarianism. But that is the way it's been framed in the public eye, much like conservatism has been framed as the ideology of homophobic Jesus freaks. It's not true, but it's what people believe. Libertarianism needs to fight against that stereotype so that it will be taken seriously by more people. Reason is one such publication that speaks well to the more mature and wide-ranging beliefs of Libertarianism.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/i][/b] at February 02, 2014 11:08 AM (CA2NO)
332
My Dad was always a drunk. My mother drank my whole life, but did not become an alcoholic until very late in life, in her 60s. My sister's drinking became alcoholic in her late forties. But her pot smoking was chronic since her teens.
Posted by: thunderb at February 02, 2014 11:08 AM (zOTsN)
333
OK. I did my graduate work on the elasticity of addiction.
For non econ mayors , a total inelasticty means a total demand for the product.
After interviewing hundreds of prisoners, I can tell you heroin does not have total inelasticity.
Fucked up people will substitute any drug.
Who was this guy again, and remind me why I should give a shit?
Elbows.
Posted by: Nip Sip at February 02, 2014 11:08 AM (0FSuD)
334
The 5 Stupidest Myths Non-Sports Fans Will Push At Your Super Bowl Party - http://t.co/MGB1ei4zFG
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 02, 2014 11:08 AM (DmNpO)
336
To be clear, the quote refers to Manchuria.
Opium smoking amongst Chinese in Philippines was reckoned ~25%, and in China generally.
So, if anyone was wondering how come Manchu is a dead language in its own homeland (I believe there are some Manchu-speakers descended from a military outpost further west), you can thank the poppy
Opium smoking amongst Chinese in Philippines was reckoned ~25%, and in China generally.
So, if anyone was wondering how come Manchu is a dead language in its own homeland (I believe there are some Manchu-speakers descended from a military outpost further west), you can thank the poppy
Posted by: boulder terlit hobo at February 02, 2014 11:09 AM (30eLQ)
337
#225
Well, I don't call it a conspiracy because there was nothing especially secret about it. Read the history. It seems a rather remarkable coincidence that marijuana, which was a very obscure Spanish term for what most knew as cannabis, suddenly became a pressing issue just as the Volstead Act was repealed.
The Congressional record of the period is interesting. The Surgeon General, whose opinion should have carried some weight in such a matter, repeatedly expressed bafflement as to why this was a concern for the federal government. Look at books and magazines of the 1920s. You have to search hard to find even vague reference to marijuana usage, because it very uncommon. It is far easier to find reference to Heroin, as it was a commercial product sold OTC throughout the western world for quite a while before it became understood what went with it. Since marijuana wasn't a commercial product, there were no business interests to object to it being outlawed.
Heroin early on was pitched as a treatment for people who'd become addicted to Morphine, which in turn was pitched as a sleep aid with the brand name deriving from Morpheus. It made a great substitute because heroin breaks down to morphine in the body. (When testing for heroin they're essentially looking for morphine, especially in an autopsy.)
Well, I don't call it a conspiracy because there was nothing especially secret about it. Read the history. It seems a rather remarkable coincidence that marijuana, which was a very obscure Spanish term for what most knew as cannabis, suddenly became a pressing issue just as the Volstead Act was repealed.
The Congressional record of the period is interesting. The Surgeon General, whose opinion should have carried some weight in such a matter, repeatedly expressed bafflement as to why this was a concern for the federal government. Look at books and magazines of the 1920s. You have to search hard to find even vague reference to marijuana usage, because it very uncommon. It is far easier to find reference to Heroin, as it was a commercial product sold OTC throughout the western world for quite a while before it became understood what went with it. Since marijuana wasn't a commercial product, there were no business interests to object to it being outlawed.
Heroin early on was pitched as a treatment for people who'd become addicted to Morphine, which in turn was pitched as a sleep aid with the brand name deriving from Morpheus. It made a great substitute because heroin breaks down to morphine in the body. (When testing for heroin they're essentially looking for morphine, especially in an autopsy.)
Posted by: Epobirs at February 02, 2014 11:09 AM (bPxS6)
338
NEEDLE AND THE DAMAGE DONE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0t0EW6z8a0
Posted by: Neil Young at February 02, 2014 11:10 AM (K73ax)
339
Compare D-Lamp's argument here:
>>>Are we to designate those people who attempt to keep nuclear materials out of the hands of those who would misuse them "Prohibitionists"?
Anthrax? Explosives? Prescription narcotics? Chlorine Gas?
...
With his argument against "loaded terms" here:
>>>"Prohibitionist" is indeed a loaded term...
Usage of the term is a deliberate appeal to emotion, not reason.
...
Gee D-Lamp I sure am chastised to have resorted to "emotion" rather than reason, unlike you.
D-Lamp's two arguments in this thread are:
We ban ANTHRAX don't we?
And:
The laws represent perfect social evolution to a perfect set of laws so let us not think about changing them.
Posted by: ace at February 02, 2014 11:10 AM (/FnUH)
340
142 I'm fine with this experiment in decriminalizing/legalizing pot. I'm skeptical it will end well.
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 02, 2014 02:31 PM (ZPrif)
Well said. I think that's where i'm at too.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 11:10 AM (bb5+k)
341
I made some pan fried chicken last night for the big game today, and three hours before game time, it's all gone. It was like house full of junkies and a big bowl of crack cocaine on the coffee table.
Posted by: Fritz at February 02, 2014 11:10 AM (TKFmG)
342
I think along with Stanley Tucci and Philllip Seymour Hoffman, Pual Giammatti is another an excellent actor and often plays somewhat smaller parts in movies, He was great in "Saving Mr. Banks" and terrific in the series about John Adams.
Posted by: Fenelon Spoke at February 02, 2014 11:10 AM (7kkQJ)
343
I knew a doctor that stopped at on or off ramp every Friday night and gave a bum $50. His theory was they would OD and die off.
Please tell me he wasn't a medical doctor.
Please tell me he wasn't a medical doctor.
Posted by: Hippocrates at February 02, 2014 11:11 AM (vBhbc)
344
Three hours to game.
Would a power nap be a good decision?
Posted by: Nip Sip at February 02, 2014 11:11 AM (0FSuD)
345
334 Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at February 02, 2014 03:08 PM (CA2NO)
Yes, a few people here seem to be confusing little "l" libertarianism with the big "L" Libertarian Party.
Little "l's" just want to be left alone and have have the smallest government possible (see the founders and the actual constitutions".
The Big L Party has been taken over by the druggies and anarchists who want no government, no borders, and nothing but let it burn.
Yes, a few people here seem to be confusing little "l" libertarianism with the big "L" Libertarian Party.
Little "l's" just want to be left alone and have have the smallest government possible (see the founders and the actual constitutions".
The Big L Party has been taken over by the druggies and anarchists who want no government, no borders, and nothing but let it burn.
Posted by: Vic[/i] at February 02, 2014 11:11 AM (T2V/1)
346
Let them burn! Legalize all the drugs but get rid of all the goodies like free rehab/detox, clean needles, methadone, etc. Crimes commissioned while under the influence or to acquire drugs should have stiffer penalties.
Posted by: aka.john at February 02, 2014 11:12 AM (dG6mV)
347
All of the above why Breaking Bad was a well written show IMO,... and it caught me off guard, but the message over and over and over again was there was NO good outcome for those in the drug life. Not the dealers that were making the money and not the end users. It is a shame that too many waste their lives with drugs or alcohol.
Posted by: Yip at February 02, 2014 11:12 AM (/jHWN)
348
Great actor. Really versatile. He was in two of my favorite movies, The Big Lebowski and Almost Famous.
Posted by: Reggie1971 at February 02, 2014 11:12 AM (S11Oq)
349
the prostitutes in Houston were not discrete. They were walking through traffic and in the street in the bars and restaurants by the Gallaria. And its also some kind of myth that they are attractive. I'm not a consumer, but, blech
Posted by: thunderb at February 02, 2014 11:12 AM (zOTsN)
350
And, yeah, Prohibitionist is a loaded term just because it obviously brings up Prohibition which is universally thought of as a terrible mistake. So it's, very effectively, stealing a rhetorical base.
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 02, 2014 11:12 AM (ZPrif)
351
I see a lifetime achievement award coming.
Posted by: Buffalobob at February 02, 2014 11:13 AM (RZBmV)
352
I saw Anthrax open for Slayer at the Warfield in 1989!
Posted by: garrett at February 02, 2014 11:13 AM (K73ax)
353
And its also some kind of myth that they are attractive. I'm not a consumer, but, blech
Posted by: thunderb at February 02, 2014 03:12 PM (zOTsN)
Sweetie, they aren't looking into her eyes.
Posted by: tcn at February 02, 2014 11:13 AM (fwcEs)
354
Heroin was sold legally for many years. You can find it in old Sears catalogs, along with cocaine.
Posted by: Epobirs at February 02, 2014 02:32 PM (bPxS6)
And it killed people by the thousands. THATS WHY WE CREATED LAWS AGAINST IT.
It didn't start becoming a problem until after the Civil War, when word of it's effectiveness finally started getting around.
By 1900, people were dying by the thousands from that shit, ergo we passed laws to stop it.
Saying it wasn't a problem back when there was very little supply and very little usage is just ignorant of the history, or deliberately misleading.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 11:13 AM (bb5+k)
355
And its also some kind of myth that they are attractive. I'm not a consumer, but, blech
I have no personal experience in this area, but I'm pretty sure that if you're walking the streets soliciting business, you aren't in the upper echelon of your profession, any profession.
