Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Illicit Drugs & Amateur Chemistry - What to do?

Illicit Drugs & Amateur Chemistry - What to do?

Pages: 1 2

tupence_hapeny - 1-4-2007 at 05:12

I have been placed in a position where it is time to make a choice. Those of you who have read my other post in this forum will know that amateur chemistry in this country is basically illegal unless and until one of two things happen.

(1) The Powers that be win the drug war; or

(2) The Powers that be realise the drug war is unwinnable and legalise drugs.

I realise neither is particularly palatable, however, they are the choices we have. Thus for mine it is time to look at the pros and cons of each result.

(1) The Powers that be win the Drug War

Pros

A greatly safer society, what more, one with full employment - whether in supervision of correctional facilities or with the various paramilitary or law enforcement agencies. It will be good, kinda like the 50's, except for those goddamn reds.

Cons

Amateur Chemistry will remain the subject of considerable suspicion for the foreseeable future, as despite winning the government will rightly fear outbreaks of subversive activities. However, and provided none of your immediate or extended family has ever been photographed at a rally or picking up a copy of Das Kapital, you will be entitled to, at the culmination of a minimum of 5 years study, be entitled to own 1 beaker.

(2) The Powers that be realise that the Drug War is unwinnable

Pros

Amateur chemistry will be widely practiced, not least because the minute drugs are legal, prices and availability will rise - shutting out both the tweakers and the major cartels - put simply - the money just won't be there. Taxes will fall as a result of the incredible reduction in spending on law enforcement (crime will fall - junkies steal to score - if drugs are cheap they won't be so active) and the massive increase in taxes on newly available revenue streams (drugs). The 50% of the population that now toke in private can now do so in comfort and democracy has triumphed - while the agricultural sector will rebound overnight due to the availability of certain cash crops (poppies, marijuana, coca, etc.).

Cons

It will be incredibly hard to get work with law enforcement, prisons or other paramilitary organisations and this stagnancy will crimp promotional opportunities and the power of the incumbents. Several lucrative investment opportunities, namely prisons, will suffer from lack of funding for the foreseeable future. Painkiller manufacturers will be hit by the availability of cheap drugs that are off patent and finally decent drugs will be available to treat (not hide) the causes of PTSD and trauma related illness. A portion of the public will rapidly become addicted to the newly legalised drugs (face it, this is always going to happen - look at alcohol and even petrol).

So, if you disagree - tell me why, oh, and remember to vote for which option you believe to be preferable:

joeflsts - 1-4-2007 at 06:51

Pick the choice that best suits you. Amateur chemistry is not illegal. Making illegal substances is.

Joe

tupence_hapeny - 1-4-2007 at 06:58

Here it most assuredly is, well not specifically, only if you want to use glassware, chemicals or something subversive like that.

Pick the choice which you believe is acheivable,

PS Do you honestly believe that the keystones can actually win the war?

BromicAcid - 1-4-2007 at 07:21

Come on, a poll with two options, nothing is that black and white. Honestly I don't think the government is going to win and I certainly don't think they are going to give up.

Sauron - 1-4-2007 at 07:26

You oversimplify.

You fail to consider the possibility that the "powers that be" already know the "Drug war" is unwinnable, but they don't care because winning was never their intention. Were it otherwise they would have changed strategy long ago.

tupence_hapeny - 1-4-2007 at 07:36

Don't care about whether they wish to change tactics... In a democracy they have NO choice but to change tactics, once 50% of the population disapproves.

Otherwise we get into seriously dangerous territory, in which a minority is attempting to set and enforce rules which are not agreed with by the majority, using the very tactics which they have legislated against the other side having the means to use. Moreover, doing so after having pissed on the very people from which they derive their support.

I cannot think of a single instance in which the sitting power has survived (not weathered) an actual assault against citizens against the will of the majority of their citizens. That places a society in a very inadvisable position (think Belfast circa 1970). When too much of society identifies more closely with the criminals than the government the criminals will win every time.

However, this time (unlike Belfast/Ulster) the government have set out to put the amateur chemists in the camp of the disaffected. Not a real bright idea, not considering what is possible.

tup

YT2095 - 1-4-2007 at 08:10

IMO, My country (England) has had 2 great Prime Ministers, Churchill and Thatcher.

Lady Thatcher has a Degree in Chemistry, I don`t think for a second she didn`t do any Amateur Chem at home as well.

and so if it`s good enough for one of our greatest, it`s good enough for me!

I don`t care for either of your 2 options, as has been stated above, it`s NOT a B/W choice as you try and present it.

tupence_hapeny - 1-4-2007 at 08:42

In this country it very soon will be, on at least 4 occasions last year Police lost control of a gang-inspired situation, despite resorting to violence to stop it. Prohibition gives the power to the gangs, clear and simple. It provides them with the disaffected recruits and the money with which to purchase weapons.

And, YT2095 I agree wholeheartedly on your choice of PM's, they weren't only YOUR countries best IMHO. Yet I fail to see what Thatchers choice of hobby has to do with the question?

Simply put, the problem will get way out of hand in the very near future... The problem is not posed by mythical 'unified' evil forces, but (as in Ireland) a multiplicity of disaffected groups, which don't agree with each other - but who don't agree with the current approach either and who are willing to use violence to further their own ends and/or vested interests. In Ulster this was predominantly sectarian according to most, despite the facts that the majority of participants on one side were connected directly or indirectly with law enforcement or paramilitary forces, and the original problem grew once the Crown (in right of the UK as embodied by the Royal Army) became involved (ironically to protect the residents of Derry and Falls Road from the UDF/UVF/etc).

The trouble with trying to learn from history is the potential for unpalatable facts to become apparent. I prefer this to willful blindness, however, I am hardly in the majority in doing so... Anytime one part of society attempts to sanction the use of violence to impose their will on the remainder of society a violent backlash is possible. When violence happens, the majority of society supports whatever places them in the least personal danger, not a nice fact - but a true one nonetheless.

YT2095 - 1-4-2007 at 09:22

Albeit largely Borked post 9/11 and 7/7, I still have a modicum of faith in our Justice system.

The_Davster - 1-4-2007 at 11:00

I completly agree with Sauron.

Me, I personally hate drugs, hell I avoid aspirin if I can.

The war on drugs is not going to be won, all the money going to fund the paramilitary police units makes working as part of the 'solution' far to lucrative. And all the 'skimmings' from seizures of stuff from dealers is just icing on the cake.
Prohibition did not work 100 years ago, why would it work now? I have read a good deal of "Economics of Prohibition" which is a really good read. Many go with the whole 'drugs are bad...mkay...they should be illegal' I still think they may be bad for you(but not evil like the media expouses), but thats no reason for them to be illegal... I have said this once and I'll say it again Legalize it all and let darwin sort it out. Addiction is your own damn fault, with all the information out there you have no excuse not to know the potential harm something does, so if you eat/snort/inject something that some random degenerate gives you, you are a moron, and the gene pool is better off without you. 'Peer pressure" be damned, I did not drink or have a desire to drink until second year of university, and even then it was 'ok, now whats the purpose of this?' after I tried.

Neither of the poll options are going to happen, but what WILL happen in the near future is that drugs are going to become a 'bigger problem'(however you want to take that), gang activity will increase, and as such violent crime, all the while politicians give more an more funding to SS styled 'drug law enforcers' leading us closer to 1984.

Levi - 1-4-2007 at 11:27

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Davster
I have said this once and I'll say it again Legalize it all and let darwin sort it out.

Amen. Imagine a world where airline peanuts don't need directions and warning labels...

There's this notion that it is evil to be so cold concerning these matters, but we need to learn that there is a difference between adequate warning and fascist involvement. One cannot simultaneously believe in the inherent dignity of a human being and forcefully make their decisions for them. If a person is not allowed to decide his or her own fate, the end situation is worse than death--it is the fate of a meaningless life which will inevitably be followed by death.

The_Davster - 1-4-2007 at 11:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Levi
One cannot simultaneously believe in the inherent dignity of a human being and forcefully make their decisions for them. If a person is not allowed to decide his or her own fate, the end situation is worse than death--it is the fate of a meaningless life which will inevitably be followed by death.

Mind if I quote this in the future? It sums up my feelings on a lot of things, put rather eloquently.

Levi - 1-4-2007 at 12:17

I'd be honored to have that quoted--although I'm nearly certain it's been said before by someone more famous than myself. That is a 100% original Levi-quote, but the concept has circled the globe several times and it's bound to have fallen somewhere else

tupence_hapeny - 1-4-2007 at 20:15

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Davster
I completly agree with Sauron.

Me, I personally hate drugs, hell I avoid aspirin if I can.

The war on drugs is not going to be won, all the money going to fund the paramilitary police units makes working as part of the 'solution' far to lucrative. And all the 'skimmings' from seizures of stuff from dealers is just icing on the cake.
Prohibition did not work 100 years ago, why would it work now? I have read a good deal of "Economics of Prohibition" which is a really good read. Many go with the whole 'drugs are bad...mkay...they should be illegal' I still think they may be bad for you(but not evil like the media expouses), but thats no reason for them to be illegal... I have said this once and I'll say it again Legalize it all and let darwin sort it out. Addiction is your own damn fault, with all the information out there you have no excuse not to know the potential harm something does, so if you eat/snort/inject something that some random degenerate gives you, you are a moron, and the gene pool is better off without you. 'Peer pressure" be damned, I did not drink or have a desire to drink until second year of university, and even then it was 'ok, now whats the purpose of this?' after I tried.

