Report on cocaine, heroin prices suggests U.S. is losing war on drugs

[JTMarlin]

Needle-less injectors would be better than needles. I never said anyone wouldn't smoke crack or shoot up, but most people wouldn't. Who the fuck is going to want to chase a five minute high all day long? Even on Bluelight there aren't that many crackheads compared to cokeheads. Even if people did smoke crack, it would be much easier to stop if other ways of taking it were possible. Cocaine was made to be injected, and again the needle-less drug systems would be better than smoking freebase. I'm not using diamorphine because it takes any stigma away..that's WHAT IT'S CALLED. Heroin is a brand name, made by Bayer. They no longer make the stuff so it's not Heroin, I don't give a shit if everyone calls it Heroin...it's not. Do you call everything with oxycodone in it Percocet? No. While people can have strong convictions about any issue, both sides usually have equal possibilities among them. This one doesn't, having drugs stay illegal is a waste of money and law enforcement. The crime rate is increased solely due to the War on Drugs, our taxes are increased because of it, murders aren't solved that much because of people are looking for some pot dealers instead of real criminals, etc...Conviction doesn't make something right, unless they're fact-based and logical.

A - You ignore factor of an IV rush. and tolerance - in this self assertion
B - If in whatever fantasy utopia people actually stopped shooting heroin because they could just rail/smoke/whatever a pure gram instead - so what??? Now the minority danger of spreading disease via shared rigs is "gone". What happens to the OD and addiction factors? Are you really about to convince yourself that individuals and/or a society (are) left safer with 12 cent grams of heroin; as long as they aren't administering it with needles?

A - tolerance creates the need for more drugs, more drugs cost a lot more money (now), and lack of money means people need more bang for their buck. More bang for their buck means injecting, because it takes a lower amount to get just as high from IV. I know about the rush, but most people just starting any substance aren't injecting it...they start doing that once it gets old and they can't afford to snort 10 bags of d-morph. a day.
B - People can overdose on alcohol, but most don't. 5mg is the starting dose for Heroin, and that means 200 doses out of a gram. I never said 12 cent grams should be just thrown around like candy, that's stupid. Addiction really doesn't matter. People are addicted to fast food that kills and causes them to become ugly fat-asses, but that doesn't mean everyone who eats fast food is an ugly fat-ass. Those who do habitually eat a Quarter Pounder with cheese thrice daily are just as addicted to doing this as the person who is addicted to painkillers. It's impossible to focus solely on negatives in order to prevent change. The positive far outweight the negatives, and it's society's current views on drugs that cause many users (and drug subcultures) to think of high as "cool". Most people wouldn't think drugs were cool if they were from the "establishment". There'd be addicts, but not a group of people sitting around obsessing about the stuff, it'd just be something they did. Government regulations would help with these minor issues. Most people don't like needles and most people would never use them.

 

[Frustrated]

Jesus motherluving Christ. Some of you people have no fucking idea what you're talking about. No matter how cheap heroin would be, no matter what form the pharmaceutical companies sold it in and no matter how legal it would be, I would boot if it I did it. What the fuck is the point of doing heroin if you're not gonna oil up?

Oh yeah, and let's start calling heroin diamorphine or diacetylmorphine so it doesn't sound as scary.

What else? Oh yeah. I've have profound-as-shit thoughts on the nod. I'm fucking brilliant on heroin.

And right, I've never met ANYONE with an adderall problem before. And the fact that meth users tend to be more self-destructive than adderall users has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the fact that they have access to a far, far greater supply. There are plenty of people who shoot balls of meth a day when they can afford it. That's about, say 100 or more Adderall 30s a day. LOTS OF PEOPLE can get that much Adderall!

Oh yeah. Crack is preferable to coke because it's a cheap high. It has ABSAFUCKINLUTELY NOTHING to do with the enormous pleasurable rush you get that can't be duplicated with snorting. We can prove this by analogy to meth. Since meth comes in the same form for the same price whether smoked or snorted, NO ONE ever smokes it.

Do you people leave your bedrooms?

PS: There's a line midway through this post where I become facetious. See if you can spot it!

As always.. the man on counter patrol

 

[Frustrated]

Who the fuck is going to want to chase a five minute high all day long? Even on Bluelight there aren't that many crackheads compared to cokeheads. Even if people did smoke crack, it would be much easier to stop if other ways of taking it were possible.

An again with "do you people ever leave your bedrooms?". Do you know how incredibly addictive crack is? Do you know how horrifically self perpetuating the problem gets when a near limitless supply is introduced? And to the general public, at that? Do you know that people do it all day long even as it remains illegal and generally unaffordable to do so? Where in the hell are you coming up with the assertion that "people aren't going to want to chase a 5-minute high all day" when made affordable and widely available. On what basis of fantasy?

Let me guess, slap a Pfizer label on every vial of crack and price it like box of chocolates; and not only do current intrinsics of addiction to the substance fail to profitably flourish in the mainstream - they magically DISSAPEAR. Oh, wait - did I say Pfizer? That sounds a little too regulated and medicinal for the anti-drug war scenario argued amongst so many Bluelighters. Let's change that to "Kellogs" or "Marlboro", instead.

Cocaine was made to be injected, and again the needle-less drug systems would be better than smoking freebase.

Oh, cocaine was sure as hell made to be injected in my opinion, as well. Does that make it safer or any less destructive? Does that assure people aren't going to want to smoke it for their own convenience??? Let's again try "no" and "no". Just as people are going to continue rigging up H for their own reasons, regardless of availability - people aren't going to safely and solely switch to whatever method is conventially preferrable in your own life & mind. That's beyond unrealistic.

The crime rate is increased solely due to the War on Drugs, our taxes are increased because of it, murders aren't solved that much because of people are looking for some pot dealers instead of real criminals, etc...Conviction doesn't make something right, unless they're fact-based and logical.

Hi there! Notice how although you've pointed out that crime, taxation, murder and waste have been increased by the drug war - you've completely dropped focusing attack on what the drug war itself is based on.