I have no personal experience in this area, but I'm pretty sure that if you're walking the streets soliciting business, you aren't in the upper echelon of your profession, any profession.
Posted by: pep at February 02, 2014 11:14 AM (6TB1Z)
357
306 In my family, which is predisposed to addictive behavior, the alcoholics seem to become alcoholic in their later years
So you are saying some of your family are slow learners?
You are English, right?
It genetics, stop whining, have a drink.
Posted by: Nip Sip at February 02, 2014 11:14 AM (0FSuD)
359
But for other drugs, the effects of the drugs themselves significantly alter the person's mind.
Posted by: AmishDude at February 02, 2014 02:33 PM (xSegX)
Reminds me of the "Brain Slug" in Futurama.
The idea that a person can work an act of "Will" after their will has been tampered with is simply folly.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 11:16 AM (bb5+k)
360
>>>The Big L Party has been taken over by the druggies and anarchists who want no government, no borders, and nothing but let it burn.
all fringe parties attract believers in fringe beliefs. For example, secession would certainly be thought of, by the mainstream, as a fringe concern, and yet the Tea Party attracts a lot of people who think it's a good idea.
(I happen to be one of them... but the fact that I think it's an idea that should be seriously discussed does not take it out of the "fringe" category, at least in the current political climate.)
Fringe parties also encourage/permit immoderation in political agendas. In the governing parties, the parties apply pressure and other tactics to enforce a sort of moderation.
For example: There are many Libertarians who believe that most discrimination laws should be repealed. For example, Rand Paul made this claim-- he thinks (or at least said he thought, before he realized he had to recant) that businesses should be perfectly free to refuse service to blacks, if they like.
THe Libertarian party, being fringe, permits or even encourages such "Let us take this principle to the extreme" thinking.
Now, how many Republicans would stand up in favor of that, or even suggest it? Very few. Because the party guards against views that seem immoderate or politically dangerous.
This is just the normal way that fringe parties and governing parties operate. Every fringe party, to one extent or another, is "extremist," because if it weren't "extreme" (that is, if it were pushing things inside the Overton window), it wouldn't be a fringe party, but would be well-represented in one of the two major parties.
Posted by: ace at February 02, 2014 11:17 AM (/FnUH)
361
Addiction is something I hope we'll understand better as we learn more about how our genome works. It was always odd to me that I've never had any attraction to alcohol or drugs. I've sampled them but never felt any urge to go back for more. Considering that I've dealt with depression most of my life it's especially strange, as I seem to fit the classic profile for a drunk or junkie.
I'm struggling to adopt better dietary habits but eating is a requirement. Yet I've known people who always were nice and trim but couldn't resist the allure of drink or drug. They could easily have sucked down enough calories to make them grossly obese but the urge simply wasn't there.
The scary potential is that the same knowledge that would allow us to free a person of such desires would also serve to control them utterly.
I'm struggling to adopt better dietary habits but eating is a requirement. Yet I've known people who always were nice and trim but couldn't resist the allure of drink or drug. They could easily have sucked down enough calories to make them grossly obese but the urge simply wasn't there.
The scary potential is that the same knowledge that would allow us to free a person of such desires would also serve to control them utterly.
Posted by: Epobirs at February 02, 2014 11:17 AM (bPxS6)
362
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 02, 2014 03:08 PM (DmNpO)
I'd probably watch it if I had a working TV, but unless it's being life streamed over the internet and we all hudddle around the TV with salsa and chips I'll have to miss it. ;^) I have a woman in my congregation who works for the Giants and the grandson of another congregation member is so excited about going to his first Superbowl with his dad that I have an interest. I just hope and pray everyone is safe getting there, while they're there and coming back.
Posted by: Fenelon Spoke at February 02, 2014 11:18 AM (7kkQJ)
363
349 Let them burn! Legalize all the drugs but get rid of all the goodies like free rehab/detox, clean needles, methadone, etc. Crimes commissioned while under the influence or to acquire drugs should have stiffer penalties.
Posted by: aka.john at February 02, 2014 03:12 PM (dG6mV)
I agree with all of that except for the very last phrase.
I say eliminate the insanity defense, or any arguments about impairment. A crime is a crime is a crime, and the accused's mental state shouldn't be an issue, nor an excuse.
Posted by: rickl at February 02, 2014 11:18 AM (sdi6R)
364
during high school I worked at a convenience store. Alcohol was not sold on Sundays, so the drunks would buy vanilla extract, mouthwash, and rubbing alcohol
Posted by: thunderb at February 02, 2014 11:18 AM (zOTsN)
365
162 Switzerland decriminalized drugs to the point of handing out needles and I think drugs. Very shortly they had addicts all over their very tidy parks and public spaces
Posted by: thunderb at February 02, 2014 02:34 PM (zOTsN)
They had DEAD addicts all over Zurich Platzspitz .
They cancelled the free drug zone previously named "Needle Park."
http://picturesandperspectives.blogspot.com/2009/04/switzerland-platzspitz-or-needle-park.html
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 11:19 AM (bb5+k)
366
meant huddle around the "internet"
Posted by: Fenelon Spoke at February 02, 2014 11:19 AM (7kkQJ)
367
the increased police presence is there to guard against terrorism, riots, drunken brawls, and drunk driving.
Cops are not going to look for prostitutes. The prostitutes will likely be fairly discreet, waiting to be approached in hotel bars. Cops aren't going to go lookign for them when they have so much more serious stuff on their plates.
***
It was reported that it didn't take place in Jax. Perhaps it's a case of them simply not having increased numbers to report due to lax enforcement.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 02, 2014 11:20 AM (DmNpO)
368
167 I have no problem with states criminalizing drug use. The Feds have taken too much power tht is nt rightfully theirs. RIP PSH.
Posted by: Baldy at February 02, 2014 02:34 PM (2bql3)
And this is the better argument which Libertarians ought advance.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 11:21 AM (bb5+k)
370
He had kids? How do you stick needles full of heroin in your arm when you have kids to take care of?
Posted by: grammie winger
Addiction to heroin is a powerful thing. It alters your judgement, temperment, cognitive skills, and on and on and on. A close relative was a heroin addict, and is now in recovery and will stay clean (we all hope and pray), now out of prison and rehab. She had two children and now her mother (63 years old) is raising them.
But yet, people think that we can isolate the social costs from addiction. Yeah, that addiction will just run it's course and these people will die.
I read something a while back and can't cite it, but it was something like once a person becomes a heroin addict, their life expectancy is about 15 -20 years after that time.
Posted by: Ribald Conservative riding Orca at February 02, 2014 11:22 AM (+1T7c)
371
Right now, there are states trying to pass laws to screen welfare recipients for drugs. I'm all for the testing.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 02, 2014 02:36 PM (DmNpO)
And if you think any welfare checks are going to get cut off for positive usage you are dreaming.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 11:22 AM (bb5+k)
372
the prostitutes in Houston were not discrete. They were walking through traffic and in the street in the bars and restaurants by the Gallaria. And its also some kind of myth that they are attractive. I'm not a consumer, but, blech
***
I bet our local hookers made a killing. It seems some men really, really, like that trashy look.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 02, 2014 11:22 AM (DmNpO)
373
I do agree there should be a lot more of society saying "trying this particular drug has the potential to kill you the very first time you try it".
I do agree there should be a lot more of society saying "trying this particular drug has the potential to kill you the very first time you try it".
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 02, 2014 11:22 AM (n0DEs)
374
Right, of course the Republicans consciously purged members who opposed anti-discrimination laws. Which is how they ended up among the libertarians.
It seems to me that the libertarians, now that they have grown in mainstream acceptance, have strongly discouraged those people.
I read Reason regularly, they will argue against Affirmative Action, but I don't see them argue against federal anti-discrimination laws.
Reason does talk about pot alot. Like alot alot. It definitely has allowed them to attract readers they otherwise wouldn't.
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 02, 2014 11:23 AM (ZPrif)
375
And if you think any welfare checks are going to get cut off for positive usage you are dreaming.
***
You are probably right. But I would like to see where it goes if approved.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 02, 2014 11:23 AM (DmNpO)
376
once a person becomes a heroin addict, their life expectancy is about 15 -20 years after that time.
So if you're going to pick up that habit, do it at age 65
So if you're going to pick up that habit, do it at age 65
Posted by: boulder terlit hobo at February 02, 2014 11:24 AM (30eLQ)
377
303 Stanley Tucci is the best
Agreed, although Don Cheadle is also very good.
Posted by: pep at February 02, 2014 03:02 PM (6TB1Z)
Gary Oldman.
Posted by: AmishDude at February 02, 2014 11:25 AM (xSegX)
378
Fenelon, I've been hoping to run into you. How did your friend's surgery go? Still got her on the prayer list and hoping it was successful.
Posted by: Peaches at February 02, 2014 11:27 AM (8lmkt)
379
I think we need more moron meet-ups to Hash these problems out experimentally.
Posted by: Dr Spank at February 02, 2014 11:29 AM (P1WNR)
380
#357
Nonsense. It wasn't for lack of supply or opportunity. Yes, thousands destroyed themselves. Thousands out of tens of millions. Other thousands destroyed themselves by other means. And continue to do so to this day. Because most of the ways people kill themselves are entirely legal. They've never been able to outlaw stupid.
Heroin was never going to cause the collapse of civilization. Only a small subset of the population is inclined to become junkies at any given time. This was true when it was legal and after it became a controlled substance. About the same portion of the population thinks using heroin is a good idea and obtains it.