Neither of the poll options are going to happen, but what WILL happen in the near future is that drugs are going to become a 'bigger problem'(however you want to take that), gang activity will increase, and as such violent crime, all the while politicians give more an more funding to SS styled 'drug law enforcers' leading us closer to 1984.

My feelings precisely.

However, what if I were unwilling to accept the two options you paint? A police state with a countervailing anarchy, thus legitimising the continuation of the first? (Quite simply for mine these are the two things that I would least like to see). I note your signature (I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Mill - also Mr Locke) and ask again, how may this result be prevented (my reference to your signature may indeed suggest that from my perspective the only real option will require a modicum of intestinal fortitude).

I am essentially ambivalent to drugs, whether they be legal or illegal, and similarly ambivalent to the people making the same, after all if beer manufacturers are such great people I see no reason to discriminate against the producers of other drugs per se. This is not to say that I agree with either the greed or the total lack of ethics in business, that lead drug makers to charge excessively and create social chaos and misery. However, drugs do not create addiction, a certain portion of society is sick enough to find solace only in continual intoxication - whatever the agent of that intoxication may be - where drugs are not available petrol is used (especially in this country).

So, are we to continue to sit back and say nothing while our society goes to hell in a handbasket, while our leaders continue to apply a Victorian style approach to an issue which may be dealt with as befitting the 21st century? Would allowing this to happen, knowing the consequences, make us complicit in those consequences?

Unfortunately, neither side of this war wants to win - the government because they are empowered by the existence of the evil 'drug dealers' while the dealers most certainly do not want to damage their business - which legalisation would cause. So society suffers silently in the middle, and amateur chemistry in this country is dead (or illegal, take your pick).

There is only one answer to the problem, although god help me, not one I particularly wish to participate in... (nor one which will be particularly well understood on this board).

That answer is of course, to make the drugs in sufficient quantity as to make the input of the tweakers and cartels otiose, and distribute them at the lowest price possible per unit, in order to achieve market saturation. As this is a social action, use university students to distribute the wares and to protest the continued prohibition at the same time (as per the social actions against abortion, with similar levels of resistance).

Unfortunately, the penalties for failure will be intense, to say the least, while some (particularly distributors) will not survive. That being said, it will be their call as to whether or not to participate.

That being said, evil is winning while good men (and women) do nothing, this cannot be allowed to continue.

indigofuzzy - 2-4-2007 at 00:49

First, let me apologize in advance if my post gets incoherent. A lot of ideas to try to type, and it's getting late.

For one, while I acknowledge the statements that amateur chemistry is not actually illegal, I must interject that it's becoming legally dangerous. By this I mean that an amateur chemist can get in trouble these days without having to do anything illegal, s/he only needs to be seen by the wrong person whilst doing an experiment, then BOOM! legal trouble. I was in Wal*Mart the other night with my roommate, picking up some solvents for my experiments, the whole time telling him to be quiet, fearing that someone might think we were running some kind of clandestine "lab". Sad, really. As you may be able to ascertain from my other posts, my interest in chemistry has nothing to do with "illegal drugs", but I do use a *lot* of products for other than their intended purposes. My (mis)adventures in amateur chemistry all stem from a sort of idle curiosity, but it gets really discouraging to have to be watching my back because someone might get the wrong idea and get me in trouble with "the law". And for what? Copper plating some knickknacks? Extracting the phosphorescent pigment form paint? being curious about plasma and high-voltage phenomena? Recycling used styrofoam into sculptures? ::grumbles::

As for the connection between amateur chem and drug manufacturing, we all know it's one more big wrong turn in this "war on drugs", and we can all agree that this war will never be won. As I see it, the "war on drugs" is causing more social problems than it set out to solve. America's "Drug problem" is only a problem because of drug law. This has been alluded to several times already on this thread. The "war on drugs" creates poverty, creates "criminals", creates violence and death, destroys lives, destroys careers, ruins neighborhoods, and for what? Virtually every life destroyed by drugs, barring death from overdose, was destroyed not by the effects of the drug in question, but by the effects of the "war on drugs". How many people have been doing well at their job, only to lose it for failing a drug test? How many people can't get off drugs and clean up their lives because no one will hire them because they still have metabolites in their urine? Why the anti-cannabis campaign on TV? I have never heard of anyone overdosing on cannabis, never heard of a death attributed to cannabis, and this whole gateway drug thing is utter bull....er...crap. Most people I know who smoke (or eat) cannabis *don't* go on to "hard" drugs like cocaine, heroine, meth, etc. Many dabble with psylocybin mushrooms, salivia divinorum, or Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), but only on rare occasions. There is a large but invisible subset of the population that uses "illegal drugs" (mostly cannabis, but sometimes other things) responsibly. Just like how there is a large subset of the population that uses alcohol responsibly.

Maybe the best solution to this is education. hmm, screw maybe. Definitely, the best solution is education, *truthful* education. Make people aware that there are 100% legitimate amateur chemists. Make people aware that without us, there would be no plastic. (thank you, plastics industry for your commercials about how essential plastic is) Make people aware that without us, there would be no nonstick cookware, no allergy medicines, no painkillers, no insulin, no Pepto Bismol™, no nail polish, no panty hose, no hawaiian polyester shirts, NO COMPUTERS, NO TELEVISION, NO CELL PHONES, no windex™, no tires on their car, no gasoline, no kerosene, heck, no steel, no brass, no perfume, NO DEODORANT, TOOTHPASTE, SHAMPOO or SOAP, no coca-cola™, no Mountain Dew™, no glow sticks, no matches or lighters, the list could go on for pages. In short, without chemistry, our modern world would not exist, and cannot continue to exist.

joeflsts - 2-4-2007 at 03:59

Quote:

Originally posted by indigofuzzy
Maybe the best solution to this is education. hmm, screw maybe. Definitely, the best solution is education, *truthful* education. Make people aware that there are 100% legitimate amateur chemists. Make people aware that without us, there would be no plastic. (thank you, plastics industry for your commercials about how essential plastic is) Make people aware that without us, there would be no nonstick cookware, no allergy medicines, no painkillers, no insulin, no Pepto Bismol™, no nail polish, no panty hose, no hawaiian polyester shirts, NO COMPUTERS, NO TELEVISION, NO CELL PHONES, no windex™, no tires on their car, no gasoline, no kerosene, heck, no steel, no brass, no perfume, NO DEODORANT, TOOTHPASTE, SHAMPOO or SOAP, no coca-cola™, no Mountain Dew™, no glow sticks, no matches or lighters, the list could go on for pages. In short, without chemistry, our modern world would not exist, and cannot continue to exist.

Ahh.. you mean all those items now made in China. A resurgence in amateur chemistry means that the social enhancements, as defined by the majority of our society, has stalled and Darwin will once again contain more truth than most thought.

Joe

PainKilla - 2-4-2007 at 16:40

There won't be a satisfying end to this "war" in our generation. What we can do however, is to ensure that future generations don't suffer the same oppression.

Most illegal drugs are, in my humble opinion, right where they belong. Sure, marijuana, psychedelics, and a few others don't belong on the list... but heroin, cocaine, and amphetamines for the masses? No thanks! I think I'll move to a country where they are illegal. Most people in today’s society simply can't use drugs responsibly. It's not that they are unable to, it's moreso that they haven't developed a societal/philosophical/moral lifestyle that incorporates drugs and responsibility in a manner that is productive both for themselves and society.

And therein lies the problem: most people are uneducated. Indigofuzzy hit the nail right on the head... if we want to see any sort of change, we won't be able to do anything in our generation... but if we educate our children, then we have a chance. It's my personal opinion that a course such as pharmacology should be offered –no– required for every single student. Drugs are a part of our lives... yet so few know how they work, why they work, or have any sort of philosophical viewpoint towards them (and drugs force you to evaluate your standing on life, something that most people, I feel, are afraid to do).

The matter isn’t as simple as, say, banning or unbanning all drugs. First off, some drugs are illegal for a good reason… I’m sorry, but society collapsing from mass opiate use (see China) is something I don’t want to see. A paranoid and sedated population? That’s not preferred either. So what is left? I think the best approach would be something along of the lines of repealing harsh laws such as imprisonment and heavy fines, implementing education, and then our children can decide what’s best, when they and their peers are educated about drugs.

Drugs are quite prominent nowadays and everyone seems to know something about them. Almost always, what they know is just wrong. Of course, that doesn’t change people from sticking to what they know and demonizing and/or proselytizing drugs X and Y. I feel that people need to look beyond just changing a law for their benefit. YOU might benefit, but some uneducated junior high student who gets addicted to crack won’t be benefiting, and you can be sure society and his family will be grieving.