Try approaching crime not just on a street level, but on a corporate level far more deadly. Now, it's not just those who want to take a criminal risk pushing inherently deadly substances on a smaller range of customers - it's those who can politically and economically afford the risk pushing it on the whole of society. Sped up nicely with advertising and free market strategy, no less. Oh, but I guess this peddling is no longer crime and no longer destructive if it's by definition legal, right. Those corporations are going to play just as nicely as they do now; not trying to hook every marketable head they can by whatever means semi-legit. Brilliant!

Now try approaching murder's new scenario substitute; a little old fashioned something called death by "overdosing". Try to explain how deaths from the OD factor aren't going to escalate and eclipse what we now have in place for the smaller market ODs and (primarily) street level murders. Try to explain how with corporations pushing products more addictive and therefore marketable than anything out there in the mainstream today - death by overdose is a trend that's going to maintain safely. Is it about suddenly "having exact scientific knowledge of the packaged doses"? Is it about a now largely expanded user base "being able to take responsibility for their addictions"; since safety is something so bloody hand in hand with a 12 cent addiction that will NEVER stop rising in dose?

Oh, and did we forget long term toxicity in the role of death amongst the mainstream? I think we did. Wanna know what smoking a gram+ of methamphetamine a day (and plus for the next day, and plus for the next, and plus) does to a person's general health? Is the bulk of society going to somehow come about a level of "self control" that won't cause this or other horrific deteriorations amongst hundreds of millions? Because with the far less addictive and deadly substances known as "tobacco" and "alcohol" we don't seem to be doing too well as is. Introducing a cornucopia of even worse substances into the mix isn't in any way going to profit a then drug war-LESS society!

A - tolerance creates the need for more drugs, more drugs cost a lot more money (now), and lack of money means people need more bang for their buck. More bang for their buck means injecting, because it takes a lower amount to get just as high from IV. I know about the rush, but most people just starting any substance aren't injecting it...they start doing that once it gets old and they can't afford to snort 10 bags of d-morph. a day.

Absolute bullshit, again centered entirely on your own experience. Even if these substances were in the bulk aisle next to a bin of sesame seeds, I would still be shooting. No, wait - I would actually be shooting all the G-D time. Addiction wise - just as people like you exist in countless millions, so do people like me. Basing addiction potential of society as a whole on one or the other is simply shortsighted, because both and all ranges are going to happen across the board

B - People can overdose on alcohol, but most don't. 5mg is the starting dose for Heroin, and that means 200 doses out of a gram.

Want to know what the starting dose for alcohol is? A helpful hint, regarding it's OWN overdose factor which should not be thrown about in ridiculous comparison: it's more than 5mg, and it doesn't fit so easily and effortlessly into a quick shot syringe. See the difference? Equate heroin for what it is. Downplaying in comparison is not acceptable.

I never said 12 cent grams should be just thrown around like candy, that's stupid.

Then what do you say? And why isn't that arbitrary amount aiming for availability to feed a limitless addiction stupid? In the average life where you want to make drugs a recreational availability - what is and what isn't stupid? Go ahead, what's the detailed plan.

Addiction really doesn't matter. People are addicted to fast food that kills and causes them to become ugly fat-asses, but that doesn't mean everyone who eats fast food is an ugly fat-ass. Those who do habitually eat a Quarter Pounder with cheese thrice daily are just as addicted to doing this as the person who is addicted to painkillers.

And now we've begun to compare hard mind altering substances with FOOD, in the downplaying. Something hard wired into the human body & mind which has a completely different level of effect, need and addiction. Wow.

It's impossible to focus solely on negatives in order to prevent change. The positive far outweight the negatives, and it's society's current views on drugs that cause many users (and drug subcultures) to think of high as "cool". Most people wouldn't think drugs were cool if they were from the "establishment".

Oh man, I've really gotta stop right there. So, with any free time - do share in response how your positives outweigh my negatives; or however those negatives (due only to your own experience, of course) "don't exist". How people would just kinda not really care about these newly introduced drugs and all simply because the taboo has been removed. How in the hell, exactly - your entire system of completely unconventional and unproven society of free drug-use works.

Insanity of the drug war; Sanity of mass drug availabilty and consumerism. Simply, wow.

 

[JTMarlin]

Do you think the War on Drugs is better than Legalization? I look at it in terms of money, you look at in terms of safety...that's the difference. I never said that drugs should just be thrown out on the market like a new candy, the new sale system would have to be looked at and created as well. Something like in the 19th century, where you go to a doctor and he writes a script and you can only buy it with a script would make more sense. MEth is a drug that really is destructive (I know, I've done it plenty of times), and I never said it should be made legal. I know all about the major troubles with that, like what happened in Japan after World War II when stockpiles were suddenly available to everyone. It is a nasty drug, but heroin and other drugs aren't as bad. Honestly, nobody KNOWS what drug legalization would look like. Everyone knows how much of a failure drug prohibition has been. I don't sit in my bedroom all day, so quit attacking me personally. If I was going to do that I'd call you a junkie.

The REASON I'm comparing alcohol and tobacco (which, by the way, IS the most addicting drug) is because they're LEGAL. You can't compare something that's been illegal for 100 years to something that's been legal for a very very long time. Again, I'm compare them solely on their legality. Alcohol is more addicting than meth, more destructive, more dangerous when under the influence, and more pointless. Dr. Halstead was a morphine addict his whole life, but it didn't impact it because he was able to maintain a steady maintainance supply. Nobody even knew he did the shit, except 2 people. oh yeah, he was the founder of John C. Hopkins University. Also, with legalization would come new methods of quitting, and new chemicals that make withdrawals from drugs non-existent.

Pros: less crime, no narco-terrorism, less arrests, less time spent enforcing the drug laws, less damage to addicts' lives (MONEY-wise) because they could hold jobs all day long, more quality-control, better drug education (lowering OD risks, since people could know their limits), no drug subcultures or obsessions over drugs, easier to get treatment without fear of law enforcement.

Cons: Addiction rates increase, dosages increase, the reason to quit drugs decrease because they're socially acceptable, people might kill themselves by poisoning with the widely available chemicals.