It was noted during a resurgence of heroin use during the 90s that what had changed wasn't prevention but fashion. A generation of young people who looked up to the previous generation when heroin was popular decided it was a necessary component of emulating their heroes. Law enforcement was helpless against the power of pop culture and stupidity. (That may be redundant.)
Nonsense. It wasn't for lack of supply or opportunity. Yes, thousands destroyed themselves. Thousands out of tens of millions. Other thousands destroyed themselves by other means. And continue to do so to this day. Because most of the ways people kill themselves are entirely legal. They've never been able to outlaw stupid.
Heroin was never going to cause the collapse of civilization. Only a small subset of the population is inclined to become junkies at any given time. This was true when it was legal and after it became a controlled substance. About the same portion of the population thinks using heroin is a good idea and obtains it.
It was noted during a resurgence of heroin use during the 90s that what had changed wasn't prevention but fashion. A generation of young people who looked up to the previous generation when heroin was popular decided it was a necessary component of emulating their heroes. Law enforcement was helpless against the power of pop culture and stupidity. (That may be redundant.)
Posted by: Epobirs at February 02, 2014 11:29 AM (bPxS6)
381
It is a truly wonderful fact that most Morons did not grow up in an environment filled with drugs. Those of us who did, however, have seen the damage it does, first-hand, and KNOW that weed is, indeed, a gateway drug.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 02, 2014 02:45 PM (DmNpO)
And THIS. I wonder just how many advocates have seen the up close and dirty of drug usage. Of how marijuana leads to interest in other stuff such as crack and meth, and how that leads to death.
I have personally known several people who cut short their lives through the usage of crack and meth, and others who have seriously damaged their health and futures.
I think those of us who've had a front row seat to reality have a more realistic view than the abstract arguers.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 11:30 AM (bb5+k)
382
Boy, I've heard a lot of the Great Pot Conspiracies but this is a new one.
Posted by: AmishDude at February 02, 2014 02:46 PM (xSegX)
Wait till they tell you it's RACISM or a Bankster plot. That will be coming along directly I expect.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 11:31 AM (bb5+k)
383
The reason weed is a gateway drug is because it's illegal.
Posted by: Dr Spank at February 02, 2014 11:32 AM (P1WNR)
384
162 Switzerland decriminalized drugs to the point of handing out needles and I think drugs. Very shortly they had addicts all over their very tidy parks and public spaces
Posted by: thunderb at February 02, 2014 02:34 PM (zOTsN)
Ace's experimental legalization sounds like a good idea to me inasmuch as it's barely illegal right now, but only for marijauna.
As far as other drugs and whether it would affect the use of substances that are more rigorously banned, it would also probably be worthwhile to bring up opium use in pre-revolutionary China. It greatly increased after legalization. At its height a little over a 1/4 of men were regular users. The fact the so many became addicted has been blamed as one of the major factors in the collapse of the emperor and government in general there.
Posted by: thunderb at February 02, 2014 02:34 PM (zOTsN)
Ace's experimental legalization sounds like a good idea to me inasmuch as it's barely illegal right now, but only for marijauna.
As far as other drugs and whether it would affect the use of substances that are more rigorously banned, it would also probably be worthwhile to bring up opium use in pre-revolutionary China. It greatly increased after legalization. At its height a little over a 1/4 of men were regular users. The fact the so many became addicted has been blamed as one of the major factors in the collapse of the emperor and government in general there.
Posted by: AD at February 02, 2014 11:32 AM (6qlyR)
385
Amsterdam has been selling weed for years and the city hasn't completely crumbled. Just the opposite, its a very prosperous tourist mecca. And theres little point in buying the stuff on the black market when you can walk into any of numerous coffee shops and order from a menu of choices perfectly legally.
Posted by: JackStraw at February 02, 2014 02:46 PM (g1DWB)
Sales to tourists were banned a few years ago, but someone recently said they have resumed them again.
Apparently they liked the money enough to put up with whatever problem caused them to ban sales to tourists.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 11:33 AM (bb5+k)
386
Laceyunderalls believes we should legalize pot "to stick it to the Mexicans who run the cartels".
Posted by: Dr Spank at February 02, 2014 11:33 AM (P1WNR)
387
Live your life and I'll live mine.
Posted by: garrett at February 02, 2014 02:46 PM (K73ax)
Just so long as you don't crash yours into mine. Think you can drive straight?
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 11:34 AM (bb5+k)
388
I say we replace everyone's heroin, crystal meth, crack and LSD with Cyanide and tell them we didn't.
Addiction is a slow death, its a mercy to kill them quick.
Posted by: Holger at February 02, 2014 11:34 AM (rIk1N)
389
It is sad, but self-destructive people are going to destroy themselves regardless of the law. Much like violent people are going to have guns and kill with them regardless of gun laws. It is sad that the man is dead, but there are now and always have been damaged people who destroy themselves. And frankly, from a legal standpoint they should be allowed to.
That doesn't mean we have to celebrate their choice. It doesn't mean we can't do our best to discourage drug use. It doesn't mean that our private institutions, employers, churches, families, etc. can't do their best to help people make better choices and help people who have made the wrong choice climb back out of the abyss. But, not everyone is going to make it, just like not everyone makes it now. The argument isn't that legalizing drugs is going to magically fix the drug problem, the argument is that what we're doing now doesn't work AND the cost in treasure and liberty is too high. All based on some bullshit paternalism that none of us tolerate from the left.
That doesn't mean we have to celebrate their choice. It doesn't mean we can't do our best to discourage drug use. It doesn't mean that our private institutions, employers, churches, families, etc. can't do their best to help people make better choices and help people who have made the wrong choice climb back out of the abyss. But, not everyone is going to make it, just like not everyone makes it now. The argument isn't that legalizing drugs is going to magically fix the drug problem, the argument is that what we're doing now doesn't work AND the cost in treasure and liberty is too high. All based on some bullshit paternalism that none of us tolerate from the left.
Posted by: DanInMN at February 02, 2014 11:35 AM (Z0Wdv)
390
As I see it, the initial challenge in having the 'national conversation' on drugs is that the participants are sober. Thus, they offer lucid arguments in support of either side of the debate.
Dope them up, *then* see where it goes.
Same with users: I suspect 90+% of the overdoses are from user's 'coming down' or heavy users in withdrawal. Hardly conducive to acting rationally and administering the drug properly.
Posted by: My 2cents. at February 02, 2014 11:35 AM (vHlQ5)
391
Posted by: Epobirs at February 02, 2014 02:51 PM (bPxS6)
So a distributed toxin is better than a concentrated toxin?
How about No Toxin?
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 11:37 AM (bb5+k)
392
What's been missing from the major conversation, although we've talked about it before, all this shit was legal. Remember Cocaine in Coke, opiates sold by Sears catalog, etc. There was a reason it was criminalized.
What's the logic of criminalizing tobacco, and legalizing pot anyway?
Ace talked about it too, our culture is an infantile one, instead of a mature one. It doesn't value rationality and responsibility. All it cares about is instant gratification.
Posted by: Iblis at February 02, 2014 11:38 AM (9221z)
393
258 Don't want my tax dollars going to investigate/prosecute/incarcerate dumbasses that want to fry their brains.
Those resources would be better spend going after violence and theft.
Posted by: Jose at February 02, 2014 02:52 PM (zc/sw)
And you don't see the two things as connected at all?
Wow.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 11:39 AM (bb5+k)
394
That's the way people talk when they're speaking as
political advocates -- there is no downside to my policy, there is only
upside.
Political advocacy always makes every argument dumber and cruder and less honest.
My position, which is probably somewhat close to yours, is simply: "Yes, let's try decriminalization for pot, but let's not propagate this false and dangerous idea that there is NO downside to heavy pot use."
One can think something should be legal while also thinking the population should have its eyes open about the downsides and risks of it.
Political advocacy always makes every argument dumber and cruder and less honest.
My position, which is probably somewhat close to yours, is simply: "Yes, let's try decriminalization for pot, but let's not propagate this false and dangerous idea that there is NO downside to heavy pot use."
One can think something should be legal while also thinking the population should have its eyes open about the downsides and risks of it.
Posted by: ace at February 02, 2014 02:55 PM (/FnUH)
==========
On what level is an advocate obligated to say anything more than "the benefits outweigh the costs"? I agree some advocates don't limit themselves to this statement, but, really, the argument is basically won when one can say that the benefits outweigh the costs (granted, even there, there are some debates where the benefits and costs are so similar that reasonable people can actually disagree).
It's very asymmetrical to point out the deaths of out of control users, which most often happen at the end of a long road with numerous dubious decisions made along the way, as a counterpoint to the incarceration of numerous young people who are probably just experimenting and will drop whatever drug they are experimenting with before they've addicted themselves to the same extent as a guy like Hoffman did.
What I would like to see is some kind of objective "addictiveness scale", based on neuroscience and other branches of physiology, showing how likely a person is to become a chronic user despite legal or illegal status of the drug in question. This could tell us what drugs we should be more cautious about legalizing. The number of people who try pot for a specific period of time (college, a couple of times, until their late 20s after college, whatever) and stop dwarfs the number who try it and go on to die from heroin overdoses. Somewhere, that has to factor in to the laws.
Also, putting this all on a genetically-based footing would do a lot to determine who could and could not partake without negative long-term effects. At birth, you get a 'clean bill of health' for drugs x,y,z and a strong warning for drugs 1,2,3. Of course, there are drugs, and my information leads me to believe heroin is one of them, to which no human can resist addiction because the parts of the brain impacted and the size of the impact makes resistance futile. But, there's no reason a person likely to tolerate alcohol or weed just fine shouldn't be able to use and there's no reason to warn people who won't of that fact, even if it's only based on genetic probabilities.