I don’t care much for the laws, and in the words of the Good Doctor “In a closed society where everybody’s guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity.” Don’t get caught… problem solved. Sure the bans are harsh, and you aren’t doing anything illegal… but, well, tough! I’d rather have chemicals difficult to get than see more people get sucked into hard drugs because they know too little about them and for them, dopamine prevails over reason.

Education implemented into our children’s curriculum… that’s the only chance we have. Our generation is doomed.

[Edited on 2-4-2007 by PainKilla]

12AX7 - 2-4-2007 at 19:36

Found this in my inbox today.

U.S. scientist urges support for NSF
WASHINGTON (UPI) -- The head of the American Chemical Society said the National Science Foundation's education programs are critical to the nation's competitiveness.

ACS President Catherine Hunt told a congressional panel Thursday that the NSF's education and research programs are needed to fend off threats to the United States' economic and technological leadership.

Hunt said NSF plays an "absolutely essential" role in addressing challenges in the areas of science, technology, engineering and mathematics education from kindergarten through graduate school and beyond, the ACS said in a release.

NSF provides about one-fifth of all federal funding in support of basic research at America's colleges and universities.

"We must set aside any notion that NSF's education programs are either subservient to or stand in competition with its research programs," said Hunt. "NSF's education and research missions are mutually supportive and play key, unique roles in building our nation's scientific and technological capacity."

The_Davster - 4-4-2007 at 19:47

Quote:

Originally posted by tupence_hapeny

There is only one answer to the problem, although god help me, not one I particularly wish to participate in... (nor one which will be particularly well understood on this board).

That answer is of course, to make the drugs in sufficient quantity as to make the input of the tweakers and cartels otiose, and distribute them at the lowest price possible per unit, in order to achieve market saturation. As this is a social action, use university students to distribute the wares and to protest the continued prohibition at the same time (as per the social actions against abortion, with similar levels of resistance).

That would do more harm than anything. You are expousing to a group of chemical hobbyists to essentially make drugs so we don't get in trouble for our legitimate hobby. That is completly inane and I cannot see any support for such ideas here. The free market may be the solution to the problem, but the LEGAL free market. Even if your idea could work, there is not nearly enough hobbyists to make it successfull, and even if there were I am sure perhaps one in 1000 would attempt this. The rest finding it disgusting, myself included.
It would not do our LEGAL CHEMISTRY hobby any good to try this.

Sauron - 4-4-2007 at 19:54

Check out this very same poster in the P2P from Styrene thread.

Just a fucking meth cook.

The_Davster - 4-4-2007 at 20:05

Quote:

Originally posted by tupence_hapeny
IIllicit Drugs & Amateur Chemistry - What to do?

Hows about you quit making them and giving the rest of us a bad name? None of this trying to make yourself a martyr or some crap for a cause you do not represent.

Sauron - 4-4-2007 at 20:22

Being a professional criminal drug chemist is NOT amateur chemistry.

Unlike a few of our European members you do not even have the excuse of being legal or quasi legal in your own country.

In short, @Tup, you are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

Don't be a drug cook and then winge about draconian laws enacted to counter what you yourself are doing. People just like you ARE the problem. If amateur chemistry is just about extinct in Australia, it's because of Australian drug cooks - isn't it?

A few rotten apples spoiling the whole barrel.

PainKilla - 4-4-2007 at 20:29

I have to say, I wholeheartedly agree - but drug chemistry is only in bad tastes, IMHO, if you sell whatever it is being made. One can research drugs on an amateur level without much difficulty. Selling is another issue altogether... in fact, selling is the only reason amateur chemistry is targeted, since "amateur chemists” (in the eyes of LEO) are the ones making and selling the drugs. Of course, the drugs themselves are another taboo, but I am personally for freedom of the individual, provided nothing else is harmed in the process – and that’s easy to do, provided you provide for yourself, only. And in a responsible manner, environmentally and such.

Of course, our good friend might claim the above, but personally, I have my suspicions too.

[Edited on 4-4-2007 by PainKilla]

Sauron - 4-4-2007 at 20:52

The dilemna is that an amateur lab where the chemist is "researching drugs" is indistinguishable from a clandestine lab where a drug cook is preparing drugs for sale.

Reagents, equipment, all the same.

Penalties the same.

Therefore, for one's own sake as well as for the sake of the hobby, better not to straddle the fence. Join the bad guys, or join the good guys. The bad guys have utterly ruined any possibility of staking out a tenable libertarian position of "private research" or "personal use".

PainKilla - 4-4-2007 at 21:30

Very true... this is the case in the USA anyway. In some countries, where people are a bit more lenient, provided you aren't harming anyone - things could arguably be a bit better.

The wise man keeps his mouth shut.

[Edited on 5-4-2007 by PainKilla]

Sauron - 4-4-2007 at 21:37

For every altruistic idealistic drug researcher there seem to be 1000 wannabe heads of the Cali Cartel out there. So it is hard to blame the cops for throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I steer clear of the things they are sensitized about, those being drugs, explosives and chemical weapons. Where I am interested in such things I confine myself to the paper chase.

PainKilla - 4-4-2007 at 21:49

There is no blame to be assigned, it's just the way things are, much to my and perhaps a few (literally) others' dismay. I hate the cartel individuals even more than you probably, seeing as I can't even do research on LEGAL, note, not quasi-legal, but LEGAL drugs, without being chastised or hassled. The work is really interesting... and I plan on pursuing it through the legal channels - such as going to school for medicinal chemistry/pharmacology (soon too, and I can't wait...).

People like an easy way out and unfortunately, many drugs like meth, are cheap to make and thus profitable. These people don't have ethics - selling is unethical in general. I don't even like the big pharmaceutical companies poisoning children with sympathomimetic amines and SSRI's and all of that junk. It's really quite sad... I bet you if someone started making patented pharmaceutical drugs for personal use, they'd get arrested too.

I know what you mean, finding someone with ethics in the world of drugs is akin to searching for a politician without a personal agenda - that is, best of luck to you. It sucks, but that is the way it is. I just wish that the penalties for personal use weren't so harsh, then I'd actually consider some sort of activity in the field; now instead, I have to wait until my professional career.

Truly limiting todays society is…

Sauron - 4-4-2007 at 22:05

Oh, I can and do involve myself in medicinal chemistry, just not the recreational variety.

PainKilla - 4-4-2007 at 22:19

Heh... well, to each his own of course

.

Still, recreation provides a psychological benefit - so one can consider that therapeutic in a way. Recreation is good sometimes, after all, look what happens when you mix too much serious in the average persons lifestyle: see Bush. He should go back to recreation.

But let's not veer the thread into the bottomless pit of political debate... just an example folks - let us move on

.

[Edited on 5-4-2007 by PainKilla]

Sauron - 4-4-2007 at 22:32

Not my meaning at all.

For "recreational drugs" read "abuse drugs" which covers all the formally illicit ones and a lot of prescription medications as well. "controlled substances" would put it equally well. I also steer clear of performance enhancing (sports) drugs, and knocking off of Viagra etc. even though I certainly know how.

PainKilla - 4-4-2007 at 22:37

But some controlled substances are banned for political reasons despite their potential medicinal use. Of course, this is another topic all together, especially since some of these can be abused.

But overall, I share your sentiments. Again, I just wish the penalties were a bit less extreme.

uncompromisedfreedom - 5-4-2007 at 22:39

To go back to the OP, I vote for the end of the drug war.

Why? Simple: It is morally wrong to lock someone in a cage for trying to get high/providing people with the material to get high.

If the drugs which are currently illegal are deservedly illegal, then surely alcohol should be illegal as well.

Such blatant hypocrisy -- with lives at stake -- is not tenable for a civilized world, or even one that plays at being civilized.

There's no bad guys who are bad simply because they prepare drugs. People who make and take drugs are not doing so to harm and cramp the chemical pastimes of amateur chemists who happen to find themselves on the other side of these immoral and arbitrary laws. Don't think you're better than anyone -- enjoy a beer? Have a friend who does? Compare the effects drugs have had on Joe Sixpack-twice-a-week to the effect they've had on the guy who uses opiates twice a week. The laws are senseless.

The "warriors" (believe me, they won't have a seat at the table in Valhalla) are the ones who are responsible for your problem.

Read the reason drugs should be legal one more time. There's no argument here. There's no "In my opinion".

Putting people in jail who haven't harmed another or another's property directly is akin to murder: you are stealing a part of their life. A murderer steals the entire remainder. The legal system is just stealing a portion -- but it's in cold blood.

I tell you -- it's gonna land them in the same circle of hell, though. And anybody who supports these laws isn't going to be in a much better place, IMHO. It's just partial murder -- and that's what you support if you support the drug laws.

BTW, none of you -- none of you -- who are social beings don't have someone in your circle of family, friends, and associates who is both a good person and a current or former drug user. You must ask yourself: are you for full enforcement of the current laws? That means every pot head whose had a decent amount of pot in their possession, say 5 different times is going to be doing substantial time in prison. Does that make sense? Know a middle aged housewife who gives her stressed out friends a Xanax once in a while? They're everywhere -- filthy drug dealers. Say goodbye to your friends and family -- whether you know they use or not -- 'cause if you're going to stand idly by while other people's brothers and sisters are locked up, it's only logically and morally consistent for you to start NARC'ing your people out, too.