I'm going to compare drugs (heroin, cocaine) to cigarettes again, I don't give a shit if you like it or not. Society cut back on smoking cigarettes a lot since they found out how much damage they do and how addicting they were. They quit smoking stronger cigarettes because people don't like stronger substances. Maybe they do in your circle, but last time I checked everybody doesn't drink pure grain alcohol...they drink beer. It's easier to increase your dosage. Not everyone is looking for a "rush"...you are, not everyone else.

 

[Frustrated]

I'm to work for now. Perhaps in your terms of 'money', you'd like to start considering the phenomenal stresses on health care systems in a fully legalized society; and how taxation to fullfill such drives the drugs back up to prices that can't make it the argued fully available?

 

[JTMarlin]

Like what? How are drugs themselves damaging on the health, compared to alcohol and tobacco? Heroin isn't damaging in itself, and healthcare systems aren't a reason to make something illegal. You do heroin, do you have extreme health problems and never do anything all day? No, you work. This is why the DEA says drugs must be illegal, look at it and tell me if it makes sense at all :

Fact 1: We have made significant progress in fighting drug use and drug trafficking in America. Now is not the time to abandon our efforts.
The Legalization Lobby claims that the fight against drugs cannot be won. However, overall drug use is down by more than a third in the last twenty years, while cocaine use has dropped by an astounding 70 percent. Ninety-five percent of Americans do not use drugs. This is success by any standards.
Fact 2: A balanced approach of prevention, enforcement, and treatment is the key in the fight against drugs.
A successful drug policy must apply a balanced approach of prevention, enforcement and treatment. All three aspects are crucial. For those who end up hooked on drugs, there are innovative programs, like Drug Treatment Courts, that offer non-violent users the option of seeking treatment. Drug Treatment Courts provide court supervision, unlike voluntary treatment centers.
Fact 3: Illegal drugs are illegal because they are harmful.
There is a growing misconception that some illegal drugs can be taken safely. For example, savvy drug dealers have learned how to market drugs like Ecstasy to youth. Some in the Legalization Lobby even claim such drugs have medical value, despite the lack of conclusive scientific evidence.
Fact 4: Smoked marijuana is not scientifically approved medicine. Marinol, the legal version of medical marijuana, is approved by science.
According to the Institute of Medicine, there is no future in smoked marijuana as medicine. However, the prescription drug Marinol—a legal and safe version of medical marijuana which isolates the active ingredient of THC—has been studied and approved by the Food & Drug Administration as safe medicine. The difference is that you have to get a prescription for Marinol from a licensed physician. You can’t buy it on a street corner, and you don’t smoke it.
Fact 5: Drug control spending is a minor portion of the U.S. budget. Compared to the social costs of drug abuse and addiction, government spending on drug control is minimal.
The Legalization Lobby claims that the United States has wasted billions of dollars in its anti-drug efforts. But for those kids saved from drug addiction, this is hardly wasted dollars. Moreover, our fight against drug abuse and addiction is an ongoing struggle that should be treated like any other social problem. Would we give up on education or poverty simply because we haven’t eliminated all problems? Compared to the social costs of drug abuse and addiction—whether in taxpayer dollars or in pain and suffering—government spending on drug control is minimal.
Fact 6: Legalization of drugs will lead to increased use and increased levels of addiction. Legalization has been tried before, and failed miserably.
Legalization has been tried before—and failed miserably. Alaska’s experiment with Legalization in the 1970s led to the state’s teens using marijuana at more than twice the rate of other youths nationally. This led Alaska’s residents to vote to re-criminalize marijuana in 1990.
Fact 7: Crime, violence, and drug use go hand-in-hand.
Crime, violence and drug use go hand in hand. Six times as many homicides are committed by people under the influence of drugs, as by those who are looking for money to buy drugs. Most drug crimes aren’t committed by people trying to pay for drugs; they’re committed by people on drugs.
Fact 8: Alcohol has caused significant health, social, and crime problems in this country, and legalized drugs would only make the situation worse.
The Legalization Lobby claims drugs are no more dangerous than alcohol. But drunk driving is one of the primary killers of Americans. Do we want our bus drivers, nurses, and airline pilots to be able to take drugs one evening, and operate freely at work the next day? Do we want to add to the destruction by making drugged driving another primary killer?
Fact 9: Europe’s more liberal drug policies are not the right model for America.
The Legalization Lobby claims that the “European Model” of the drug problem is successful. However, since legalization of marijuana in Holland, heroin addiction levels have tripled. And Needle Park seems like a poor model for America.
Fact 10: Most non-violent drug users get treatment, not jail time.
The Legalization Lobby claims that America’s prisons are filling up with users. Truth is, only about 5 percent of inmates in federal prison are there because of simple possession. Most drug criminals are in jail—even on possession charges—because they have plea-bargained down from major trafficking offences or more violent drug crimes.

I'm not some crazy liberal, trying to spout some ideology around. Most of the time I do trust the government, but the drug issue is not something that is every discussed in government, it's a completely closed-door, secretive thing.

 

[thursday]

An again with "do you people ever leave your bedrooms?". Do you know how incredibly addictive crack is? Do you know how horrifically self perpetuating the problem gets when a near limitless supply is introduced? And to the general public, at that? Do you know that people do it all day long even as it remains illegal and generally unaffordable to do so? Where in the hell are you coming up with the assertion that "people aren't going to want to chase a 5-minute high all day" when made affordable and widely available. On what basis of fantasy?

crack isn't really as addictive as it's hyped up to be. i mean, i've smoked crack before, and sure it's way better than coke, but it's really nothing special. just because a lot of crackheads get addicted to crack cocaine doesn't mean that anyone who picks up a crack pipe is going to be helplessly addicted to it.
there are a lot of cultural and socio-economic factors here that you are neglecting. what kind of people get addicted to crack typically? i have plenty of friends who have tried crack and smoke it probably a handful of times a year. and not one of them has developed a habit or psychological addiction to it in all these years. why? because they're all relatively emotionally content individuals.
they didn't grow up in the ghetto where a lot of people recklessly abuse drugs to escape the grim reality they live in. people who typically get addicted to crack are those individuals who face unspeakable hardships on a daily basis and were born into circumstances in which they really had no hopes of getting a good education and having a brighter future. crack is an epidemic which afflicts those who've had their character slowly eroded away by a life of poverty, and disenfranchisement. those who've grown up in crime-ridden communities and broken homes.
until we solve the deep rooted social issues which cause people to fall into such extreme desperation and emotional despondence there will always be crack addicts, and people who will basically do whatever it takes to get high so they can forget about how shitty their life is and how powerless they are to really do anything about it other than accept that the best they can do is just to toil away at some menial job for the rest of their lives and live paycheck to paycheck.
i don't really think legalizing crack will increase this particular demographic as drug legalization hasn't been shown to correlate with increased drug abuse in countries like holland whose already adopted a very liberal stance on drug policy. and as i mentioned above, it seems like drug abuse is more symptomatic of social inequality rather than simply a by-product of the availability of drugs.