Posted by: Sudden Clarity Clarence at February 02, 2014 11:39 AM (3kFw2)
395
from Skate Punk.com
In 1992, we happened upon their Needle Park. It was pretty unbelievable, and pretty shocking. Now, it wouldn't have been anything but interesting, and I probably would simply approach the people and ask if I could shoot some photos. But at the time the longest lens I had was a 105mm, and I shot these photos from the driver's seat of our Renault, across the street. After shooting photos and trying to be inconspicuous for a few minutes, Kristy said "Oh my God, go!" I kept shooting. Tim was laughing, but then said, "shit,go!" I kept shooting until Kristy hit me and said "Someone's coming!" I dropped my camera into my lap as the guy who was crossing the street towards us broke into a full run, and just got the little car going as he approached us from behind and on the driver's side. He'd been holding a syringe and needle, and as we "escaped" he threw it at the back of the car. With the camera to my eye I hadn't even seen him... Looking back it was funny, but Kristy didn't laugh for a while.
Anyway, in these photos, which are grainy and too far away, you can still see a dude shooting up in the back of his hand, and the full-on shoot-up shop set up a block from the financial district in downtown Zurich. As we sat there, men who looked like "normal" business dudes walked up, removed their jackets, paid the guy selling the dope, took the needle, watched him heat it up, borrowed his rubber band, and shot up. They stood there making conversation like it was the most normal thing int he world for a few minutes, put their coats back on, and walked off where they had come from.
FWIW
Posted by: thunderb at February 02, 2014 11:40 AM (zOTsN)
396
Every squirrel is free to walk up to a bobcat and slap it in the face.
Posted by: eman at February 02, 2014 02:52 PM (AO9UG)
Squirrels do not form support communities for stupid squirrels. Squirrels do not have interlocking responsibilities with other squirrels. Squirrels do not encourage other squirrels to slap bobcats.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 11:41 AM (bb5+k)
397
349 Let them burn! Legalize all the drugs but get rid of all the goodies like free rehab/detox, clean needles, methadone, etc. Crimes commissioned while under the influence or to acquire drugs should have stiffer penalties.
Posted by: aka.john at February 02, 2014 03:12 PM (dG6mV)
########
I agree.
Remember all, especially Libertarians, that personal rights come with personal responsibilities and personal consequences.
Personally I'd like to see all crimes DUI given a minimum 10 years. Second offense 50 years. Maim or kill someone and you get death.
Posted by: The Man from Athens at February 02, 2014 11:42 AM (RXQ2T)
398
>>> It is sad, but self-destructive people are going to destroy themselves regardless of the law. Much like violent people are going to have guns and kill with them regardless of gun laws. It is sad that the man is dead, but there are now and always have been damaged people who destroy themselves. And frankly, from a legal standpoint they should be allowed to.
One point I'd like to make, adding to your point, is that socially permissive laws usually carry a weight in dead bodies, and yet are frequently championed by people on the right.
For example: It is silly to have a 55mph speed limit on clear highways. Most people ignore the law. Cops generally only ticket people going over 70 or 75.
But if you attempt to change the limit to 65 or 75, people whose first concern is safety will point out something like, "For every 10mph in increase in the limit, 15,000 additional Americans will die on the highways each year." Or something like that. and they will have numbers for this. Their numbers will in fact be accurate, in the main.
Similarly, MADD is always seeking to lower the permissible blood alcohol level. It began at .010; it's now 0.08 in most jurisdictions, and lower in others, and they want it lower still.
And, when they offer their numbers: Yes, it is true that a near-zero tolerance for ANY alcohol in the blood while driving WILL save lives.
And this is an important concern... but we cannot act as if safety is our ONLY concern.
One could construct a series of laws to so control the populace such as to create, in theory, the minimum number of deaths by misadventure.
Most of us would not wish to live in this society-- we want some latitude in permitting ourselves some risk without constant state monitoring.
So yes, more people will die, I expect, under a decriminalization regime (especially one that includes more dangerous drugs than pot).
But the "people will die" argument does not impel us to lower the national highway speed limit to 45 mph (which would, per the numbers, save lives).
At some point some of us find laws aimed at saving lives by controlling people's flirtation with risks unreasonable.
Posted by: ace at February 02, 2014 11:44 AM (/FnUH)
399
Posted by: ace at February 02, 2014 02:59 PM (/FnUH)
Non sequitur. Abortion was deliberately imposed by a kook court. Not society.
Demographics is destiny is probably the best refute of your premise.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 11:46 AM (bb5+k)
400
I just wish advocates of decriminalization would follow Ace's example and be more honest about the risks instead of pretending pot is some fluffy bunny
Posted by: thunderb at February 02, 2014 11:49 AM (zOTsN)
401
His wife and kids were living 3 blocks away. Sounds like she either kicked him out or this was an apt he used as an office or was a fuck pad.
Posted by: Judge Pug at February 02, 2014 11:50 AM (NRYdU)
402
Reason magazine has covered Obamacare frequently and harshly. As they have vigorously covered the NSA scandal, Obama's executive power grabs, etc.
The less one knows about a group the more one's imagination is free to conceive of them as buffoons, miscreants, and monsters.
You seem to be basing your claims on uninformed legends.
Posted by: ace at February 02, 2014 03:02 PM (/FnUH)
I am basing my claims on the numerous individuals with whom I have argued, and not on the activities of a nationally syndicated organization with an eye towards assuring consistency.
Of course an organization that large will take steps to promote wide issue intellectual libertarianism, but not so most of the individuals with whom I have argued for years.
They are fucking one note Sambas.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 11:50 AM (bb5+k)
403
>>Sales to tourists were banned a few years ago, but someone recently said they have resumed them again.
That someone was me. It was never banned in Amsterdam. Holland passed a law that originally called for a national ban but the mayor of Amsterdam fought it. The law was modified to allow for regional control and Amsterdam, naturally, stills sells while other regions have put on modified or complete bans.
I was there last year at this time and people were sparking up sitting right at the bar in pubs. I was sitting next to a guy who was about 50 and from Maine and he was toking on a joint the size of a babies arm. And he wasn't a dirty hippy type. He was a family guy on a business trip and just decided he wanted a little weed with his Heineken.
On the other hand, they have very strict laws on what they deem "hard" drugs which even includes some of the more potent strains of weed.
Posted by: JackStraw at February 02, 2014 11:51 AM (g1DWB)
404
>>>What's the logic of criminalizing tobacco, and legalizing pot anyway?
I am not in favor of all the tobacco-nannying but stop saying it's been "criminalized."
This is a favorite claim of prohibitionists-- that cigarettes have been "criminalized" and yet we're legalizing pot.
In fact cigarettes have not been "criminalized." You cannot be arrested for smoking a cigarette. You're not allowed to do it in many, many places, but there's no reason to imagine pot WILL be legal to smoke in those same places.
What is more accurate ot say is that some states are treating pot more like alcohol and cigarettes.
And you can make a point about that, but claiming it's now ILLEGAL to possess tobacco is absurd and deliberately misrepresents the situation.
Posted by: ace at February 02, 2014 11:51 AM (/FnUH)
405
At some point some of us find laws aimed at saving lives by controlling people's flirtation with risks unreasonable.
That's probably true of everyone here. The devil is always in the details of deciding how much risk reduction is acceptable for how much loss of autonomy. That's not amenable to a quantifiable, absolute solution reached by algorithm, which is what we generally end up looking for when we're dealing with situations that require judgement.
That's probably true of everyone here. The devil is always in the details of deciding how much risk reduction is acceptable for how much loss of autonomy. That's not amenable to a quantifiable, absolute solution reached by algorithm, which is what we generally end up looking for when we're dealing with situations that require judgement.
Posted by: pep at February 02, 2014 11:51 AM (6TB1Z)
406
Sonny Bunch @SonnyBunch 2m
"Puppy Bowl celebrates bullying by allowing larger dogs to steal toys from smaller dogs—and the right loves it." #SalonHeadlineGenerator
It's good for them. Puts fur on their chest.
Posted by: Judge Pug at February 02, 2014 11:52 AM (NRYdU)
407
And I'd rather not have a Great Leap Forward to clean society up again.
Posted by: pep at February 02, 2014 03:04 PM (6TB1Z)
A Dictator always follows a collapse.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 11:52 AM (bb5+k)
408
Two new legal commandments have been delivered to the Silicon Valley town of Belmont, California:
Thou shalt not smoke in thy apartment
Thou shalt inform authorities of anyone who does smoke in an apartment
Belmont is home to AmericaÂ’s most restrictive secondhand smoking law, which now makes it illegal to light up in an apartment or condo that shares a wall, ceiling, or floor with another unit. Violators face a $100 fine from the city, as well as eviction if smoking violates their lease agreement.
Additionally, the new law makes citizens responsible for enforcing it by encouraging them to call authorities and report their neighbors if they light up in any home other than a free-standing house.
Posted by: thunderb at February 02, 2014 11:53 AM (zOTsN)
409
ace:It is sad that the man is dead, but there are now and always have been damaged people who destroy themselves. And frankly, from a legal standpoint they should be allowed to.
But since they do destroy themselves, no issue of 'legality' precludes them from doing so. As you aptly point out- " there are now...damaged people who destroy themselves".
Posted by: My 2cents. at February 02, 2014 11:54 AM (vHlQ5)
410
"409 At some point some of us find laws aimed at saving lives by controlling people's flirtation with risks unreasonable."
And then we move to Texas, land of the 85 mph speed limit.