The_Davster - 5-4-2007 at 22:56

Quote:

In response to uncompromisedfreedom

(See Levi...it works everywhere

)

Sauron - 6-4-2007 at 01:32

I suggest, @Tup, that you talk to some coke addicts, heroin addicts and amphetamine addicts before you make your stupid and inane arguments to justify your criminality.

Your alcohol moral-equivalence argument will not wash.

What you do is not amateur chemistry and you do not represent amateur chemistrs, you are a drug cook and an advocate for drug cooks and I hope they lock your ass up and throw away the key.

joeflsts - 6-4-2007 at 04:39

Levi's comments work in any context - even to the drug user that runs an innocent person over in his car or kills the inhabitants of the apartment building down because he/she od'ed and lit the place on fire.

It also works for the meth cook that boobey trapped his lab, forever disfiguring the law enforcement agent trying to collect dangerous material. Yeah, those cooks are all just out of freedom of speech.

Joe

solo - 6-4-2007 at 06:16

......all the finger pointing and chastizing will not influence those keeping the status quo on the issue .......each man(woman) has a choice.........that's called freedom!

No one said it would be an easy road, but its a path a few are willing to take ...........solo

[Edited on 6-4-2007 by solo]

Levi - 6-4-2007 at 06:24

Quote:

Originally posted by joeflsts
Levi's comments work in any context - even to the drug user that runs an innocent person over in his car or kills the inhabitants of the apartment building down because he/she od'ed and lit the place on fire.

It also works for the meth cook that boobey trapped his lab, forever disfiguring the law enforcement agent trying to collect dangerous material. Yeah, those cooks are all just out of freedom of speech.

Joe

Erm, I never meant to imply that there is no such thing as crime. The statement I made should be interpreted regarding one's -personal- decisions. That is to say: those decisions which affect only the decision maker. Constructing booby traps is a malicious act that can not be included here.
I must say, though, you do hit the heart of the matter with your first example. Irresponsible individuals cause damage. The question, then, is
"Is it possible to prevent the damage by removing the means?"
It seems like an open and shut case until you consider the practical applications.

Example:
If a person commits a crime with a gun, the crime would have been avoided if the gun been removed from the equation.
This is true, perhaps, but the gun is not the important part of the equation--it is the person that is important.
We should not be trying to remove drugs from society because an irresponsible individual cannot be trusted with them. We should be removing the irresponsible individual.

The war on drugs is a practical war. It is a war that exists because there is no way to remove the person from the equation until -after- a crime has been committed. Drugs are an easy target but they are not the most important target. A drug will always be a drug but to have a criminal you must first have a crime. It's a terrible pity evolution works so slowly--irresponsible people (and the unfortunate near them) have a much higher death rate than those who live prudently.

(I put the important part in bold for you people that like to skim topics as much as I do)

Sauron - 6-4-2007 at 08:02

I find I am utterly disinterested in continuing to participate in a forum where so many members are so totally and diametrically opposed to simple values that are important to me.

tupence_hapeny - 6-4-2007 at 09:39

Sauron,

I respond directly to this post:

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron
I find I am utterly disinterested in continuing to participate in a forum where so many members are so totally and diametrically opposed to simple values that are important to me.

How is this to be read?

If your concern is the fact that many of those who have chosen to participate in the argument regarding this topic disagree with your opinions, then I must state that that is your opinion and that you are of course entitled to it.

If however, you are imputing that the argument is worthless and shouldn't take place as a result of that opinion then I am truly saddened. I have read the opposing arguments and quite simply I am astounded at the willingness of some amateur chemists to categorise those that they disagree with, on the basis of that disagreement. It is almost as if those individuals wish that there was a list of precursor materials which could not be discussed, perhaps, even the same list as that issued by a variety of governments - about the effects of which those same people complain so long and so loud.

I find it intriguing that some individuals are willing to believe that because a person uses or doesn't use drugs, they are good or bad simpliciter. The truth is, as always, somewhat more complex. Yes, some bad people use drugs (there really is no denying it), however, some good people use drugs as well (if only of course, one is willing to overlook their choice of recreational pursuit).

I have dealt with (not to) some very nice, very normal people who happen to use drugs. Of course, when dealing with me, they often faced the loss of their job, livelihood, family, house, freedom of movement and/or liberty because of this choice. As neither science nor medicine can demonstrate that their choice of drugs is anymore destructive (apart from illegality) than the more socially acceptable drugs (eg. alcohol, tobacco, sleeping pills, etc.), I find the fact that they are in this position intolerable.

I realize that this position upsets you, however, this is an ARGUMENT, precisely because their are two diametrically opposite veiwpoints - if there were only one then it would be a lecture.

joeflsts - 6-4-2007 at 18:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Levi

Quote:

I'm no advocate of the war on drugs... But I do understand it and respect the reason why it exists. Whether or not I approve is of little consequence.

Joe

indigofuzzy - 6-4-2007 at 21:14

I have to agree wholeheartedly and wholeheadedly with uncompromisedfreedom. S/he put down in words something I have known for a long time.

I do believe that some drugs are harmful in and of themselves, but I stand by my claims that drug law is causing more problems than any drugs are.

Meth cooks / other drug cooks don't ruin things for amateur chemists, the government does. They ruin amateur chemistry because many nations have decided they value a false sense of security above freedom. As stated earlier in the thread, we have become a society that tries to remove the objects involved in crimes, rather than deal with people. It doesn't work. It allows a few bad people to ruin freedom of choice for the many good people.

I must reiterate, that the only thing that can ever make things better is education. WHy not try teaching this concept of responsibility? The so-called "golden rule" - don't be ignorant and irresponsible, because it messes things up for everyone.

Sauron - 6-4-2007 at 21:25

Wake up and smell the coffee. The drug cooks ARE and to a great extent already have ruined things for amateur chemists and they have done so callously and for the sake of nothing but money. They prostitute science like $2 whore but we are the ones who are getting fucked in the process.

You want to blame government but you refuse to take it back to first cause.

Your argument is too facile and your solution is too ineffectual.

PainKilla - 6-4-2007 at 22:09

There is truth in Sauron's words; every day that a clandestine lab is busted, amateur chemistry suffers a setback.

But...

Removing the "cooks" from the equation solves nothing. It's not those people that are harming chemistry - it's the laws. The laws are made because of the people that can't use drugs in a way beneficial to all, and so, laws are required in order to ensure that these people don't hurt themselves and society.

So, realistically:

1) We remove the source of the drugs. Aside from the fact this is impossible simply because of the money involved, it changes NOTHING about what people know about chemistry TODAY. Chemistry will still be chastised, just because of what society is led to believe, with or without drug manufacturers. Nothing changes; this is not an effective solution for keeping amateur chemistry afloat.

2) We change the laws. This is as equally unrealistic, since the drugs that are primarily synthesized (meth, heroin etc...) will never become unrestricted, simply because, they are banned for a damn good reason. Very few can use them responsibly. Politics and money are of course involved, so this solution certainly won't happen either.

3) Education. This, in the long run, holds the key to the revival of amateur chemistry. This, and only this, is the only REAL solution that will do anything. Both sides of this argument are too naive (in my humble opinion) because they are both pointing fingers instead of looking for a VIABLE solution. Education is the only thing that's even remotely close toward achieving our goal; removing the source does nothing - people are still ignorant... removing the laws ruins society - now people especially hate chemistry...

And I regret to inform everyone – the change won't be in our lifetimes. Our children will be the ones changing the world. Not us. You can be optimistic, but try convincing the people who have lost children to drugs, or are completely oblivious to science. Our children on the other hand, can be properly taught that some drugs CAN be used responsibly, and that chemistry is a part of our lives, and then, and only then, will amateur chemistry crawl out of Purgatory (or is it Hell?) and make the slow climb towards Heaven.

But until then, both sides, please, instead of pointing fingers, how about coming to a common resolution like democracy was meant to do?

It is, after all, just as ridiculous to attack the laws as it is manufacturers – since the true source of both of these “roots of evil” is not they, but people… and the only thing that changes people is knowledge. And that, in my opinion, is our only hope.

And so, in conclusion, if you really want to do your part in saving amateur chemistry – stop preaching your beliefs to the choir, and stop castigating the Buddhist – instead, show them both sides of the argument, and then let them choose. Few people like extremes when they know ALL of the facts.

vulture - 7-4-2007 at 02:11

I am always baffled by the hypocrisy displayed in the drugs discussion in the US.

When it comes to guns, people kill people, not guns kill people.
But when it comes to drugs, drugs kill people, not the people who use drugs.

Very fubar on the moral scale if you consider that most people take drugs voluntarely, while nobody tries to get shot on purpose, no?

Sauron - 7-4-2007 at 02:51

How voluntarily do addicts take drugs? By definition an addiction is a habit not easily broken. Opiates are physically addictive, as are barbiturates and amphetamines, withdrawal ranges from difficult to life threatening. Cocaine is intensely phychologically addictive. Bottom line is that the success rate of drug rehabilitation programs, over virtually any length of time, is only 1-2%.