Let me guess, slap a Pfizer label on every vial of crack and price it like box of chocolates; and not only do current intrinsics of addiction to the substance fail to profitably flourish in the mainstream - they magically DISSAPEAR. Oh, wait - did I say Pfizer? That sounds a little too regulated and medicinal for the anti-drug war scenario argued amongst so many Bluelighters. Let's change that to "Kellogs" or "Marlboro", instead.

while i'm not particularly in favor of legalizing crack cocaine, as i think it's probably more harmful physically than a lot of other drugs that i'd much rather see legalized, like acid/shrooms/weed, i don't think you're really addressing this in a mature and objective manner.
i mean, what you've written isn't even a response to anything that other users have posted. it's just an absurd and blatant strawman argument which you've so tactlessly put together. and i'm not so sure you're using the word "intrinsic" correctly there. in fact your word choice is rather awkward throughout this knee-jerk response.
c'mon dude, you're a moderator. put more effort into constructing a sound and valid argument. don't just jump in ranting off in a facetious tone.

Oh, cocaine was sure as hell made to be injected in my opinion, as well. Does that make it safer or any less destructive? Does that assure people aren't going to want to smoke it for their own convenience??? Let's again try "no" and "no". Just as people are going to continue rigging up H for their own reasons, regardless of availability - people aren't going to safely and solely switch to whatever method is conventially preferrable in your own life & mind. That's beyond unrealistic.

yea, there are going to be people who still abuse drugs. no one said legalization would end drug abuse. i mean alcohol and tobacco are legal, and clearly people still abuse those drugs. but that's not the point. when drugs are legal and produced and distributed in government regulated conditions then a lot of the risk inherent in consuming street drugs would be eliminated. prohibition clearly doesn't work and only makes drugs more dangerous to consume. i mean wouldn't you rather ecstasy users out there be consuming clean and guaranteed to be be pure pills rather than what's happening now?

Hi there! Notice how although you've pointed out that crime, taxation, murder and waste have been increased by the drug war - you've completely dropped focusing attack on what the drug war itself is based on.

Try approaching crime not just on a street level, but on a corporate level far more deadly. Now, it's not just those who want to take a criminal risk pushing inherently deadly substances on a smaller range of customers - it's those who can politically and economically afford the risk pushing it on the whole of society. Sped up nicely with advertising and free market strategy, no less. Oh, but I guess this peddling is no longer crime and no longer destructive if it's by definition legal, right. Those corporations are going to play just as nicely as they do now; not trying to hook every marketable head they can by whatever means semi-legit. Brilliant!

i'm in no way a proponent of free market capitalism, and i am everybit as distrusting and opposed to corporate america as you are. but i think you're approaching this in the wrong manner. it's been shown that everytime the government attempts to enforce some kind of prohibiton, whether it's on alcohol or other drugs, it elicits a prohibition spurred crime wave that coincides with the rise of drug cartels and other black market organizations.
these crime waves have been indicated by a rise in firearm sales and in assults by firearms. this is over crime unrelated to corporate fraud and market exploitation which drug legalization really wouldn't affect one way or another. personally i'd much rather have pharmacutical companies producing/moving/distributing drugs than drug cartels and overtly criminal organizations who cause more violent crimes domestically.

Now try approaching murder's new scenario substitute; a little old fashioned something called death by "overdosing". Try to explain how deaths from the OD factor aren't going to escalate and eclipse what we now have in place for the smaller market ODs and (primarily) street level murders. Try to explain how with corporations pushing products more addictive and therefore marketable than anything out there in the mainstream today - death by overdose is a trend that's going to maintain safely. Is it about suddenly "having exact scientific knowledge of the packaged doses"? Is it about a now largely expanded user base "being able to take responsibility for their addictions"; since safety is something so bloody hand in hand with a 12 cent addiction that will NEVER stop rising in dose?

once again i think there's a rather conspicuous gap in your logic. please explain to me how users are going to be more likely to OD just because they're getting their drugs from a pharmacutical company instead of
off the streets. if drugs are properly labled and you know exactly how pure your drugs are, wouldn't it be easier for someone to administer a safe recreational dose than with street drugs with potency that varies dramatically from batch to batch.
if anything, i think less people would die from shit like improperly cut fentanyl analogues being sold as heroin to unsuspecting junkies. most "ecstasy" related deaths would not even happen because we know that pure mdma isn't nearly as dangerous as designer drugs which are a mix of different unknown psychoactives like PMA, and what not.
and once again, not all drug users are reckless with their bodies. so please try to make the distinction between a drug user and a drug abuser. i mean, for most of us who aren't trying to overdose on heroin or take pills cut with pcp and meth, it'd really make it a lot safer for us to consume recreational drugs.