Posted by: Lauren at February 02, 2014 11:54 AM (hFL/3)
411
>>>What's the logic of criminalizing tobacco, and legalizing pot anyway?
And the word that's probably more accurate is "stigmatizing." Society has heavily stigmatized smoking tobacco while, in many states, de-stigmatizing smoking weed.
And there is a point there.
My point, personally, would be that both are bad and both should be stigmatized, and yet both should be permitted without all the nannying, except for unobjectionable stuff (kids should not be permitted to buy either and the law should jail those who sell pot to kids. For cigarettes, it should just be a stiff fine.)
Posted by: ace at February 02, 2014 11:54 AM (/FnUH)
412
Greetings:
Growing up in the Bronx of the '50s and '60s led to some up close but not personal experiences with heroin addiction.
The first was one Saturday morning when my father and I were driving through Harlem to go boating with one of his work buddies. Stopped at a red light, I saw a Negro man on the corner sitting on an imaginary chair, largely disheveled, in a pair of well-soiled khakis. That, my father explained, was what heroin would do to you. He referred to it as "nodding".
The next significant experience was a passing basketball acquaintance with a heroin addict who was kind enough to explain to me that he "didn't have a drug problem", he had "a money problem" because if he "had the money he could find the drugs".
Next on my list of heroin hits was the addict who, when told of another addict's overdose death, inquired, "Where did he cop?" not wanting to miss the opportunity to get some powerful drugs.
Finally, there was the overall contribution of heroin addicts and their supply chain in the destruction of large swaths of the Bronx, a kind of Dresden-lite treatment if you like, during the "60s and '70s.
Posted by: 11B40 at February 02, 2014 11:56 AM (VE3VM)
413
In life and sometimes in death, you will either serve as an example to others, or as a warning.
Posted by: navybrat at February 02, 2014 11:56 AM (AW7Gr)
414
Hoffman was last seen alive at 8 p.m. Saturday night, a law enforcement official said. He was expected to get his kids on Sunday, but didn't show up, the official said. Playwright David Katz and another person went to the apartment and found him dead, the official said.
...
Investigators combing the scene found two bags of what is believed to be heroin inside the fourth-floor apartment, law enforcement officials said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, he either shot up last night and died or he shot up this AM before he was going to pick up his kids??? Even if he shot up last night, I have to wonder if he would still not be under the influence when he got his kids. Plus, if you are high, your kids will know. 
Posted by: Judge Pug at February 02, 2014 11:57 AM (NRYdU)
416
[ii]And you can make a point about that, but claiming it's now ILLEGAL to possess tobacco is absurd and deliberately misrepresents the situation.
You're right. But that's not what I was trying to say. It feels like the anti-tobacco nuts want to criminalize it, even though its still legal. But then there's tremendous social pressure against tobacco, while it seems to be waning against pot.
Posted by: Iblis at February 02, 2014 11:58 AM (9221z)
417
I just wish advocates of decriminalization would follow Ace's example and be more honest about the risks instead of pretending pot is some fluffy bunny
***
yes
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 02, 2014 11:58 AM (DmNpO)
418
I ave read up on all of this crap in the US. The problems in China of the 1800s are nothing like the current US.
You are just flat wrong on this stuff.
Posted by: Vic at February 02, 2014 03:05 PM (T2V/1)
I've got that a lot over the last several decades, then history usually comes along and proves me right.
The cultural difference between Modern USA and 19th Century China are utterly irrelevant. Physiology is the only factor regarding addiction and we share the same human physiology as the 19th Century Chinese.
Narcotics are Plant toxins designed to mimic normal neuro chemicals. Plants create them to deter predation. They RESEMBLE our body's chemicals and interact with our receptors because evolution has DESIGNED THEM to do so.
They were evolved to kill or confuse us on a physiological level. They tamper with will power on the physiological level.
Let that fire loose, and it will spread throughout the population till the whole thing collapses.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 11:59 AM (bb5+k)
419
so in some places in CA it is illegal to smoke a cig in your apartment or condo, but you can light up a joint
Posted by: thunderb at February 02, 2014 11:59 AM (zOTsN)
420
The cynic in me has to wonder if tobacco altered your mental state as much as pot did, if there'd be such a push to stigmatize (thanks Ace) it as much.
Posted by: Iblis at February 02, 2014 11:59 AM (9221z)
421
>>I just wish advocates of decriminalization would follow Ace's example and be more honest about the risks instead of pretending pot is some fluffy bunny
Fair enough, if some of the people insisting on a ban would acknowledge that it less harmful than alcohol and not even in the same league as things like heroin.
Posted by: JackStraw at February 02, 2014 12:01 PM (g1DWB)
422
Another dude got busted for bringing women in from Connecticut for prostitution.
Yes, its very real.
Posted by: JackStraw at February 02, 2014 03:06 PM (g1DWB)
A friend of mine is a former pimp/dealer. (Yes, he's got his life straightened out, and I like to think I contributed heavily to his change of direction. )
He would walk down the streets till he saw some young girls, and offer them some weed. After they got to know him, he would then get them to try some crack. After that, nine times out of ten, he had them selling THEIR cracks on the street to get some of his crack.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 12:02 PM (bb5+k)
423
I switched to the Puppy Bowl and a puppy had his eye right up to the camera. He was eyeballing me!
Posted by: Judge Pug at February 02, 2014 12:02 PM (NRYdU)
424
its not heroin, but I don't agree that it is less harmful than alcohol. It is as harmful as alcohol.
Posted by: thunderb at February 02, 2014 12:03 PM (zOTsN)
425
The devil is always in the details of deciding how
much risk reduction is acceptable for how much loss of autonomy. That's
not amenable to a quantifiable, absolute solution reached by algorithm,
which is what we generally end up looking for when we're dealing with
situations that require judgement.
Posted by: pep at February 02, 2014 03:51 PM (6TB1Z)
====================
The data associated with the activities where levels of autonomy are debated should settle the debate, at least where the preponderance of the evidence goes.
I just don't see anything in the data about pot, such as there is, which supports it being illegal.
'Judgment' is not data. If the data you use to back up your judgment is more all-encompassing than the data I use to back up mine, your judgment is superior to mine. Otherwise, it is not. Even in the olden days, this equation of data and judgment was implicit in the selection of the eldest, i.e. those with the most data, as those most worthy of passing judgment in a given situation.
That's the 'general algorithm' that needs to be used, and consistently, to find the best solution.
Posted by: Sudden Clarity Clarence at February 02, 2014 12:03 PM (3kFw2)
426
In a small town I worked in somebody bought CASES of rubbing alcohol and dumped them in alleys every week end. Had a LOT of dead and dying natives from methyl/iso alcohol poisoning in my ED...
Posted by: OG Celtic-American at February 02, 2014 03:06 PM (vHRtU)
That is just fucking evil.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 12:04 PM (bb5+k)
427
>>its not heroin, but I don't agree that it is less harmful than alcohol. It is as harmful as alcohol.
Then we will just have to agree to disagree.
Posted by: JackStraw at February 02, 2014 12:04 PM (g1DWB)
428
Oh, no! Somebody just took a crap on camera.
Posted by: Judge Pug at February 02, 2014 12:05 PM (NRYdU)
429
there are studies from the UK and Harvard about the harmful affects of pot, but if you bring them up, you get accused of being hysterical
and then you get treated to a diatribe about "Reefer Madness" IME
Posted by: thunderb at February 02, 2014 12:06 PM (zOTsN)
430
One of the fears of those who favor continued prohibition -- a
well-justified fear -- is that without anti-drug laws and police
enforcement of them, there will be no social or cultural backstop to
reduce what they believe will ultimately be an explosion in drug use
(and, therefore, an explosion in the negative consequences of drug use).
-----
Meanwhile, E-CIG smoking is banned in NYC's public places.
-----
Meanwhile, E-CIG smoking is banned in NYC's public places.
Posted by: mrp at February 02, 2014 12:06 PM (JBggj)
431
You now what's really dangerous about drugs? Discussion of them brings out the absolute eye-gouging worst in people. It was only an actor, folks.
I got two words for you screaming meemies:
Abe.
Vigoda.
I got two words for you screaming meemies:
Abe.
Vigoda.
Posted by: Stringer Davis at February 02, 2014 12:07 PM (xq1UY)
432
They made a black man clean up the puppy poop...racists!!1!!!
Posted by: Judge Pug at February 02, 2014 12:07 PM (NRYdU)
433
Use of street drugs (including LSD,methamphetamine,marijuana/hash/cannabis) and alcohol have been linked with significantly increased probability of developing psychosis and schizophrenia. This link has been documented in over 30 different scientific studies (studies done mostly in the UK, Australia and Sweden) over the past 20 years. In one example, a study interviewed 50,000 members of the Swedish Army about their drug consumption and followed up with them later in life. Those who were heavy consumers of cannabis at age 18 were over 600% more likely to be diagnosed with schizophrenia over the next 15 years than those did not take it. (see diagram below). Experts estimate that between 8% and 13% of all schizophrenia cases are linked to marijuna / cannabis use during teen years.
Posted by: thunderb at February 02, 2014 12:07 PM (zOTsN)
434
329 You can't legislate the control of stupidity. People make bad choices. Sometimes Darwin intervenes, sometimes not. Laws, regs and the like won't make much difference. There are always going to be stupid people and others that willtake advantage ot that. At some point self preservation will kick in or not.
Posted by: Infidel at February 02, 2014 03:07 PM (6bvBO)
I wish I could convey some concepts which I see very clearly but lack the wit to describe properly.
I will try with this one.
Laws move probabilities. A Moron whom I hold in High esteem has said what i'm trying to say better over at his website.