That means the failure rate is 98-99%. That means almost no addicts who WANT to get clean and stay clean (and that is the language they themselves use to describe the process) succeed in doing so.

They may have voluntarily started taking those highly addictive drugs, and most likely (to listen to what they say themselves) with no intent to become addicted, but they DO become addicted, and once they do, "voluntarily" is not a word I would use to describe their relationship with the drug(s). "Chemical dependency" is a clinical term, and compulsion is more like it.

A lab rat given a choice between food/water and cocaine, will continue consuming cocaine till it dies of starvation/dehydration.

Maybe it does so voluntarily?

[Edited on 7-4-2007 by Sauron]

PainKilla - 7-4-2007 at 09:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron
That means the failure rate is 98-99%. That means almost no addicts who WANT to get clean and stay clean (and that is the language they themselves use to describe the process) succeed in doing so.

First off, where do you get your statistics from? You know, 99.654321% of all people that use drugs get addicted the first time... it's true. I saw it in The Onion.

You are also of course assuming that 98-99% of the addicts in rehab are there because they want to be. Unfortunately, something like 50-70% are required to be there by law, and they don't WANT to quit... so the success rate isn't that bad. Many people in rehab would be functional in society, if the laws weren't so extreme as to put them there in the first place. Of course, had they not used, then they could have avoided their fates. But most especially, if they were taught how to properly use (or not use) drugs, they again, wouldn't be there in the first place.

You can't keep blaming the drugs... have you ever even used an addicting substance? We don't have Substance D - though apparently everything seems to be that in your mind. People are at fault, not the drug. People ALWAYS have a choice, whether they are compelled more towards one direction or another is irrelevant, it's still always THEIR choice.

And here is something more to think about : as to why people choose drugs over sobriety:

"Who lives longer: the man who takes heroin for two years and dies, or the man who lives on roast beef, water, and potatoes till ninety-five? One passes his twenty-four months in eternity. All the years of the beef-eater are lived only in time." -Aldous Huxley

Edit: Yes, the rat does so voluntarily. I would too if my life was either:

a) Stuck in a cage doing nothing, no mates, just sitting in a cage
or
b) Enough cocaine to kill me.

The choice is obvious, in the end, you still lie on the same deathbed - how you got there was entirely up to you, and I would choose the route of pleasure, rather than boredom.

[Edited on 7-4-2007 by PainKilla]

Sauron - 7-4-2007 at 11:16

@Painkilla, I have had friends and employees in rehab, and other friends who are/were rehab counsellors, and others in NA. etc, and I get my numbers from them. I don't find your arguments satisfactory, they are circular. BTW I have read much or most of Huxley starting in easrly 60s, fiction and non, and all in all think he was often an ass. I know several ex junkies who agree with me - the beefeater has the better deal.

I said nothing about 99% of addicts being addicted after one use.

Have I ever used an addictive substance? Yes. Coke, several times. Many years ago. Alcohol, many times, till I had to drop it due to diabetes. Did so without any problems. But I also know many alcoholics who have whole decades blacked out. Go figure. And I have known people who became addicted to opiates (like morphine) through solely medical use.

PainKilla - 7-4-2007 at 11:32

How are my arguments circular?

The statistics comment is just an example of "47% of all statistics are false." I know people in rehab too, and people that have successfully completed rehab (to this day). Last I checked, there wasn't only one rehab, and this is why your statistics (or mine for that matter) can't be used to definitely prove anything.

I don't understand your reasoning... are you saying that drugs are like little fallen angels in our head literally forcing us move towards a needle and inject ourselves? I know what addiction is like too - and the only thing it takes to break it is willpower. You clearly had the willpower to stop... those alcoholics that you knew - well, their lives may not have been so good as to be able to just stop the one thing that helped them move on through the day.

The compulsion IS strong, but it's not a final end. The final end is willpower, and the knowledge to support that willpower. Of course a junky won't get off of heroin because, they know even if they do, they still have so little anyway. What reason are they given to stop? If you want drug use to stop, then teach people about why it can be bad, and why it can be good, and then go from there. Your attack on drugs themselves, as if they are some living entity, is quite pointless I feel.

It's almost like taking away a toy that a baby likes to chew on... you took away the toy, well, now they'll chew their nails. You didn't solve the problem - and that problem is they WANT to chew... not that they are forced to.

If you want to solve anything, always treat the root: the people - don't take away the fertilizer because some people take too much and get burned.

[Edited on 7-4-2007 by PainKilla]

The_Davster - 7-4-2007 at 11:33

There was a study done at one point. A heroin addict was locked in a room with 2 piles of powder. He was told that one pile was heroin and the other was a poison that would kill him if he even tasted it. All other ammenities were provided to him for the duration of the test, which was longer than his withdrawl period. He never tasted either pile of powder.
Addiction may make you want to do more drugs, but it is always your concious choice whether or not to stick more in your body.

Sauron - 7-4-2007 at 12:12

I think you both overestimate the willpower of an addict (as opposed to a nonaddict) when it comes to the particular substance(s) he/she is addicted to.

Look at cigarette smoking. Many smokers have quit...many times! (I have never been a cigarette smoker.) Some succeed, most fail. The tobacco industry is built on the addictiveness of cigarettes, phychologically, maybe physically, the arguments rage on. I think we would all agree that heroin anc cocaine and meth are more addictive than cigarettes would be not?

Yet, many people have a very hard time mustering the willpower to quit smoking, despite all the experience and evidence and personal observations of the damage it does. I have had friends die of lung cancer and emphysema. Not a petty sight.

So, my point is, yes, every puff that cigarette smokers take can be said, technically, to be "voluntary" but at the same time, there remains the compulsion acting in the other direction. More often than not, the compulsion wins out.

Reductio ad absurdam arguments like the stuopid "little fallen angels" remark are not helpful. You are not denying the reality of addiction, or its nature, I take it? Or are you?

Telling an addict that it's justa matter of will, is like telling a bankrupt that it's only a matter of money. True but dysfunctional advice. Tell a man in a desert that it's only a matter of water. Tell someone freezing to death that it's only a matter of staying warm. Easy for YOU to say.

tupence_hapeny - 7-4-2007 at 12:48

Drugs are addictive, in the main, simply because they work. They are particularly effective at what they are/were designed to do, whether that is the alleviation of pain, tiredness, symptoms of trauma, psych illness, alleviation of symptoms of withdrawal, etc. THEY WORK.

Drug addicts are addicted to the drugs simply because they choose to put off experiencing the pain (whether physical, emotional, mental or whatever) for the time being. They have this choice, as the drug is effective at stopping that problem.

However, it has been demonstrated time and time again, that even where the immediate pain associated with withdrawal can be alleviated (or even prevented), people still choose to continue to use the drug.

Why is it so? Perhaps the reason why addicts continue to take drugs is related, perhaps even directly, to whatever issue caused them to prefer a medicated existence in the first place?

I believe that this is the short, sharp and incredibly simple answer to addiction to any substance. Quite simply, unless the problem causing the larger problem is addressed, the original problem will not go away. Punishing the person by imprisonment for taking drugs will not change their willingness to use the same (unless and of course their root problem was the fear of freedom (commonly known as institutionalization)).

Fear of the consequences of taking a particular substance can only cause the person to swap their addiction to more socially acceptable drugs, such as alcohol, sex, gambling, etc. (the last two are basically pro-drugs).

http://law.jrank.org/pages/494/Alcohol-Crime-Prohibition-Exp...

PainKilla - 7-4-2007 at 13:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron
I think you both overestimate the willpower of an addict (as opposed to a nonaddict) when it comes to the particular substance(s) he/she is addicted to.

Look at cigarette smoking. Many smokers have quit...many times! (I have never been a cigarette smoker.) Some succeed, most fail. The tobacco industry is built on the addictiveness of cigarettes, phychologically, maybe physically, the arguments rage on. I think we would all agree that heroin anc cocaine and meth are more addictive than cigarettes would be not?

Yet, many people have a very hard time mustering the willpower to quit smoking, despite all the experience and evidence and personal observations of the damage it does. I have had friends die of lung cancer and emphysema. Not a petty sight.

Quitting many times is not quitting... it's called failing. If you do it again, you didn't quit. And nicotine is more addictive in the long run than any of the drugs you mentioned... What is your point? I don't overestimate the willpower of an addict. An addict is a person, not a machine. They have as much potential willpower as the next person, that they choose to not exercise that willpower is a product of their own actions and choices.

Some people don't care as much about the harmful effects despite knowing about them. The idea comes to mind "If I'm to die anyway, why stop?", and so truly, why stop? I know they may want to stop... but THEY CAN, it's simply that they don't TRULY want to.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron
So, my point is, yes, every puff that cigarette smokers take can be said, technically, to be "voluntary" but at the same time, there remains the compulsion acting in the other direction. More often than not, the compulsion wins out.

Compulsion is a product of human actions, we aren't predestined toward taking the next puff - it's because we choose to.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron
Reductio ad absurdam arguments like the stuopid "little fallen angels" remark are not helpful. You are not denying the reality of addiction, or its nature, I take it? Or are you?

