Cremaster
Bluelighter
sb twelve said:
i'm busy now, but i promise to provide you with empirical proof...and if I can't, i'll admit to being wrong and a gov't tool. But that doesn't stop you from being an asshole.
-
OD Moderators: Keif’ Richards | Tryptamino
My view on junkies (and related hard-core) drug addicts.
- Thread starter inimical
- Start date
- Status
i'm busy now, but i promise to provide you with empirical proof...and if I can't, i'll admit to being wrong and a gov't tool. But that doesn't stop you from being an asshole.
Cremaster
Bluelighter
sb twelve said:
No - an asshole for trying to draw an analogy between my opinions on drugs, saying that my type of thinking is the equivalent of a level of fascism that resulted in nazi genocide.
Sigh. The point I was making was that what you think is merely your opinion, and obviously other people are going to think your opinion is absurd.
You said:
In an attempt to justify the laws currently in effect with your opinion. No matter what stupid ass law I made, I bet I could find someone that thought it was a good law.
This is why we using an opinion to rationalize a law is a stupid argument, thats what facts are for.
You said:
In an attempt to justify the laws currently in effect with your opinion. No matter what stupid ass law I made, I bet I could find someone that thought it was a good law.
This is why we using an opinion to rationalize a law is a stupid argument, thats what facts are for.
Negro-kitty
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2001
- Messages
- 3,131
sb twelve is quite right in pointing out that Cremaster used an opinion to back up his argument (which is bad technique in any debate), but I think the choice of the jew/nazi analogy was a bit....farfetched.
Let's keep the discussion on track folks.
In times when opiates and cocaine were legal (late 1800s for example), there were many functional addicts, so your claim that these drugs are 'less manageable' is unsubstantiated, and reflects the brainwashing you have recieved from American society. I urge you to examine your perceptions and their origins.
Let's keep the discussion on track folks.
In times when opiates and cocaine were legal (late 1800s for example), there were many functional addicts, so your claim that these drugs are 'less manageable' is unsubstantiated, and reflects the brainwashing you have recieved from American society. I urge you to examine your perceptions and their origins.
PhreeX
Bluelight Crew
This thread is about as close to being killed as you get, so behave GOD DAMNIT!
Found this from Anapiel, those from A.D.H. (few years back) know who that is...
"What is 'hard'"
(thanks to Peter McDermott)
[BEGIN]
...there are three types of drug users:
1) Experimental drug users who like to take very precise doses and (lord help us) record the effects, and come up wth meaningless psychobabble about k-space and setting, and metaprogramming and such. If it floats your boat, fine, but I've never met a psychonaut who was actually fun to be around while taking drugs. Control freaks. . .and they favor psychedelic type drugs, but make far too big a deal about high doses, and need terms like ego-disintegration to make getting fucked up sound like an intellectual pursuit.
2) Recreational drug users. These folks take a little bit of everything, unlike the EDU's. Drugs are just for having fun, and while the RDU will occasionally lapse into mystical shit while on acid, an RDU will invariably forget to write in the lab notebook in favor of frolicking in a field of dandelions, playing hacky-sack, or some such. Probably the most fun drug user to be around, short-term. . .but also risky, because an RDU, like the teenager at the keg party, is often unaware when they cross over the line from somewaht fucked up to out of control. RDU's often take too much of whatever is going which is goood but hasn't done this often enough to adjust. Nonetheless, an RDU usually sticks to pot, coke (snorted), the occasional opiate. . a psychedelic here and there. Basically likes the smorgasbord, but only eats it on weekends and special occasions.
3) And then there's the people for whom this ng exists The Hard Drug User [Trumpets rise]. The primary philosophy of the HDU is "The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom." otherwise known is "lets get fucked up". Bang meth, as phreex says. The question why would someone do that much of substance X is meaningless to an HDU. You do excessive amounts of a substance because, when you're dealing with Hard Drugs, the more you do, the more fucked up you are, and that is a Good Thing. Fuck the lab notebook; I can barely cook a shot, I certainly have no urge to record my impressions. Its a bilevel plateau system: NotFuckedUp/FuckedUp. OD'ing? heh.
Any HDU worth their salt walks that line like bird on a wire whilst singin like a drunk in a midnight choir; the RDU's worry about od'ing. HDU's worry about having enough to cop a buzz, and still leaving some for the next day. EDU's care about mapping the psychic landscape; HDU's care more about mapping new places to score and convenient places to do drugs when your on the go.
[END]
Found this from Anapiel, those from A.D.H. (few years back) know who that is...
"What is 'hard'"
(thanks to Peter McDermott)
[BEGIN]
...there are three types of drug users:
1) Experimental drug users who like to take very precise doses and (lord help us) record the effects, and come up wth meaningless psychobabble about k-space and setting, and metaprogramming and such. If it floats your boat, fine, but I've never met a psychonaut who was actually fun to be around while taking drugs. Control freaks. . .and they favor psychedelic type drugs, but make far too big a deal about high doses, and need terms like ego-disintegration to make getting fucked up sound like an intellectual pursuit.