" The law has a normative value. The only question is whether the law is to be used to impose a moral order, or simply reflect the reality of the extant moral order? To paraphrase Mark Twain, in America we had the freedom to do what we wanted, but the wisdom to choose correctly. It is a rare thing, and one which is quickly dissipating into history. Freedom without any limits is not freedom, but a prelude to chaos."
http://politicalhat.com/2014/01/22/morality-and-normative-law/
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 12:08 PM (bb5+k)
435
People who smoke pot are more likely to develop a psychotic illness such as schizophrenia earlier than those who do not use marijuana, according to a new analysis.
The results are published online in the Archives of General Psychiatry.
The researchers analyzed 83 studies comprising 8,167 people with a psychotic illness who used marijuana or other psychoactive substances and 14,352 with a psychotic illness who did not. Those who used marijuana were close to three years younger when they developed a psychotic illness such as schizophrenia compared with those who did not use marijuana.
People who used any type of illicit substances (including, but not limited to marijuana), were two years younger when they were diagnosed with a psychotic illness than their drug-free peers. Alcohol use had no bearing on the age of onset of psychotic illness, the study shows
Posted by: thunderb at February 02, 2014 12:08 PM (zOTsN)
436
People who used any type of illicit substances (including, but not limited to marijuana), were two years younger when they were diagnosed with a psychotic illness than their drug-free peers. Alcohol use had no bearing on the age of onset of psychotic illness, the study shows.
“It is increasingly clear that marijuana is a cause of schizophrenia, and that the schizophrenia caused by cannabis starts earlier than schizophrenia with other causes,” study researcher Matthew Large of Prince of Wales Hospital in New South Wales, Australia, says in an email. “Young people are at particular risk
Posted by: thunderb at February 02, 2014 12:09 PM (zOTsN)
437
I think it's less uninformed legends, ace, and more that the so-called "libertarians" many of us have encountered in our own lives are, first and foremost, libertarian because they want to legalize pot. That's certainly MY experience, and why most of the libertarians I've known I knew in college.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at February 02, 2014 03:08 PM (CA2NO)
Thank you. What I was trying to say, only better put.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 12:09 PM (bb5+k)
438
Ugh. Just saw a picture of his two little girls. I have to say that more than anything drug addiction just makes me mad. I know that's not fair, especially given the biological addiction that comes in to play...but how can you look at those sweet faces and then do something that will destroy their world?
Posted by: Lauren at February 02, 2014 12:10 PM (hFL/3)
439
There has been considerable debate regarding the causal relationship between chronic cannabis abuse and psychiatric disorders. Clinicians agree that cannabis use can cause acute adverse mental effects that mimic psychiatric disorders, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Although there is good evidence to support this, the connections are complex and not fully understood.
As the research in the endocannabinoid system is emerging, the neurobiological effects of cannabis are being evaluated in the development of psychiatric illness for those individuals who may be genetically vulnerable. Here we present a case of a college student who initially suffered from an acute psychotic breakdown secondary to cannabis abuse that manifested into bipolar disorder with psychosis.
Posted by: thunderb at February 02, 2014 12:11 PM (zOTsN)
440
ONE NOTE SAMBA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDzWWmscbt8
Posted by: Astrud Gilberto at February 02, 2014 12:11 PM (K73ax)
441
>>there are studies from the UK and Harvard about the harmful affects of pot, but if you bring them up, you get accused of being hysterical
There are countless studies on the harmful affects of alcohol, including stories every day of people dying or killing others while drunk driving. Yet society not only allows alcohol it celebrates it.
Anything done in excess can be harmful. Eat too many donuts and you can get diabetes and yet Dunkin Donuts would go out of business if the cops stopped eating them.
There is no rational reason to ban weed other than it has always been considered a dirty vice.
Posted by: JackStraw at February 02, 2014 12:11 PM (g1DWB)
442
How about Legal, but not taxpayer subsidized both in the use and results of usage.
Posted by: Reality Man at February 02, 2014 12:12 PM (Cs9Ps)
443
We present a unique case of a young college student, with no family history of any psychiatric illness, who presents with psychosis secondary to cannabis abuse. His psychosis persisted long after he stopped abusing cannabis, and he needed to be treated medically for new onset bipolar disorder with psychotic features. In the face of no known genetic predisposition, it is interesting that cannabis was his only trigger for psychosis, which warrants further study into understanding the exact mechanism that cannabis affects the neurotransmission at various receptors
Posted by: thunderb at February 02, 2014 12:12 PM (zOTsN)
444
Some people are gonna find something/anything to kill themselves. Some people are going to get high on pot or booze and kill others with their automobiles. Others are going to be responsible citizens and behave responsibly and experiment with a drug that has some interesting effects. I don't need it in my life, but I wouldn't mind having the chance to get a little stoned, drag out the albums of my youth, and reminisce to the way music used to sound. Hardly an imperative for me, though.
---------
I'd be interested to know whether any of your friends who had bad outcomes with weed had any relatives who were alcoholics/addicts, or were adopted. I'm convinced that the genetic tendency to addiction is the biggest issue---people who don't have it can use responsibly and quit with little issue; people who do have it will find something to be addicted to, and thus should be encouraged to avoid the really bad stuff. I count myself as someone with the genetic tendency, since my dad and my brothers have all had major issues. I can barely use caffeine and the internet responsibly, so I don't even try with alcohol or marijuana anymore (I could never moderate with alcohol but never really liked weed).
Everyone I know who is not blood-related to my dad or another addict has had really mild consequences from weed.
Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at February 02, 2014 12:13 PM (GmTxn)
445
The National Institute on Drug Abuse notes that in 2008, a total of 25.8 million Americans age 12 and older had abuse marijuana at least once in the year before they were surveyed. According to the new study in Archives of General Psychiatry, more than 16 million Americans use marijuana regularly, and for some users this could have an effect on psychotic illness.
In fact, authors of the new study note “there is little doubt about the existence of an association between substance use and psychotic illness,” and that investigations have shown “more substance use, especially cannabis use, among people with a diagnosis of a psychotic disorder.”
Psychotic disorders are severe mental conditions that cause abnormal perceptions and thinking and are characterized by hallucinations and delusions. Types of psychotic disorders include schizophrenia and delusions disorder.
Posted by: thunderb at February 02, 2014 12:13 PM (zOTsN)
446
Is it our legal system that can only deal in absolutes? Is that why we have this problem? Does it only work in binary; all or nothing?
Posted by: Iblis at February 02, 2014 12:14 PM (9221z)
447
Gee D-Lamp I sure am chastised to have resorted to "emotion" rather than reason, unlike you.
Posted by: ace at February 02, 2014 03:10 PM (/FnUH)
You do seem to have an emotional tendency to your rebuttals. Kinda got a tu quoque thing going on there.
I'm guessing you're about 28.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 12:15 PM (bb5+k)
448
>>>I can see both sides of the argument now looking in 20/20 hindsight of my youth (70's) when an ounce was about five dollars. I had a friend who found marijuana, early. Within three years he was on heroin. He 'offed' himself with a shotgun not long after.
such stories are common and of course undeniable. it's what's led to prohibition.
My question is this, though: How much of that was the drug, and how much of that was the guy's determination to abuse/kill himself?
I think in these cases it's a comforting idea for the family left behind to think it's almost all the result of the evil drug.
And yes, drugs do have evil effects. I will not argue against that-- indeed, i think it should be highlighted more.
But it does occur to me that a large number of these drug casualties seem to be the sort of people who were pretty hellbent on being some kind of casualty, whatever the means.
Posted by: ace at February 02, 2014 12:17 PM (/FnUH)
449
JackStraw at no time have I advocated a ban
I just posted except from numerous studies in places where pot is decriminalized showing there is a very clear link between early pot use and severe mental illness
it is not harmless
it is not more harmless than booze
Posted by: thunderb at February 02, 2014 12:17 PM (zOTsN)
450
And then we move to Texas, land of the 85 mph speed limit.
I like driving on one of these roads 
Posted by: lindafell at February 02, 2014 12:18 PM (PGO8C)
451
Legalize drugs if you want. As long as you allow me to arbitrarily execute the dealers at my discretion.
No problem at all with that.
Legalize drugs if you want. As long as you allow me to arbitrarily execute the dealers at my discretion.
No problem at all with that.
Posted by: irongerampa at February 02, 2014 12:19 PM (SAMxH)
452
There's also the issue of crazy people turning to drugs to self medicate. My schizophrenic cousin was that way. She drank nearly constantly to dull the voices in her head. My schizophrenic uncle smoked a lot of weed.
For what it's worth, the one that smoked the weed killed himself, while the alcoholic eventually got clean and properly medicated.
Posted by: Lauren at February 02, 2014 12:20 PM (hFL/3)
453
353 And, yeah, Prohibitionist is a loaded term just because it obviously brings up Prohibition which is universally thought of as a terrible mistake. So it's, very effectively, stealing a rhetorical base.
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 02, 2014 03:12 PM (ZPrif)
It has taken on the semblance of "McCarthyism" in terms of it derision.
It is constantly dragged out as an example of why "Prohibition" cannot possibly work, even though it is not equivalent to proof of that statement.
It may not be possible to make a "Prohibition" work, but the evidence to support this assertion cannot be derived from the example of the 18th amendment. A slower more encroaching methodology might very well prove successful, and unless I miss my guess, such a thing is even occurring now with the slow strangulation of tobacco as an addictive substance.
The 18th amendment attempted to go too far, too fast, and against a population with a long historical culture of accommodation with Alcohol. Because it was so overbearing, it produced it's own backlash, and that backlash doomed it's success.