They may not be helpful but they are nevertheless true to your point. I am not denying addiction - I know what addiction is. I personally find it to come in the form of asking "Well why not?" and if that reason isn't good enough, then I will continue my habit. This reasoning is amplified many times with the more addictive drugs to the point where it is pain v. pleasure - BUT, it's still only a matter of willpower to say "No, I won't do this again; I am going to stop, no matter what the consequences." Most people just don't say this, either because they don't want to, or because they are compelled to feel the effects of the drug opposed to their sober life. But it is still their decision to do so. Nothing changes that. Nothing.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron
Telling an addict that it's justa matter of will, is like telling a bankrupt that it's only a matter of money. True but dysfunctional advice. Tell a man in a desert that it's only a matter of water. Tell someone freezing to death that it's only a matter of staying warm. Easy for YOU to say.

It's not like that at all, an addict can stop and be free. A bankrupt individual can't grab money from thin air. Our hypothermic friend can't pull a jacket out of his ass, and the man in the desert typically won't be lucky enough to find an oasis. There is no choice for any of these people, as they are already in a situation they can't change. An addict can. Whether they do or don't is again, up to them, not to the drug.

Edit: How about having some more faith in people instead of assigning the blame to a drug? I have helped people get off heavy drugs, or at least curb their use so that they don't do harm to themselves and society... Taking away the source will, like Tupence said, merely cause them to find pleasure from other things in life. Anything can be addicting, drugs are simply so effective at dissolving the inadequacies of life that there is no logical reason to stop, which is precisely why your 99% of people don't. They are told they want to stop, but they really don't. If they really did, they would. And of course, this is going to be rebutted with the "You are overestimating the willpower of addict and underestimating the addictive power of the drug." argument... Well, there is nothing I can do at this point, is there? If you have no faith in people to change, then I suppose that viewpoint applies to yourself too, and nothing I can say can even lead you to consider otherwise?

[Edited on 7-4-2007 by PainKilla]

Sauron - 7-4-2007 at 13:30

Drug habits are economically costly (as well as in other ways), on the simplest level drug addicts generally do not have sufficient discretionary income to support their habit, that is to pay for their drugs.

So, they work at ways to get the cash by whatever means. They steal, mug, rob, embezzle, sometimes kill. Women and men both prostitute themselves. It is a rare addict who has the means to pay for his shit, like Wm.S.Burroughs. Not every junkie is the scion of a business machine empire.

Does the expression "crack ho" ring any bells? The local equivalent is ee dawk Sampeng, Chinatown whore, a drugged out streetwalker - expression dates from period when the local Chinatown was still full of opium dens. When opium was banned in the 50s the opium dens became whorehouses, the drug trade never went away, just went underground of course.

I've heard all that claptrap about drug users being more sensitive to life's vicissitudes, and I think it is bullshit. Life is by definition a series of jolts and shocks and pains of all varieties. You DEAL WITH IT. Putting oneself into a morphia haze is a slow form of suicide. However, as enumerated above, it's the rest of us who pay the price. The asshole who sticks a gun in your face and demands your wallet and watch has a free will too, his free will is to rob and sometimes kill and most likely he is paying for some smack or some crack.

@Painkilla, faith in people? Fith in PEOPLE?

Walk with me sometimes, with your eyes open, and I will show you the world as it is, you are apparently ery naive, quite inexperienced, or quite young (usually same thing). I am old, experienced and cynical.

Maybe you are better off with rose colored glasses, as you doubtless won't much like what you see if you ever take them off.

[Edited on 8-4-2007 by Sauron]

PainKilla - 7-4-2007 at 13:39

So what is your point in saying that... Drugs FORCE people to rob other people? It is their choice. The reason drugs are so expensive is that they are illegal and so people do what they need to do to support their habit.

You were a defense advisor or something along those lines, right? I guess it's ok to kill other people with nerve agents or other nasty weapons for YOUR cause, but it's not OK for a drug addict to rob people because of what THEY want? Seems illogical to me. In fact, it seems like the same damn thing.

The rest of us pay the price only because our society is built that way. Instead of letting the junky control his habit with a job that is productive, we put him into rehab with OUR money, and since he doesn't want to be there, we are paying for his addiction instead of letting him, in the very least, produce for society in order to sustain the habit.

Edit: Yes, I have faith in people. I have seen people killed, people kill (at least, through passive means), and children suffer at the hands of others. Don't play the age card as if it's some golden ticket to a hall of wisdom. If you lose faith in people, nothing ever changes, and you are nothing more than a spectator with opinions.

You are right, I am naive... but I prefer my naivete to believing we live in a world that is doomed. It is. But I will do my best to do what I can to change it. At least then when I die, I can say I did something, instead of complain about how drugs are bad, people are nothing more than clockwork oranges, and society is forever doomed at the hands of the ignorant masses.

[Edited on 7-4-2007 by PainKilla]

Sauron - 7-4-2007 at 13:50

By definition and addict (as opposed to erely a user) is someone who has a chronic insufficnecy of will to stop taking drug(s) because for them it is TOO DAMN HARD. Drugs are expensive, because drug makers and dealers are greedy grasping carrion eating lowlifes who really ought to be exterminated. So addicts exercise that free will you think they have and go do what they HAVE TO DO which includes a whole panoply of violent crime to feed their habits, enriching the scumbag dealers and the entire illicit supply chain, at OUR expense.

And you want to argue that this is OUR fault?

As to defense, well, next time someone wants to conquer your useless ass, I'll just let them, if you don't appreciate being defended. Or maybe you will talk them to death? Or preach to them about free will? I'm obliged to conclude you are a simpleminded boob.

PainKilla - 7-4-2007 at 14:07

Too damn hard? So I guess we are at least past the machinated humans aspect. I am glad.

Yes, it is our fault. If we didn't teach people bullshit about how bad drugs are and how you do them once and then die, then people wouldn't be curious enough to try them after seeing many of their friends using and enjoying them. I personally have never used cocaine, amphetamines, or opiates, despite the fact that they are offered on numerous occasions (for free even). I just have no interest in taking drugs for the sake of pleasure... why? Because I educated myself before I started using drugs... educating through reading about peoples experiences, journals pertaining to how they act on the mind, and books outlining various philosophies that spoke of the various moral/philosophical conflicts that arose from the use of drugs. And I decided to not try them, simple as that. If I do, and I probably will eventually, since there's no point in living in complete ignorance to those drugs, I will do so responsibly and know my limits, know what I am doing, and have an observer's perspective on my life, so that I know when I am taking things too far. If people were educated in the same way, we would have far less problems. I can tell you this from experience, because many people I’ve spoken to now share, to an extent, the same views that I hold.

So yes, it's our fault. Is it that hard to accept? Blame the drugs, blame the junky, but don't blame yourself. It's never our fault. WE are a part of society, and it's society that causes people to be junkies. However little we influence this is unimportant, as we are still a part of society, and thus - at fault. I am doing my part to repent and change what has been done.

As to defense: good, you won't have to raise a finger, and nor will I. The only reason people are so hostile towards each other is because of precisely what you are doing now - instigating. I will always try and find a democratic solution to things, and if democracy doesn't work, then I will reconsider my own viewpoint as there must be something wrong with it if no one else can agree with it.

Levi - 7-4-2007 at 14:12

Quote:

Originally posted by PainKilla
Compulsion is a product of human actions, we aren't predestined toward taking the next puff - it's because we choose to.

100% true but still missing the point. Altering one's brain chemistry also alters the way they make choices. Doing drugs is still a choice, but in reality the only "fair" choice is the first one.

"You cant help yourself because yourself sucks" -- Billy Bob Thornton, School for Scoundrels

PainKilla - 7-4-2007 at 14:18

I know it changes the mind. It doesn't change it so that saying no is impossible, merely extremely unreasonable and illogical.

Doing drugs is definitely the "only" fair choice - why not? It's just a matter of using them in a responsible way. I didn't say a junky had to quit, it would be preferably for sure, but taking an opiate every friday to kick back provides recreation with minimal side effects.

"All things are poison and nothing is without poison, only the dose permits something not to be poisonous." - Paracelsus

Levi - 7-4-2007 at 14:26

Quote:

Originally posted by PainKilla
Doing drugs is definitely the "only" fair choice - why not? It's just a matter of using them in a responsible way.

What I meant was the decision to *start* taking drugs was the only unbiased choice. After one has started taking drugs their future decisions will be biased.

PainKilla - 7-4-2007 at 14:31

I understand completely - but the bias created is never so absolute as remove the person's consciousness from the equation. Addiction, stems from (personal observations) dissembling to oneself. The bias created in favor is huge, but there is never a forced hand literally binding you to take the drug and ingest it. You are convincing yourself to do so. This is why addiction is such a difficult barrier to overcome. You need to tell yourself, and actually convince yourself, of your desire to stop. The desire to stop will be opposed by many, many, many, reasons not to.

But there is always the ability to stop. Always. It's just very difficult for some to muster enough energy to overcome. But it is always there, even with the bias, the inclinations, and the pain/anguish of withdrawal.