2) Recreational drug users. These folks take a little bit of everything, unlike the EDU's. Drugs are just for having fun, and while the RDU will occasionally lapse into mystical shit while on acid, an RDU will invariably forget to write in the lab notebook in favor of frolicking in a field of dandelions, playing hacky-sack, or some such. Probably the most fun drug user to be around, short-term. . .but also risky, because an RDU, like the teenager at the keg party, is often unaware when they cross over the line from somewaht fucked up to out of control. RDU's often take too much of whatever is going which is goood but hasn't done this often enough to adjust. Nonetheless, an RDU usually sticks to pot, coke (snorted), the occasional opiate. . a psychedelic here and there. Basically likes the smorgasbord, but only eats it on weekends and special occasions.
3) And then there's the people for whom this ng exists The Hard Drug User [Trumpets rise]. The primary philosophy of the HDU is "The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom." otherwise known is "lets get fucked up". Bang meth, as phreex says. The question why would someone do that much of substance X is meaningless to an HDU. You do excessive amounts of a substance because, when you're dealing with Hard Drugs, the more you do, the more fucked up you are, and that is a Good Thing. Fuck the lab notebook; I can barely cook a shot, I certainly have no urge to record my impressions. Its a bilevel plateau system: NotFuckedUp/FuckedUp. OD'ing? heh.
Any HDU worth their salt walks that line like bird on a wire whilst singin like a drunk in a midnight choir; the RDU's worry about od'ing. HDU's worry about having enough to cop a buzz, and still leaving some for the next day. EDU's care about mapping the psychic landscape; HDU's care more about mapping new places to score and convenient places to do drugs when your on the go.
[END]
trippinspirals
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 7, 2003
- Messages
- 1,020
SteveElektro said:
that is one of the MORE intelligent things I have heard
Anyways, I'd wager whoever got all shocked over taking what they
considered to be the GHB equivalent of two litres of vodka (and many
folks would see nothing wrong with that) is an EDU. And to them, I
say. . .welcome to chapter 13. ADH. Home of the hard drug users. Enjoy
your stay, but we recommend losing the lab notebooks; they make many
of us, who have very bitter memories of the Men in White Coats, quite
anxious.
considered to be the GHB equivalent of two litres of vodka (and many
folks would see nothing wrong with that) is an EDU. And to them, I
say. . .welcome to chapter 13. ADH. Home of the hard drug users. Enjoy
your stay, but we recommend losing the lab notebooks; they make many
of us, who have very bitter memories of the Men in White Coats, quite
anxious.
MattPD
Bluelight Crew
Thank you, NK. That was the point of my long winded post. People can function, especially when the drugs they choose to consume are legal, however it is indeed possible (and common) for users of illicit drugs to continue to lead normal lives, I was never without a job when I was a junkie, I didn't rob folks...I would imagine there are some folks like that reading this thread.
Crem- Be Nice...and on topic, por favor.
But seriously, what are the implications of joining a LEA (law Enforcement Agency) if you don't believe in it? Do you feel strongly enough about this job that you could put behind all the things you believe and treat every person and law the same? Do you truly feel as though going into an agency that doesn't conform to your beliefs on public policy (i.e. drugs being a public health issue, and not a judicial one) is right, or even healthy?
You need to ask yourself whether this is right for you, because if you don't you'll either be doing the country a disservice by continuing the hippocritic order of police enforcement, or be setting yourself up for big trouble, either at work, or in your personal life as you stress about the bad things you had to do to kids who are just like you.
As I said "Where can you draw the line? Do you enforce laws only against certain subclasses (as you've alluded to, such as junkies/crack heads,), certain types of people? Once you start picking and choosing you've corrupted the ideal of law."
Please note, I'm not trying to flame you, inimical. I am seriously interested in this topic, and your thoughts on it.
M
PhreeX
Bluelight Crew
Yes, SteveElektro definitly wins for most intelligent reply ...
sb twelve - yes, I omitted that as I didn't feel it was needed, sadly A.D.H. has deteriorated to a wasteland... credit was given where due..
sb twelve - yes, I omitted that as I didn't feel it was needed, sadly A.D.H. has deteriorated to a wasteland... credit was given where due..
Cremaster
Bluelighter
sb twelve said:
Spend some time reviewing this document. It's not propaganda. It's just straight stats.
http://www.samhsa.gov/oas/DAWN/mortality2k1.pdf
As you will see - Heroin and Cocaine are mentioned more than ANY other drug - including alcohol (in combination) - when drug related deaths occur and drugs are being used in combination (as they usually are).