Oh, and did we forget long term toxicity in the role of death amongst the mainstream? I think we did. Wanna know what smoking a gram+ of methamphetamine a day (and plus for the next day, and plus for the next, and plus) does to a person's general health? Is the bulk of society going to somehow come about a level of "self control" that won't cause this or other horrific deteriorations amongst hundreds of millions? Because with the far less addictive and deadly substances known as "tobacco" and "alcohol" we don't seem to be doing too well as is. Introducing a cornucopia of even worse substances into the mix isn't in any way going to profit a then drug war-LESS society!

the drug war hasn't curbed drug use. it's only imprisoned more non-violent criminals and infringed on the rights of other otherwise law abiding citizens. it's also been a drain on the national budget. you really don't seem to know much about the drug war for a BL mod. check out some of the free info offered by the drug policy alliance:
http://drugpolicy.org/homepage.cfm

Absolute bullshit, again centered entirely on your own experience. Even if these substances were in the bulk aisle next to a bin of sesame seeds, I would still be shooting. No, wait - I would actually be shooting all the G-D time. Addiction wise - just as people like you exist in countless millions, so do people like me. Basing addiction potential of society as a whole on one or the other is simply shortsighted, because both and all ranges are going to happen across the board

well, now we're finally beginning to see what kind of drug user you are... but just because you can't exercise moderation doesn't mean that the rest of us can't and need to be protected from ourselves like children.

Want to know what the starting dose for alcohol is? A helpful hint, regarding it's OWN overdose factor which should not be thrown about in ridiculous comparison: it's more than 5mg, and it doesn't fit so easily and effortlessly into a quick shot syringe. See the difference? Equate heroin for what it is. Downplaying in comparison is not acceptable.

thats why heroin would most-likely only be sold in oral preparations if it were legalised. unless you're assuming that just because we support drug legalization that we don't think common sense practices and regulations ought to be put in place.

In the average life where you want to make drugs a recreational availability - what is and what isn't stupid?

what does that even mean?

And now we've begun to compare hard mind altering substances with FOOD, in the downplaying. Something hard wired into the human body & mind which has a completely different level of effect, need and addiction. Wow.

you really are keen on totally missing the point of everyone's statements. the analogy is to demonstrate that some people choose to live responsibly, and others don't. having too much of a good thing can be bad too. that's no reason to just prohibit something completely. i mean, we're not advocating for the legalization of pcp or the sale of narcotics to minors. we're just advocating the right of responsible individuals to make their own lifestyle choices which don't affect others when they can take responsibility for their own actions.

Oh man, I've really gotta stop right there. So, with any free time - do share in response how your positives outweigh my negatives; or however those negatives (due only to your own experience, of course) "don't exist". How people would just kinda not really care about these newly introduced drugs and all simply because the taboo has been removed. How in the hell, exactly - your entire system of completely unconventional and unproven society of free drug-use works.

Insanity of the drug war; Sanity of mass drug availabilty and consumerism. Simply, wow.

umm.... grow up. we're giving reasons why some drugs should be legalized instead of being completely prohibited thus perpetuating this war on some drugs which is costly in capital as well as human lives. your "negatives" are not hard to refute, they're just really poorly thought out. i'm sure you could see the fallacies in your own logic if you just took a moment to actually examine what's being proposed and what present conditions are like instead of ranting on and on about how drugs kill so many people and if drugs are legalized they'd be sold like candy and other absurdities.

 

[E-llusion]

Frustrated,

Do you know how horrifically self perpetuating the problem gets when a near limitless supply is introduced?

Alcohol is legal and very addictive, yet only small percentage of population is considred addicts. What makes illegal drugs any different ? Just because they would be legal it would turn everyone into zombie-addicts ?
That's a faulty logic.

And another thing, anyone with an attitude that "general public is too stupid to handle drugs" is a very condescending and elitist , what makes you so special that you can handle substances and others can't ?

 

[JTMarlin]

Another thing: Most people wouldn't start doing, or even try, Heroin or cocaine if they were made legal. Most people would still hate them and think of them as addictive, just like most people who don't smoke choose not to because it's unhealthy, and those who do smoke choose to because they want to...not because it's legal. Same goes for illegal drugs, people do them because they want to, not because they're illegal. I don't do them because they're impure and non-standardized, but I'm an exception. Most people don't do them simply because they don't WANT to. Make cigarettes and tobacco illegal tomorrow, and people would be charging $100 a pack, selling it illegally, and addicts would be very pissed off, spending all their money for cigarettes. Right now it's just an inconvenient habit, until it starts ruining your health. Doctors will help you quit, however. Most people won't tell their doctor "yeah, I snort an 8-ball of coke everyday, take oxycontin, and am an alcoholic".

Not everyone likes heroin, being up for days on meth (I hate the shit), or sticking needles in their arms. I sure as hell wouldn't ever touch a needle, but you keep missing my point: needles are OLD technology, needle-less injectors have been invented, they use a gas to shoot the chemical into the blood stream. People wouldn't smoke meth if it was legal, plain and simple. They do because it's illegal, pure meth is available, and they have an extreme tolerance. If ONLY pills were available, legally, most addicts would opt for it over illegal, pure meth. To talk about legalization you have to look back at when drugs were legal, and what happened when they were made illegal. As soon as prohibition began crime skyrocketed, addicts switched from morphine and laudanum, and people simply quit doing coke in favor of amphetamines. When crack came out cocaine got popular to the middle-class and lower-class. In a legal situation, people would choose convenience and functionality over something purely recreational. Crack has no value whatsoever, and most crackheads simply began smoking rock because they had been snorting coke for so long. Most heroin addicts started shooting up because they had been snorting heroin or taking Oxycontins, but that no longer worked. If tablets were cheaply available, to people over 21, they'd just take a few more pills...not make a huge jump to injection. I know there's more of a "rush", but I've taken Oxycontin before and it felt damn good enough orally. Too good for me to want to take it again.

I'm not saying pure bricks of coke and heroin should be sitting on the shelf next to aspirin. The stuff would be sold like liquor, in a Drug Store. The idea is to make it harder for kids to do drugs. Also, it would have to be sold in a different establishment than tobacco and alcohol products, to lower chances of somebody saying "hmm, I'm getting some cigarettes..why not try coke?". If they did, fine, but it would keep a few people from doing it. The government can REGULATE these things, unlike their ability to regulate drug dealers selling to anyone at any age for extreme profit margins. Do people snort pure caffeine because it's legal and they can't afford to drink coffee? No. Hell, most people don't even take the damn pills. Unlike you, the "general public" don't like extremes.

 

[psychetool]

Bump~

I would just like to compliment most of the posters in this thread for a great read. I don't usually agree with you JTMarlin, but on this issue we are on the same page.