[Edited on 7-4-2007 by PainKilla]

Sauron - 7-4-2007 at 14:55

Not really sure what you mean (@Painkilla) by "democracy" or what relation it has to this or any other discussion. Do you mean majority rule? We should see what most people think and be obliged to alter our views to agree with them? Bullshit on that.

Democracy is a much abused word, it means something very different in Hanoi than in Moscow or Beijing or London or Wash DC. I wonder how you are abusing it?

I applaud your never having experimented with drugs. Very wise. My observation is that during the 60s and continuing till now popular culture dominated by Hollywood and TV and the music industry glorified drugs and drug culture and that more than anything else moved drug use to center stage where before it had been confined to the so called underclasses and the inner cities. It moved into the suburbs and the middle class and Middle American small towns. Any and all attempts at education by schools, churches, etc were drowned out. Celebrity overdoses became commonplace, the young idolized popstars and actors before and after they died like Hendrix and Belushi and a pantheon of other idiots of same ilk. Comics who are still alive but who apparently aren't all that funny when not on coke abound as well. How about the one who burned his face off freebasing and that was before crack became a part of the vocabulary?

Only in that sense is this "our" fault but I say WE aren't Hollywood nor are WE the media moguls in NY and WE did not decide that celebrities were only celebrities if they were also self destructive doper assholes.

If you want to educate, start by reshaping all of that into something that does not promote drug use, as it most certainly still does.

PainKilla - 7-4-2007 at 15:15

I didn't say I have never tried drugs - I just haven't used the very addictive ones.

I'd rather change my view than get into a conflict that results in people getting killed over something as trivial as a viewpoint. And yes, by democracy, I didn't mean it as a political term so much as majority rule.

Drugs have been a part of mankind since the dawn of time. Tobacco, entheogens, alcohol, you name it, and it's been around forever. Society changed with media in general - it's not just the fault of drugs. Compare 1960 with 1850 (avoiding the Civil War

)... there is no TV, mass communication or anything like that - when these things did finally come into existence, people were given an entirely new world, and because this new world had much information (like the celebrities doing their drugs – irresponsibly) which could have been used in both good and bad ways, people took their chances. Of course, we see where this has led us today. If people were taught about drugs and both sides of their use (or non-use), then we wouldn't be having such a huge "epidemic" today.

Education is meant to instill knowledge only, in my opinion. We should leave all decisions up to the receivers of that knowledge, and dissuading the use of drugs needs a damn good reason for most people. And one that you won’t find for some drugs. It is better to take the neutral viewpoint and show people both sides, and show them how to use, if they choose to, responsibly. Some will value the effects (of the drugs) and the costs that come in maintaining them, while others will not want the responsibility of maintaining a habit and choose to not do them. Advocating one side only creates confusion in the ranks, which is pretty much what we are seeing today.

Both Leary and Nixon were idiots. Both extremes lead to a path of disdain toward the other group - and very few are in the middle. So nothing gets resolved, and both sides suffer.

Sauron - 7-4-2007 at 15:51

I would not change any viewepoint to avoid violence, that is cowardice. I might however, pretend to do so. That is merely tactical.

You would likely be surprised at my personal viewpoint regarding the overall solution to the drug problem.

But first let me redict to one point: drugs are not expensive because of enforcement.

For many years we have been ratcheting UP enforcement, without so much as a pause. We are in the fourth or fifth decade of the "war on drugs" and we are coming up on the centennial of the Harrison Act.

Yet just as remorselessly every year the drug supply gets bigger and the price goes DOWN not up.

Clearly this is a failure. Just as clearly the price is related only to the supply and enforcement/interdiction is immaterial.

----------

So faced with the totality of failure the futility of continuing on present course is obvious. It is obvious to conservative replublicans as well; William F Buckley now advocates decriminalization. His concerns and mine are erosion of civil liberties and the rise of a police state, the absurd costs of incarceration, the fact that 90% of our prison inmates are in for drug crimes, etc.

I doubt that he would go as far as I would. I would as the govt, contract out manuf of all "abuse" drugs to the pharm industry on usual lowest bidder basis, and make such drugs available at pharmacies on demand without prescription. This would have the following effects:

1. No profit in drug making/dealing = end of drug business. End of accumulation of wealth by the cartels, organized crime etc. Sorry, Burma, Laos, the Taliban, Columbia, FARC, Peru, and so one would have to find something else to do.

2. DEA etc would have to be retooled for some other tasks.

3. Addicts would no longer have to resort to crime to obtain drugs.

General reduction in crime rate seems a likely consequence.

4. A lot of drug users may fuck themselves up and die, hey, it's free will. Also evolution in action.

5. @TH will no longer "be advising client" drug makers on how to make P2P from styrene.

Now we all know why something as simple and logical as this will never happen.

1. The govt likes stripping us of civil liberties while building up a police state

2. The churches will never permit free distribution of drugs

3. Liberals will never countenance what they would call "abandonment of the underclasses" because liberals are do-gooders and that is the difference between a liberal and a libertarian.

4. Parents expect politicians to protect their children from drugs (against all evidence that this will not happen) and so support politicians who make emptry promises to do so.

In short the Nanny State will do what is best for you even is that means tossing your ass in the sammer and throwing away the key.

BTW drugs are, I am told, pretty easy to get even inside prison.

Cold blooded enough for you, @TH?

I don't think you really want to know what I consider to be cold blooded.

PainKilla - 7-4-2007 at 16:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron
I would not change any viewepoint to avoid violence, that is cowardice. I might however, pretend to do so. That is merely tactical.

I would probably pretend too, but is being brave worth the life of another sentient being? In my opinion, it's not.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron
You would likely be surprised at my personal viewpoint regarding the overall solution to the drug problem.

But first let me redict to one point: drugs are not expensive because of enforcement.

For many years we have been ratcheting UP enforcement, without so much as a pause. We are in the fourth or fifth decade of the "war on drugs" and we are coming up on the centennial of the Harrison Act.

Yet just as remorselessly every year the drug supply gets bigger and the price goes DOWN not up.

Clearly this is a failure. Just as clearly the price is related only to the supply and enforcement/interdiction is immaterial.

I am not much of an economics person, so I don't have much to say in regard to pricing, except that with every year it's also getting more and more dangerous and expensive to import/make the drugs. Also, drug lords have a monopoly on the market - since there are no antitrust laws for drugs, they are free to do what they want, hence the high prices. Again, I am really not too sure about the whole subject though.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron
I doubt that he would go as far as I would. I would as the govt, contract out manuf of all "abuse" drugs to the pharm industry on usual lowest bidder basis, and make such drugs available at pharmacies on demand without prescription. This would have the following effects:

1. No profit in drug making/dealing = end of drug business. End of accumulation of wealth by the cartels, organized crime etc. Sorry, Burma, Laos, the Taliban, Columbia, FARC, Peru, and so one would have to find something else to do.

2. DEA etc would have to be retooled for some other tasks.

3. Addicts would no longer have to resort to crime to obtain drugs.

General reduction in crime rate seems a likely consequence.

4. A lot of drug users may fuck themselves up and die, hey, it's free will. Also evolution in action.

5. @TH will no longer "be advising client" drug makers on how to make P2P from styrene.

Now we all know why something as simple and logical as this will never happen.

1. The govt likes stripping us of civil liberties while building up a police state

2. The churches will never permit free distribution of drugs

3. Liberals will never countenance what they would call "abandonment of the underclasses" because liberals are do-gooders and that is the difference between a liberal and a libertarian.

4. Parents expect politicians to protect their children from drugs (against all evidence that this will not happen) and so support politicians who make emptry promises to do so.

In short the Nanny State will do what is best for you even is that means tossing your ass in the sammer and throwing away the key.

BTW drugs are, I am told, pretty easy to get even inside prison.

Cold blooded enough for you, @TH?

I don't think you really want to know what I consider to be cold blooded.

I agree with this completely. I just feel that if education comes first, then there will be minimal casulties in this transition and everyone could be happy - both the users (now mostly responsible) and society (which is now profitting from the many jobs created, as well as additional workforce).

[Edited on 7-4-2007 by PainKilla]

halogen - 7-4-2007 at 18:56

Quote:

I didn't say I have never tried drugs - I just haven't used the very addictive ones.
...
But there is always the ability to stop. Always. It's just very difficult for some to muster enough energy to overcome. But it is always there, even with the bias, the inclinations, and the pain/anguish of withdrawal.
...
I know it changes the mind. It doesn't change it so that saying no is impossible, merely extremely unreasonable and illogical.

I don't overestimate the willpower of an addict. An addict is a person, not a machine. They have as much potential willpower as the next person, that they choose to not exercise that willpower is a product of their own actions and choices.

If you haven't had the experience of going through such an addiction, who the fuck are you to describe it and criticise the people and their willpower? It seems illogically to me that you can pass judgement with no real basis except for some 3 trenches idealism that hasn't even any grounding in reality. In fact, do you not even state explicitly that you are wrong and you know it but still refuse to upgrade these admittedly faulty beliefs?