Same goes for single drug deaths (although alcohol is not used here in recordkeeping). For example, in San Francisco, in 2001, Cocaine was responsible for 20 deaths, Heroin/Morphine in 12, Marijuana in 1. All other drugs, 1 or none. In Philly, Cocaine 65, Heroin 32, Pot 6, all others negligable. There are dozens of other cities, and the results are more or less the same.
My POINT is that to state that all drug abuse is equal in terms of danger to self and others is just plain wrong. Some drugs are more dangerous than others. And if some drugs are more dangerous than others, than it makes sense to create legislation that is different from drug to drug, based on the dangers of those drugs. Unless of course you feel that ALL drugs should be legal, and then we can start a different thread on it.
And to my original point, I still believe that it's much more difficult to maintain a heroin addiction or cocaine addiction than an alcohol or weed addiction. I welcome someone else who may agree with me to research for more stats.
Cremaster
Bluelighter
MattPD said:
I apologize (to all) for losing my cool. I just don't like being compared to Nazis. I personally find that offensive...
inimical
Bluelighter
Honestly, I would like to offer to you the following arguments for legalization and see what you can spit back at me.
Legal drugs would be easy to track and control. The involvement of organized criminal cartels in the drug-distribution network could be substantially curtailed. Legal drug sales could be taxed, generating huge revenues. Legal drugs would be cheap, significantly reducing the number of drug related crimes committed to feed expensive out of line drug habits. (much of what I was trying to speak of before, but didn't know exactly how to put it). Since some people are attracted to anything taboo, legalization could, in fact, reduce the demand for drugs. (Bootleg alcohol anyone?) The current war on drugs is already a failure and will be remembered as one of history's follies. Prohibiting drugs is too expensive in terms of tax dollars, sacrificed civil liberties (theres your "i pay tax dollars, I can do what I want in the privacy of my own home), and political turmoil.
Drug dealers and users care little about criminial justice sanctions. They will continue their illegal activities no matter what the penalties.
And last but not least, and probably my last words for the night:
DRUG USE SHOULD ULTIMATELY BE A MATTER OF PERSONAL CHOICE
(i should run for president?)
Alright, i got shit to do, pizza to eat, and homework! homework! homework!
SteveElektro
Bluelighter
As far as alcohol goes, there was a fair bit of deviant behaviour going on in the prohibition era. It was a great era for organised crime, much like it is now for those with status in the heroin and coke games.blahblahblah said:
IMO, Any increase in deaths due to availability would be at least offset by the benefits I will outline. With consistent purity and injection rooms manned with health workers, I think there'd be less deaths, barring those who felt like knocking themselves (which would be lower too). The days of having to munch a cocktail of benzos and clonidine to enhance the high from the shitty little cap you could afford would be over, and since your body wouldn't be weakened from the lifestyle of those that can't afford to support their habits, OD'ing wouldn't be so common. I know when I take drugs that avoid killing myself, I gotta live to get high again tomorrow, afterall
In Melbourne at least, the vast majority of OD's are caused by one of the following:
a) a sudden rise in purity
b) a deliberate suicide attempt
c) the mixing of pharms and opiates
These problems would be largely minimised with a cheap supply of consistent quality gear.
Of course there would still be the occasional OD, but we get that now and I don't see any reason to think this problem would increase.
Negro-kitty
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2001
- Messages
- 3,131
Deviant behaviour does NOT just inherently 'come' with cocaine and heroin more than it does with ANY OTHER DRUG. Deviant behaviour is a result of illegality.
One thing I will admit, is that there is the risk of psychosis with cocaine abuse/addiction, which does not have a correlate with pot smoking. Pot is a very non-violent drug, but heroin and other opiates are equally non-violent.
One thing I will admit, is that there is the risk of psychosis with cocaine abuse/addiction, which does not have a correlate with pot smoking. Pot is a very non-violent drug, but heroin and other opiates are equally non-violent.
Cremaster
Bluelighter
blahblahblah said:
thank you. although i think alcohol is more destructive to the body/soul than weed, i also think that it's still not as destructive as heroin/coke.
and as far as legalization goes - not everyone's as responsible as us bluelighters. making opiates legal would tempt to many unprepared people to try it, and get sucked into what is certainly among the more addictive drugs... probably almost as addictive as cigarettes, with consequences much worse.
MattPD
Bluelight Crew
Ini- I never said that I believe drugs shouldn't be legal. I think they all should be, in fact, I also agree with your arguments (which are pretty much the standard legalization line.)
I feel that legalizing things would decrease crime (at least violent crime associated with the enchanced prices of black market drugs) and if drugs were to be legalized it would almost certainly have to be in a climate of harm minimization (i.e. public policy shift away from judicial response and into public health.) This increase in real, honest info about drugs would help people decide whether or not to use them. Which, in the end, should be their choice.