I can't really present new information here as you have pretty much nailed it. Good job.

I'm really hoping that people will finally be able to cast aside some of those totally uneducated social stigmas about drug use after reading a bit of this article.

 

[thursday]

i can't believe that the most uneducated post came from a freaking moderator. i mean, frustrated, the views you've expressed seem like they're based on the exact kind of misinformation and misconcieved notions about recreational drugs and drug users that bluelight has always been fighting to eliminate.
i would have thought that anyone involved with a site like BL, whose sole purpose is to PROVIDE A FORUM FOR RATIONAL DISCUSSION OF RESPONSIBLE DRUG USE AND THE PROMOTION OF HARM REDUCTION, would at least acknowledge the notion that RESPONSIBLE USE CAN ACTUALLY BE ACHIEVED by most individuals. i mean, if you really think that drugs are just a terrible plague on mankind and that drugs like heroin or crack cocaine are inherently dangerous because people WILL INEVITABLY ABUSE THEM AND THEY SHOULD THEREFORE BE COMPLETELY PROHIBITED then what's the point of teaching people how to use those drugs responsibly? how can you even attempt to speak about harm reduction if these drugs can't be used responsibly and in moderation?

and i've never seen a mod provide such an over-abundance of non-sequitur arguments drawing from such dubious premises. for example:

JTMarlin: People wouldn't shoot heroin, it'd be cheaply and widely available and could be drank or taken in pills.

Frustrated:
A - You ignore factor of an IV rush. and tolerance - in this self assertion
B - If in whatever fantasy utopia people actually stopped shooting heroin because they could just rail/smoke/whatever a pure gram instead - so what??? Now the minority danger of spreading disease via shared rigs is "gone". What happens to the OD and addiction factors? Are you really about to convince yourself that individuals and/or a society (are) left safer with 12 cent grams of heroin; as long as they aren't administering it with needles?

here JTMarlin suggested that if heroin were legal it'd likely be much cheaper and more widely available therefore people wouldn't be as inclined to shoot it since they could just drink/eat more of it or take it in whatever preparation the pharmacutical companies distributed it in. this is a perfectly reasonable suggestion since a lot of users, myself included, IV heroin because it's so expensive and I want to get the most out of it. now if i could get that same rush or euphoria comparable to an IVed rush through othermeans perhaps by simplying drinking a larger amount of diamorphine liquid or something, i'd probably cut back on IVing a lot.
then you jump in calling his suggestion a "fantasy utopia" and start talking about a completely unrelated argument. now i wouldn't consider the risk of acquiring hepatitis, HIV, or possible vein damage to be "minor" risks since those are the most severe physical health risks associated with heroin usage, but more importantly please answer me this: when did JTMarlin or anyone else ever claim that heroin was going to be a safer drug altogether simply because it wasn't IVed? because it kinda looks like you just assumed that someone said it and then went on and on about it.

JTMarlin: People wouldn't be tweaking all the time, they'd get fired from work just like a drunk who is drunk all the time.

Frustrated:
Right, because at the current level of illegality people don't have problems tweaking all the time and getting fired from work for abuse of any other substance. And just look at the rather 'tame' ills of alcohol, for comparison! That's exactly what would happen!

How about "no"? Accord each substance for what they are. Their own effects. Their own addiction potential(s). Their own risk and outright TOXICITY.

way to completely miss the point. JTMarlin was responding to someone who had posted: "My vision of legalized drugs would be everyone tweaking 18 hours a day at work, and having a 6 hour break with a shot of heroin. People would become total slaves, using drugs to make money to buy drugs. That shit happens even without drugs being legal."
and he was merely refuting this point in saying that meth and heroin wouldn't instantly be abused by everyone simply due to it being legalized. its just like alcohol is legal now but most people know better than to abuse alcohol all the time because people know that if you start abusing substances you will suffer setbacks in your career as well as in other aspects of life. he never claimed that there aren't people out there who abuse meth or have their lives negatively affected by using meth.
next time, try to read things in the context they were written and understand the point the other person is trying to make before you jump in with a completely irrelevant post full of undue smugness. and that's an egregious usage of the word "accord" which makes no sense at all btw.

Good Lord, I'd just love to hear your version of a society that gets off easier when making any and all intoxicants a shelf bought reality. Seriously, I'd like to hear in detail how this supposedworld works - because I've myself tried time and again to envision a successful system where we're free to use. It doesn't seem to in any stretch, exist.

ummm... just because certain drugs are made legal doesn't mean they're not gonna be controlled substances. and opposing the drug war doesn't mean you'd automatically have to start filling store shelves with PCP and meth and allow anyone to buy any kind of recreational substance they'd like off of store shelves. that's not how most already legal drugs are regulated, why would newly legalized drugs be any different? maybe if you didn't jump to random conclusions about what other people are suggesting it wouldn't seem so absurd to you. cuz the absurdity mostly comes from your inability to exercise a little bit of common sense when interpreting what others are trying to say.
now, you could have more maturely worded your post and simply asked "well, if these drugs are legalized would that mean they'd all be unregulated and available for purchase over the counter by anyone?" and you wouldn't have sounded like such an ass. but you had to go assuming things and drawing out your own absurd interpretations of it so that you could knock what others said down as a ridiculous and unrealistic proposal.

One doesn't have to read too far around here before crossing "insanity of the drug war" repeated in unison. As for the insanity of the opposing fantasy? Hahahaha.. nah, that isn't an issue.

what's so absurd about wanting the government to adopt a harm-reduction approach to the drug problem in existence instead of perpetuating violence and injustice with prohibition? is it also insane to want the government to exercise a more sensible and compassionate drug policy or to want to stop the overpopulation of our prison systems with non-violent drug offenders? maybe if all that state funding went into education instead of the prison industrial complex you could have gotten a decent enough education to at least learn how to draw out a sound argument by which to present your opinions rather than just arguing moot points to yourself which you apparently find so amusing.