I'm not suggesting that alcohol prohibition should have succeeded, I'm glad it didn't. I'm just saying that it is faulty logic to think that it couldn't have succeeded with a slower approach.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 12:23 PM (bb5+k)
454
>>I just posted except from numerous studies in places where pot is decriminalized showing there is a very clear link between early pot use and severe mental illness
>>it is not harmless
>>it is not more harmless than booze
Got any studies on early alcohol use and severe mental and physical problems? If you don't think you will find that giving kids alcohol will cause all sorts of mental and physical problems I think you're dreaming.
Who's advocating kids using any drug? Thats the situation we have today. Because it is an underground drug it is a hell of a lot easier to get on the street, and kids are good at getting things on the street. It was literally as easy to buy weed in my junior high as it was to buy lunch in the school cafeteria. Alcohol was a different story.
Legalize it, regulate it and make it illegal at any level for kids.
Posted by: JackStraw at February 02, 2014 12:24 PM (g1DWB)
455
I just posted except from numerous studies in places where pot is decriminalized showing there is a very clear link between early pot use and severe mental illness
------
I wonder how much of that is just access---a person genetically predisposed to severe mental illness is likely to be raised by a parent with a mental illness, or in foster care. Both are stressful environments, often with inadequate supervision. Children being raised by their mentally ill bio parents may be regularly witnessing their parents self-medicate with marijuana, and may be actually encouraged to do the same when their own mental illness starts to manifest.
Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at February 02, 2014 12:24 PM (GmTxn)
456
I think there is a very clear genetic predisposition to addiction and depression that can be overcome by limiting exposure to addictive substances and self knowledge
that being said, pretending that pot is not one of those substances is not borne out by reality
Posted by: thunderb at February 02, 2014 12:24 PM (zOTsN)
457
435
Meanwhile, E-CIG smoking is banned in NYC's public places.
Posted by: mrp at February 02, 2014 04:06 PM (JBggj)
Which proves that this has nothing to do with "public health" and everything to do with controlling people.
I am sick to death of the nanny state.
Posted by: rickl at February 02, 2014 12:26 PM (sdi6R)
459
Q is pattern recognition skills. Some people have the ability, some never will. If you can't recognize the pattern 'a,e,i,o,y' how can you be expected to recognize how your own pattern of daily pot smoking is causing your life to decay?
Posted by: Regular Moron at February 02, 2014 04:26 PM (oGrEy)
-----
My brother is a certified genius, "profoundly gifted" was the label given in school. Not sure the number of his IQ but well north of 120, I'm sure. He's the alcoholic I mentioned earlier who goes through a patch of sobriety, an epiphany, every few years and then jumps headlong off the wagon. He's been at that since he was 15. My dad is a physician, so no slouch intellectually. I'm the sober one and have been repeatedly reminded that I am nowhere near my brother, IQ wise. Just normal-smart.
Like I said before about PSH, I think genius and talent tend to come with demons of their own.
Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at February 02, 2014 12:33 PM (GmTxn)
460
400
Every squirrel is free to walk up to a bobcat and slap it in the face.
Posted by: eman at February 02, 2014 02:52 PM (AO9UG)
Squirrels do not form support communities for stupid squirrels. Squirrels do not have interlocking responsibilities with other squirrels. Squirrels do not encourage other squirrels to slap bobcats.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 03:41 PM (bb5+k)
Laws can't stop people from harming themselves or others by using drugs.
You can't even be sure those laws are keeping drug use at a minimum.
You can be sure of the harm caused by those laws themselves.
Posted by: eman at February 02, 2014 12:33 PM (AO9UG)
461
It's called "getting fucked up" for a reason.
Posted by: Rich Fader at February 02, 2014 12:34 PM (2o6FJ)
462
451 Is it our legal system that can only deal in absolutes? Is that why we have this problem? Does it only work in binary; all or nothing?
Posted by: Iblis at February 02, 2014 04:14 PM (9221z)
Yes. That is EXACTLY the problem.
Yes and No is simple. Describing a probability function and enforcing it as a law is simply unworkable. People have to have simple answers.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 12:38 PM (bb5+k)
463
"I think there is a very clear genetic predisposition
to addiction and depression that can be overcome by limiting exposure
to addictive substances and self knowledge
that being said, pretending that pot is not one of those substances is not borne out by reality
that being said, pretending that pot is not one of those substances is not borne out by reality
Posted by: thunderb at February 02, 2014 04:24 PM (zOTsNI)"
===================
If pot were really hard to quit, wouldn't we have seen movies about it dramatizing the difficulty? There are dozens of dramatic movies about booze and harder drugs like heroin and coke, but I have yet to see a movie dramatizing weed addiction. If anything, almost all dramatic movies involving the downside of weed are young people getting caught with some on them and being punished all out of proportion.
For people with hard drug addictions, pot is a footnote in the cocktail they're ingesting. For those who smoke it in isolation from use of other drugs, pot 'withdrawal' is basically nil.
Posted by: Sudden Clarity Clarence at February 02, 2014 12:40 PM (3kFw2)
464
Legalize drugs if you want. As long as you allow me to arbitrarily execute the dealers at my discretion.
No problem at all with that.
Posted by: irongerampa at February 02, 2014 04:19 PM (SAMxH)
I keep saying that they CALL it a "War on Drugs" but we don't FIGHT IT like we would a war.
Mao Tse Tung eliminated China's opium addiction by killing anyone caught smoking it. American's wouldn't agree to the the tactics, but you can't dispute the results.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 12:41 PM (bb5+k)
465
The last Hoffman movie I saw was A Late Quartet. Better than expected.
The bathroom in underwear scene description reminded me of Elvis's death.
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 02, 2014 12:41 PM (IXrOn)
466
Legalize it, regulate it and make it illegal at any level for kids.
Posted by: JackStraw at February 02, 2014 04:24 PM (g1DWB)
I could live with licensed usage. Abuse the terms and your license to use is revoked.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 12:42 PM (bb5+k)
467
Not representational, perhaps, but a Dutch friend of my mother's was disgusted with what happened to the Netherlands when they legalized drugs. The hard-working Dutch found their cities flooded with scruffy foreign losers only interested in getting high. Drugs plus a generous welfare system can't end well. Aren't they rethinking the whole thing?
People often point to the statistics of stable/declining drug use in Portugal after legalization, but according to Sarah Hoyt (herself of Portuguese origin) they simply stopped taking accurate stats.
Posted by: All Hail Eris at February 02, 2014 12:44 PM (QBm1P)
468
I'm not suggesting that alcohol prohibition should have succeeded, I'm glad it didn't. I'm just saying that it is faulty logic to think that it couldn't have succeeded with a slower approach.
Define success.
Posted by: eman at February 02, 2014 12:45 PM (AO9UG)
469
Two things: The gateway drug, if there is one, is alcohol. More people with addiction problems start with that one than any other drug. Problem is, most people don't think of alcohol as a drug.
The second is when it comes to pot use, there is no way to tell if somebody is under the influence, as is possible with driving and alcohol. Pot stays in the system for around 30 days. So even if you hadn't smoked in a week, you'd 'fail' a sobriety test.
Posted by: RickZ at February 02, 2014 12:45 PM (qX6KH)
470
Laws can't stop people from harming themselves or others by using drugs.
Posted by: eman at February 02, 2014 04:33 PM (AO9UG)
No, and they mostly aren't designed to. What they can do is reduce probabilities.
The entire foundation of our legal system is deterrence. Punishment reduces future violations, it doesn't eliminate them.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 12:46 PM (bb5+k)
471
474
I'm not suggesting that alcohol prohibition should have succeeded, I'm glad it didn't. I'm just saying that it is faulty logic to think that it couldn't have succeeded with a slower approach.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 04:23 PM (bb5+k)
Define success.
Posted by: eman at February 02, 2014 04:45 PM (AO9UG)
Oops
Posted by: eman at February 02, 2014 12:47 PM (AO9UG)
472
476
Laws can't stop people from harming themselves or others by using drugs.
Posted by: eman at February 02, 2014 04:33 PM (AO9UG)
No, and they mostly aren't designed to. What they can do is reduce probabilities.
The entire foundation of our legal system is deterrence. Punishment reduces future violations, it doesn't eliminate them.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 04:46 PM (bb5+k)
There is no way to know if our current drug laws reduce the use of drugs to a minimum. We don't know if they have any deterrent effect.
They may may cause more problems than they solve.
Posted by: eman at February 02, 2014 12:50 PM (AO9UG)
473
Define success.
Posted by: eman at February 02, 2014 04:45 PM (AO9UG)
Well, for the 18th amendment, the claimed goal of it's advocates. The Elimination of Alcohol.
I personally don't think it could have been eliminated totally, but it could have been reduced to a small level and perhaps kept there, but certainly not by the tactics they used to attempt this goal.
I think if any sort of Prohibition is possible, it will be as the result of a very slow encroaching/demonizing methodology such as that currently being used to drive tobacco out of society,
Which coincidentally, is the same methodology they are currently using to steal all our other freedoms as well.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 12:51 PM (bb5+k)
474
479
Define success.
Posted by: eman at February 02, 2014 04:45 PM (AO9UG)
Well, for the 18th amendment, the claimed goal of it's advocates. The Elimination of Alcohol.
I personally don't think it could have been eliminated totally, but it could have been reduced to a small level and perhaps kept there, but certainly not by the tactics they used to attempt this goal.