In an environment that permits for the legalization of drugs there would also be safegaurds in place (such as increased awareness about addiction) which would help prevent people from being completely consumed by addiction. It would also help in the ways mentioned by SteveE, which are quite real concerns.
We are obviously not at this point in the US yet.
What I was interested in was...why do you want to be a cop, if you don't believe in it. That's all.
also...
Most of the risks associated with heroin/coke addictions are related to the illicit nature of the drugs. What are the main problems with these drugs?
1)Inflated black market prices which cause users to spend way too much to feed their habit. Legalization would solve this problem quickly, heroin and cocaine are both quite cheap to make.
2)Exposure to LE. Due to the need to secure more drugs users are more likely to encounter unsympathetic cops who will throw them in jail, not rehab.
3)Exposure to disease through infected needles. Well, this is obvious. Needles would be available.
4)Impurities/change in purity of the chemical. Chemicals would be regulated by a govt. agency much like the FDA.
Although addiction is an issue...I feel the harm caused by our current system can not be right and something must change. Drinking rates dropped after prohibition ended...I'll get a source tommorow, but tonight is just too late!
/me shrugs
M
I feel that legalizing things would decrease crime (at least violent crime associated with the enchanced prices of black market drugs) and if drugs were to be legalized it would almost certainly have to be in a climate of harm minimization (i.e. public policy shift away from judicial response and into public health.) This increase in real, honest info about drugs would help people decide whether or not to use them. Which, in the end, should be their choice.
In an environment that permits for the legalization of drugs there would also be safegaurds in place (such as increased awareness about addiction) which would help prevent people from being completely consumed by addiction. It would also help in the ways mentioned by SteveE, which are quite real concerns.
We are obviously not at this point in the US yet.
What I was interested in was...why do you want to be a cop, if you don't believe in it. That's all.
also...
Most of the risks associated with heroin/coke addictions are related to the illicit nature of the drugs. What are the main problems with these drugs?
1)Inflated black market prices which cause users to spend way too much to feed their habit. Legalization would solve this problem quickly, heroin and cocaine are both quite cheap to make.
2)Exposure to LE. Due to the need to secure more drugs users are more likely to encounter unsympathetic cops who will throw them in jail, not rehab.
3)Exposure to disease through infected needles. Well, this is obvious. Needles would be available.
4)Impurities/change in purity of the chemical. Chemicals would be regulated by a govt. agency much like the FDA.
Although addiction is an issue...I feel the harm caused by our current system can not be right and something must change. Drinking rates dropped after prohibition ended...I'll get a source tommorow, but tonight is just too late!
/me shrugs
M
Last edited:
Cremaster
Bluelighter
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And what happens when mankind develops a drug that is SO euphoric and SO addictive that said developer corners the market, and too large a percentage of society gets hooked on it. Should that be legal too?
I believe it's in the Larry Niven book Ringworld where man has developed the ultimate drug - an electronic device - a plug if you will - that sends electrical signals directly to your brain's pleasure centers. "Wireheads" plug in, and get this rush of euphoria. Needless to say - there were legions of addicts...
And what happens when mankind develops a drug that is SO euphoric and SO addictive that said developer corners the market, and too large a percentage of society gets hooked on it. Should that be legal too?
I believe it's in the Larry Niven book Ringworld where man has developed the ultimate drug - an electronic device - a plug if you will - that sends electrical signals directly to your brain's pleasure centers. "Wireheads" plug in, and get this rush of euphoria. Needless to say - there were legions of addicts...
MattPD
Bluelight Crew
^^^^^I think this thread has kinda changed focus but, anyways...
Hasn't happened yet. Have you done heroin before? It's the most wonderful feeling ever. Nothing matters, nothing at all.
And yet, not everyone is a junkie. Most people who try heroin aren't junkies. Why do you feel that everyone would use this drug? I don't use heroin anymore (soy un junkie para 2-3 years), and yet I know I could go home, drive 15 minutes and buy a bag and feel better than I ever do.
I don't do it, why? Because I don't want to. How would this drug be any different, (and I'm sorry, if you haven't tried IV dope you don't really understand what I talk about when I say it is just like the drug you described.)
M
P.S. I
Ringworld. 
Hasn't happened yet. Have you done heroin before? It's the most wonderful feeling ever. Nothing matters, nothing at all.
And yet, not everyone is a junkie. Most people who try heroin aren't junkies. Why do you feel that everyone would use this drug? I don't use heroin anymore (soy un junkie para 2-3 years), and yet I know I could go home, drive 15 minutes and buy a bag and feel better than I ever do.
I don't do it, why? Because I don't want to. How would this drug be any different, (and I'm sorry, if you haven't tried IV dope you don't really understand what I talk about when I say it is just like the drug you described.)
M
P.S. I
Ringworld. - Status