 

[JTMarlin]

Legal drugs would also make a new industry, creating more jobs in basically every field from construction to banking and advertising, and make the stock market go up along with it. Any money or jobs lost by law enforcement personnel would be made up for in the end, old DEA agents could become drug company executives, etc...It just works all the way around, except for addictions, but that doesn't outweigh the benefits of legalization or the downfalls of the costly Drug War (Frustrated, name me 3 benefits of the War on Drugs...just 3, come on...) since people are addicted to crap already.

 

[gloggawogga]

Even if these substances were in the bulk aisle next to a bin of sesame seeds, I would still be shooting. No, wait - I would actually be shooting all the G-D time. Addiction wise - just as people like you exist in countless millions, so do people like me. Basing addiction potential of society as a whole on one or the other is simply shortsighted, because both and all ranges are going to happen across the board

So because you're too lacking in self discipline to moderate your own behaviour you want to suppress the behaviour of me and millions of others, who can moderate our behaviours, by locking us all up in prison?? How completely selfish of you!!! Take responsibility for your own behaviour, instead of punishing others for it.

 

[thursday]

Legal drugs would also make a new industry, creating more jobs in basically every field from construction to banking and advertising, and make the stock market go up along with it. Any money or jobs lost by law enforcement personnel would be made up for in the end, old DEA agents could become drug company executives, etc...It just works all the way around, except for addictions, but that doesn't outweigh the benefits of legalization or the downfalls of the costly Drug War (Frustrated, name me 3 benefits of the War on Drugs...just 3, come on...) since people are addicted to crap already.

i dunno if ex DEA agents would be drug company execs, they'd probably join another gov. agency or just be out of a job since they really have no societal value. in any case my tax dollars wouldn't go into providing salaries for corrupt government agents who are out to punish people for their lifestyle choices when they've done nothing else wrong. we'd be saving so much resources be shutting down the DEA. we wouldn't have to combat international drug syndicates since our domestic product would be cheaper and safer to use. we also wouldn't have to intefere with the political climate of other regions for this reason.

 

[Real_Illusion]

Originally posted by thursday
i mean, we're not advocating for the legalization of pcp or the sale of narcotics to minors.

We arent? What the fuck, I want PCP! I'm a minor too. Last but not least, I'm responsible. Why does my age make me not allowed to do drugs? I'm 16 fucking years old. It's not like I'm fucking five. Wanna go set an age limit? Go ahead, I'll just have to pay more money so I can get someone older to buy it for me. Age restrictions are almost as dumb as legalizing drugs in the first place. If someone wants it bad enough, they're going to get it. It's easier to get pot than alcohol in my area, but it's still pretty easy to get it. Some of my friends parents even buy their children alcohol. I dont see why people think that age restrictions are going to work if restricting drugs from people of all ages doesn't. Not only that, I don't see why people think its neccesary anyway. With some exceptions, using drugs generally isn't healthy, no matter what age you are. Why, because I don't know how to use them responsibly? I bet I use drugs more responsibly than the average drug user between the ages of 20 and 30.

Originally posted by JTMarlin
Most heroin addicts started shooting up because they had been snorting heroin or taking Oxycontins, but that no longer worked. If tablets were cheaply available, to people over 21, they'd just take a few more pills...not make a huge jump to injection.

To people over 21? What the fuck? I like oxycontin too! Uh oh, I cant get any more though because I'm under 21 and my previous connection ran out. Okay then, I guess I'll start shooting H :D
Problem solved.
(By the way, I actually do enjoy sniffing oxycontin, and because my current supplier ran out I really am looking for heroin dealers. Imagine that?)

My point is, the age restrictions aren't preventing kids from doing drugs, they are just doing the same thing that would happen to adults if they were illegal - causing problems. Of all people, I would think BL'ers would understand this better than anyone else. But based on this thread, and my conversations with BL'ers over AIM, apparently this isnt the case.

I'm like Martin Luther king, except with age. "I have a dream....that one day a man will not be sold drugs based on the number of the times he has been around the sun, but on the content of his character!"

 

[thursday]

We arent? What the fuck, I want PCP! I'm a minor too. Last but not least, I'm responsible. Why does my age make me not allowed to do drugs? I'm 16 fucking years old. It's not like I'm fucking five. Wanna go set an age limit? Go ahead, I'll just have to pay more money so I can get someone older to buy it for me. Age restrictions are almost as dumb as legalizing drugs in the first place. If someone wants it bad enough, they're going to get it. It's easier to get pot than alcohol in my area, but it's still pretty easy to get it. Some of my friends parents even buy their children alcohol. I dont see why people think that age restrictions are going to work if restricting drugs from people of all ages doesn't. Not only that, I don't see why people think its neccesary anyway. With some exceptions, using drugs generally isn't healthy, no matter what age you are. Why, because I don't know how to use them responsibly? I bet I use drugs more responsibly than the average drug user between the ages of 20 and 30.


To people over 21? What the fuck? I like oxycontin too! Uh oh, I cant get any more though because I'm under 21 and my previous connection ran out. Okay then, I guess I'll start shooting H :D
Problem solved.
(By the way, I actually do enjoy sniffing oxycontin, and because my current supplier ran out I really am looking for heroin dealers. Imagine that?)

My point is, the age restrictions aren't preventing kids from doing drugs, they are just doing the same thing that would happen to adults if they were illegal - causing problems. Of all people, I would think BL'ers would understand this better than anyone else. But based on this thread, and my conversations with BL'ers over AIM, apparently this isnt the case.

I'm like Martin Luther king, except with age. "I have a dream....that one day a man will not be sold drugs based on the number of the times he has been around the sun, but on the content of his character!"

ok, lemme clarify:

People should be allowed to use drugs, but drug ABUSE(the irresponsible use of drugs) should still be prevented.
so when i say "we," i mean me and other BLers like JTMarlin or Invalid User who are in favor of a responsible government drug policy.
I'm not talking about you, and your radical thoughts about "age equality" which have already occurred to other people as just poorly wrought and self-serving reasoing.

Your argument is full of holes. Like saying since you can't get OC you're gonna start shooting H and because of your own immature mentality the government should let all people of any age buy any drug they want.
That itself demonstrates that your reasoning skills aren't very strong, and that your ability to make safe and responsible choices is non-existent.