I think if any sort of Prohibition is possible, it will be as the result of a very slow encroaching/demonizing methodology such as that currently being used to drive tobacco out of society,
Which coincidentally, is the same methodology they are currently using to steal all our other freedoms as well.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 04:51 PM (bb5+k)
So, you against such efforts or in favor of them?
Posted by: eman at February 02, 2014 12:53 PM (AO9UG)
475
Here is your third option. Drugs are bad, but the violations of social liberties (especially WRT the 4th and Amendment) are worse.
Posted by: GGE of the Moron Horde, NC Chapter at February 02, 2014 12:53 PM (yh0zB)
476
There is no way to know if our current drug laws reduce the use of drugs to a minimum. We don't know if they have any deterrent effect.
They may may cause more problems than they solve.
Posted by: eman at February 02, 2014 04:50 PM (AO9UG)
I think this is wrong. We can look at previous examples in history and see that when drugs were legal, usage grew.
As a matter of fact, it followed the same logistical growth pattern as does a disease, albeit a very slowly infecting disease.
If you look at the British East India shipping records of opium to China, you will note that usage grew exponentially in the decades following the First Opium War.
Now Opium is not Marijuana, and Marijuana may indeed be no great risk of tripping us into a massive addicted populace, but of Opium the evidence is pretty clear.
Now if Marijuana opens the door to harder drugs, then it will have become the fuse that lit the bomb which killed us. (among all the other societally destructive memes rampant amongst us. )
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 12:57 PM (bb5+k)
477
So, you against such efforts or in favor of them?
Posted by: eman at February 02, 2014 04:53 PM (AO9UG)
Regarding Tobacco, Alcohol, or Marijuana?
I hate tobacco. I can't stand the smell of it, I see it as having no redeeming characteristics in my life. I don't care if people smoke it, as long as i'm not required to breath their smoke.
I'm sort of happy they are choking it to death, but I don't like the ramifications of it in principle.
On Alcohol, I think it's infused into our culture and therefore occupies a special status in the pantheon of drugs. I note that it does kill thousands of innocent people per year, and it does kill thousands of abusers per year, and it has a very significant cost of accommodation to society, but it has it's positive benefits as well.
It should perhaps be regulated in a better way, but certainly not banned.
On Marijuana, I could live with some sort of system of regulation for it. Decriminalizing small quantities is certainly a good first step.
I would suggest that the state could issue licenses for the usage of it, the same as they do for any other dangerous substance such as freon or dynamite.
Posted by: D-Lamp at February 02, 2014 01:07 PM (bb5+k)
478
After listening to debate teams contantly argue over legalization of pot, I've heard every argument under the sun, but I do not think the debate over potential health risks has been settled. Articles and arguements declaring "oh that research has been disproven" or " oh that only applies to people who use it daily" does not reassure me that legalization would not create a greater epidemic of frequent users, and consequent damage to young lives in particular. We lack medical agreement on the damge to health and academic-related problems from use of pot.
Does the government's actions prevent use of pot? Not from my observations. Will legalization spread its use. Probably yes.
Let's compare pot addiction to alcohol use. Alcohalism is a greater problem in many schools, and alcohol is more easily obtained by students.(according to students). The trail of car wreck fatalities by drunk teens should clue everyone in.
I've heard a truckload of arguments that alcohol is more addictive and dangerous than pot- but from pot users. I've also had good sources cite stats that cases of domestic abuse skyrocketed after prohibition was ended. To be consistent, they argue, if one potentially abusive substance is made illegal, then all of them should be. Yes, drinking is illegal for under 21, but does that restriction make a difference in obtaining alcohol? Not really.
I would like solid evidence on whether pot is just as easy to obtain as alcohol. If so, then perhaps the argument that being illegal protects teens" is a moot point. If it is not- then people should consider how the legalization of alcohol allowed underaged teenagers easier access to a substance they are ill equiped to handle responsibly. Remember, this group believes they are immortal. If an adult chooses to indulge in something that may not be to their benefit- that is their choice; but teens are not known for exercising adult wisdom. All the lectures from DARE programs and Just Say No programs in the universe don't persuade a large percentage of the under 20 crowd.
side note:
I would like to see hemp legalized for the sake of Kentucky's small farmers. During the 1800's hemp was their big cash crop, and France took over the international top production role. A state-centered view, but our farmers need a cash crop to replace tobacco, and Ky's soil and climate limits other crops and is perfect for hemp.
Posted by: I'd rather be surfin at February 02, 2014 01:34 PM (KBR4k)
479
For those who smoke it in isolation from use of other drugs, pot 'withdrawal' is basically nil.
Posted by: Sudden Clarity Clarence
there is no physical withdrawal that I am aware of, but there is a psychological dependence that you seem unwilling to admit
Posted by: thunderb at February 02, 2014 01:52 PM (zOTsN)
480
BREAKING NEWS: Philip Seymour Hoffman is no longer addicted to Heroin!
Posted by: Heck's Angel at February 02, 2014 02:14 PM (rCS6C)
481
Regular Moron, but is there actually any connection between addiction (once exposed to an addictive substance) and low IQ? I don't think there is; every addict I've personally known has had higher IQ. There are 12 Step groups set up solely for physicians. Higher IQ may lead some to make the smart choice to avoid these dangerous substances in the first place (with the exception of legitimately prescribed painkillers) but that's neither here nor there.
Two mental conditions that are known to raise the risk of addiction are ADHD and bipolar disorder. Both of those are distributed pretty evenly along the IQ scale.
Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at February 02, 2014 02:22 PM (T5Ik7)
482
Someone probably already covered this here, but quoting from the article:
"The envelopes were marked “Ace of Spades,” which sources said is a brand of heroin that hasn’t been seen on the streets since around 2008 in Brooklyn."
"The envelopes were marked “Ace of Spades,” which sources said is a brand of heroin that hasn’t been seen on the streets since around 2008 in Brooklyn."
Posted by: bigjack at February 02, 2014 02:29 PM (Mh4UI)
483
Why not accept the fact that we live in both an "age of wonders" and an "age of self-indulgence." Then we can move on.
All of the awful and deadly drugs that are illegal today were once commonly available over the counter. Most have been available in some form for hundreds or thousands of years. They were banned because some people came to horrible ends using them and because some others could not stand seeing others enjoy something that they thought was morally corrosive.
My modest proposal is this: SET THE MAD SCIENTISTS LOOSE
Define all of the good qualities of getting baked and define all of the bad qualities of having been baked.
If the mad scientist can find something that makes people have a pleasant euphoria (Good) and leaves them able to drive a car (after a reasonable delay) and doesn't leave them addicted or a raving jackass (Bad) then let the mad scientist employers make a profit selling it to the self-indulgent. I am sure that medical researchers have a nice list of things that donÂ’t cure anything but leave you hammered already that they could work from.
Why do we have to settle for the short list of intoxicants that are currently available and that all have bad qualities.
Posted by: NightHawk at February 02, 2014 02:30 PM (7N26x)
484
ood question. I've never seen any evidence that a very low number group (like doctors) are in any way nearly as large in quantity as those with a way below average IQ score. Since the large IQ group is measured in 1 out of 10,000 (or higher) numbers I'm not going to worry too much about them versus the 5,000 out of 10,000 (lower or median average IQ) group.
But I'm worse then Hitler so please take anything I say with a grain of salt.
Posted by: Regular Moron at February 02, 2014 07:10 PM (oGrEy)
-----
I was referring to your proposal to license the use of drugs, and to use an IQ test to do so. I don't actually think that those with high-IQ are *more* likely than average to develop addiction problems; I think (like ADHD and bipolar disorder) that the predisposition to addiction is simply unrelated to IQ. I know it seems counter-intuitive, that the pattern-recognition inherent in high nonverbal IQ would protect people from falling into patterns of addiction, but I really don't think that's the case.
Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at February 02, 2014 03:45 PM (GmTxn)
485
So Hoffman preferred moron branded junk. Good on him!
Posted by: Iblis at February 02, 2014 06:04 PM (NVFTu)
486
I did see that a lot of ods have occurred in the NE due to heroin being mixed with fentanyl.
Posted by: Judge Pug at February 02, 2014 02:12 PM (NRYdU)
There was probably no harm intended. Heroine has been very popular in the more well-heeled circles in the NE, so they outdid themselves.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at February 02, 2014 06:09 PM (Y92Nd)
487
Bellushi, Candy and so many others have died of drugs, terrible evils have been done by drugged up dopers, liberals/demoratsw want it open and nation wide legalized. Anarchy and Chaos....If you can't get mexican drug dealers to do it, legalize drugs and flood the nation with jihad muslims. Of course aid and abet our enemies and cut our military AND disarm law abiding civilians. Still clueless ?
Posted by: ron n. at February 02, 2014 07:08 PM (c7HxG)
488
Did John Candy die from drugs, or just obesity?
Posted by: Biff Boffo at February 02, 2014 11:35 PM (1j9qS)
489
Pot:Heroin
Giggle:Zombie Dead
I've never tried heroin 'cause I feared I would like it.
I've tried pot and and never feared that I would like it.
Giggle:Zombie Dead
I've never tried heroin 'cause I feared I would like it.
I've tried pot and and never feared that I would like it.
Posted by: currently at February 03, 2014 12:52 AM (flA6l)
490
Should alcohol be "legal and yet harmful and thus to be avoided?"
Posted by: Bilby at February 03, 2014 03:55 AM (0zeZV)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
395kb generated in CPU 0.1754, elapsed 0.3926 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.3333 seconds, 618 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
64 queries taking 0.3333 seconds, 618 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: Judge Pug at February 02, 2014 10:05 AM (NRYdU)