If the government legalized weed, meth, heroin, coke, acid, and other common psychoactives, but controlled the substances so that kids couldn't purchase them how is that going to turn kids on to harder drugs? That's just limiting the availability of those substances to them.
Yea, they can still have an adult purchase the drugs for them, but at least then the government wouldn't be directly condoning irresponsible use of drugs. Trust me, most BLers have probably done drugs as minors, but most of us still don't think that there should be restrictions on what substances minors should be able to get ahold of. And nearly all of us think that drugs should be kept out of the hands of children whose brains are still developing.

PS
you've chosen a really poor reason to start slamming dope. that pattern of transitioning to harder drugs typifies the mentality of drug abusers.
It kinda implies that you need to get high so badly that you'll do anything to achieve that end, and that includes moving on to other drugs without properly assessing them first.
If you want to shoot dope you should make that decision based on information you know about the drug. You should also consider the possible consequences of picking up a heroin habit.

oh yea, and why did you take my use of the word "we" to include YOU, if you think legalizing drugs is dumb? don't include yourself everytime someone uses the first-person nominative plural. cuz i don't want to be associated with you and your questionable logic if you can't even grasp my usage of simple pronouns.

 

[gloggawogga]

We arent? What the fuck, I want PCP! I'm a minor too. Last but not least, I'm responsible. Why does my age make me not allowed to do drugs? I'm 16 fucking years old. It's not like I'm fucking five...Age restrictions are almost as dumb as legalizing drugs in the first place..

Ok. What if you were five? Would it make a difference then? Would you give PCP to a five year old? Are age limits really dumb or is it just dumb when the age limit is higher than yours?

And if you don't think its a certain age that matters, then how about your indepedence? Are you living on your own and paying all of your bills yet? If someone else is supporting you, be it your parent(s) or whatever, aren't they investing alot of their money to feed you, clothe you and keep you healthy. Should you be allowed to risk their investment by poisoning your self with PCP? As long as you live off your parents, you live by their rules. What do they think about you doing PCP?

 

[Real_Illusion]

Thursday - You sound like a DARE officer, to be honest. The only reason you gave for me to not do drugs as a minor is my brain is still developing. However, your brain is always developing until you die, it just develops the most during adolescence. However, I don't think my brain will be damaged much from my drug use, and its a risk I'm willing to take. And actually I dont plan on shooting heroin, I plan on sniffing it. And its not a harder drug than oxycontin, in fact most heroin addicts I know like oxycontin more, they simply use heroin because its cheaper.

Ok. What if you were five? Would it make a difference then? Would you give PCP to a five year old? Are age limits really dumb or is it just dumb when the age limit is higher than yours?

And if you don't think its a certain age that matters, then how about your indepedence? Are you living on your own and paying all of your bills yet? If someone else is supporting you, be it your parent(s) or whatever, aren't they investing alot of their money to feed you, clothe you and keep you healthy. Should you be allowed to risk their investment by poisoning your self with PCP? As long as you live off your parents, you live by their rules. What do they think about you doing PCP?

You do make a good point. If I was five and used drugs I would probably say the same thing. But I still agree with my statement. Would I give PCP to a 5 year old? Probably not, but thats because I dont know any 5 year olds that could even possibly use PCP responsibly, considering the fact that most 5 year olds know nothing about the drug period. Also, judging by the fact that my parents sent me to rehab, I don't think they would approve of me indulging in PCP. But thats like saying as long as you live in the United States you live by the DEA's Controlled Substances Act rules. What would the police think about you doing PCP? I'm sure they wouldnt approve of it either.
And to be honest, I really dont like my parents. My mom is a fucking bitch of a whore who cares more about her boyfriend than me, and when he was beating me and threatening to kill me, she didnt even care, and lied to my drug counselor about the event. Oh yeah, and she'll have sex with him when I'm in the other room and she'll still scream and moan nice and loud, just so I can hear. There are times when I wished that she would die, so I really think I'm far beyond worrying about what she thinks of my drug use. And my father, he used to beat me as a child, and even though he's kinda nice to me now, he's still kind of a prick, so I really dont give a shit what he thinks either.

 

[Real_Illusion]

"If the government legalized weed, meth, heroin, coke, acid, and other common psychoactives, but controlled the substances so that kids couldn't purchase them how is that going to turn kids on to harder drugs?"

I already explained the scenario to you. I ran out of oxycontin and now I'm looking for heroin. I didnt say all kids will do that, many wouldnt try heroin that are willing to try oxycontin. Then again, when I first tried oxy I didn't want to try heroin. Things change. I do know the risks of heroin addiction, I do realize it can make me turn into a homeless person living in a cardboard box. I do realize if I share needles, or use them incorrectly, I can get diseases. But, I am going to try and prevent risks, and if I fail, well, then I guess I'm fucked, now aren't I?

If oxycontin was legal for adults to buy, I really wouldnt do that, because then I would just pay an adult to get me the oxycontin in the first place, and I wouldnt need to look for heroin. If they have age restrictions I really dont care because it will still be easy as all hell to get any drug that I want. It will just be a pain in the ass to have to sit on the sidewalk and have to go around, asking random people (usually homeless people who probably wouldnt mind robbing me), bothering them, to try to give them $5 extra to try and get me drugs. Usually when I buy alcohol I dont resort to the random people thing, because I generally find people to get me some, since I have done drugs long enough that I met alot of people. Actually, I haven't done it in a very long time. But when I first started getting into drugs I did that. And, I will do it again if I ever encounter a time in which I really want alcohol but no one I know can get me some. It would be safer, cheaper, and easier to just let me go into the store and buy some alcohol. Setting age restrictions will not keep teens off drugs, if anything it will make them more attractive to most teenagers since it just makes it seem more rebellious. Do you really think any of the teenagers in my high school care that there is an age restriction on alcohol? If you do, then your thinking is incorrect. Oops, I forgot, there is that one muslim girl in my physics class who wont drink. Oh yeah, now I remember, thats because of her religion, not the age restrictions.

 

[thursday]

right... i sound like a dare officer because i make the distinction between drug use and drug abuse. and when did i ever try to tell you not to use drugs?

please learn how to read, or just stay out of serious discussions that other people are trying to have.