Quote:

You are right, I am naive... but I prefer my naivete to believing we live in a world that is doomed. It is. But I will do my best to do what I can to change it. At least then when I die, I can say I did something, instead of complain about how drugs are bad, people are nothing more than clockwork oranges, and society is forever doomed at the hands of the ignorant masses.

I do admit, I find your blind faith in humanity to be... admirable although seemingly illogical. And of course, not to say I do not agree with you at least a bit, but some of your points (what to call it?) are a bit contradictory and er (WORDS!!! :mad:

)

Quote:

As to defense: good, you won't have to raise a finger, and nor will I. The only reason people are so hostile towards each other is because of precisely what you are doing now - instigating. I will always try and find a democratic solution to things, and if democracy doesn't work, then I will reconsider my own viewpoint as there must be something wrong with it if no one else can agree with it.

To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, suppose you are a sheep and walk into a meeting of wolves who, in their infinite fairness, civilisation and above all belief in democracy have decided to go juratic and decide as a commitee what to eat for dinner. They all think that you look very tasty and would indeed satisfy their hunger. Naturally none of them wish to go chomp on some grass like some nasty dented-pail herbivores. Now does this not satisfy the prerequisite above which you have stated? Will you say, "well, I guess if no one else thinks that I should not be ingested as some presomnary aliment, I should change this particular view I have." ?
Of course the question of If this is the case o not or if thats even what I really think on the matter is a different question indeed. I attack because I can. If that last sentence were in Latin, this would have ended soo much better.

[Edited on 8-4-2007 by halogen]

halogen - 7-4-2007 at 19:06

Libertarian
"Just legalise it"

Somehow, this position seems more worthwhile than centuries of political haslet gnawing. The only valid function of government is to ensure that all people have the right to do what they want provided it does not interfere with others' rights to do the same. Certainly, one cannot defend the idea that a valid function of government is to ensure its own ever increasing power, or that government for governments' sake is either. The present system is in fact based solely on privledge or unequal opportunity and unequal rights; this is not an ideal I support at all. Radical change, now. Whether it is by democracy or Other means.

PainKilla - 7-4-2007 at 19:27

Quote:

Originally posted by halogen
If you haven't had the experience of going through such an addiction, who the fuck are you to describe it and criticise the people and their willpower? It seems illogically to me that you can pass judgement with no real basis except for some 3 trenches idealism that hasn't even any grounding in reality. In fact, do you not even state explicitly that you are wrong and you know it but still refuse to upgrade these admittedly faulty beliefs?

Drug addictions aren't the only type of addictions in the world. Nicotine is something that I have known for a while too. In Europe, I started smoking at about the age of 10. I eventually stopped, but I was a heavy smoker up until about two years ago.

I also know people who were quite heavy into heroin, cocaine and all of those drugs - even know people who have died because of them. I know first hand what addiction is, even though I haven't personally experienced addiction under those drugs.

Also, having the willpower, and choosing not use it is two different things. When I smoked, I was always making up excuses to myself such as "Well, why shouldn't I?". I didn't have any reason to stop, simply because I was never presented with a suitable alternative. Sure, my lifespan would decrease and I'd die young, but you know… Fuck it. I'd enjoy my life in the process. This is the kind of reasoning that causes people to not abandon their use of drugs. The drugs surely are persuasive, but there is always the ability to choose and change. I found my reason to come in the form of caring for another, and that gave me, eventually, enough willpower to stop. Being near forcefully compelled to do something, and actually being forced are still radically different things.

Quote:

)

Well, I can't prove anything to you without you actually knowing me, can I? If you disapprove of my beliefs, then that's totally fine - the only thing I am curious to is why you don't have faith? My "blind" faith isn't blind because I am a part of humanity, and I know I am capable of good (and change). If I can, then so can others. Unless I’m a mutant. Or insane.

Also, I don't care much, and this will sound illogical, to keep what I say logical. You can hold two viewpoints at once; indeed, I have found this sometimes to be the best solution. Read the Tattvartha Sutra (at least the first chapter) and then try and continue your argument.

Quote:

Then I die. I am not alive to care, nor did I have anyone to try and defend. Too bad for me. Good for the wolves, I eat healthy: so I should hopefully at least taste pretty well.

Humans don't eat each other. In fact, nothing that humans do requires that we kill each other in order to achieve our ends. The only reason people kill is because it's often (and it is) easier to kill than find a resolution that satisfies both parties. I'd rather see no loss of life rather than my perspective be deemed the “right” one. There is never a right perspective – it’s always a matter of viewpoint. Sometimes, this contradicts morals, beliefs and other things – but there is no absolute right or wrong in the world. So what you say about killing… well, you are right. Wolves need to eat to, and killing is overall OK. But all I am saying is why kill when with a little more effort you can avoid it?

You can use extreme examples like, well what if they have radical beliefs like Hitler. Well, there is really nothing I can say there. At this point, I guess it's either run or hide - but killing? Killing just about ensures a counterattack, and then also you have that weight on your chest of killing someone. In any case, I have thought about this, and it's a good thing I know chemistry, because incapacitating agents work pretty well. It's just too bad people can't solve problems with coin flips or friendly games. Killing seems to be the most satisfying means to an end.

I just refuse to take part in it. Unless it's some extreme scenario that will (likely) never happen. Then perhaps my beliefs will change, but only if it’s someone else life on the line.

[Edited on 7-4-2007 by PainKilla]

Sauron - 7-4-2007 at 22:00

Legalization has some corollaries.

1. Unlike alcohol and tobacco, on which the govts all profit enormously from "sin taxes" the govts must not tax drugs. If they do the drug dealers still have a profit margin. If they do not, the dealers are out of business. Remember, the govt is going to GIVE THE DRUGS AWAY, not even sell them at cost. The taxpayers will be subsidizing the free drugs, but that will cost far less than the present taxpayer subsidy of the drug war and its effect, bloated prisons. We have in US 900,000 people imprisoned for drugs (and 100,000 for other offenses.) Every one of those people costs something like $35,000 a year to keep locked up. Many of those people (the nonviolent ones) could be paroled. And the former DEA agents could be reemployed as parole officers I suppose.

Some drug gangs/cooks might try coming up with new drugs in an effort to stay in business. The govts will need to rapidly identify and manufacture/distribute these to destroy any possibility of a re-emergence of a drug underground economy. As simple as that.

No more drug war, fewer drug POWs, no more cartels. I predict young people will be far less attracted to drugs because the mystique of the subculture will go away. No more HIGH TIMES magazine.

Another corollary. The Congress will have to permanently indemnify the contractor manufacturers against any and all civil/criminal liability arising from making the drugs and the users will have to indemnify the pharmacies that distribute the drugs (and syringes etc.) as well.

Like I said all this won't happen, I can hear ATLA the American Trial Lawyers Assn, ABA, AMA the medical assn, and so on SCREAMING about all this.

Furthermore I said earlier that the contract manufacture should be lowest-bid. Let me alter that. The manufacture should be ASSIGNED as a DUTY of the pharm industry just as we (FDA) presently assign the making of various unprofitable generic drugs to pharm companies so that the medical profession has what it needs. The pharm companies will have to do it as part of the price of being in the business they are in. This reduces the taxpayer subsity because the pharm industry subsidizes instead.

After all Beyer invented heroin, Merck popularized cocaine (along with Sandoz and Hoffman La Roche), many many pharm companies cranked out crank for decades, Sandoz invented LSD, name a abuse drug that did not emerge from or through the pharm industry? Even PCP first was a legal anaesthetic. So, let the pharm companies pay for the consequences of their own products gone awry. KARMS IN ACTION!

12AX7 - 7-4-2007 at 23:56

Quote:

So, let the pharm companies pay for the consequences of their own products gone awry. KARMS IN ACTION!

No one has yet satisfactorially explained to me the purpose of reparations.

Apu: "... I am 'selling' only the idea of karmic realignment."
Homer: "You can't sell that! Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos!" (slams the front door)
Apu: "He's got me there."

vulture - 8-4-2007 at 01:48

Well legalization does seem to work for marihuana in the Netherlands. The government hasn't yet expanded it to hard drugs and I doubt that'll happen. The only side effect is drug tourism from countries where it is still illegal to sell.

That said, one should consider that EU members and US members probably have an entirely different perspective. Laws in the EU are generally more lenient and users are only seldomly incarcerated (if they are caught with large quantities). We don't have this general awareness of a war on drugs either, atleast not in my perspective. Meth labs and such are few and far in between, most seems to be imported.

Sauron - 8-4-2007 at 03:34

Scuttlebutt has it though that the MDA/MMDA precursors are mostly Dutch exports, FWIIW. And I am talking worldwide.

________________

Anyway maybe assigning the pro-bono manuf to the originating corporations is impractical, but the govts can still allot them by whatever means, with the bigger companies getting the bigger burden. Or however they are already doing similar thing with orphan generics.

[Edited on 8-4-2007 by Sauron]

tupence_hapeny - 8-4-2007 at 05:57

Sauron,

Ex-army here, so please explain what you may think is cold-blooded? Callsign was 80 also known as dropshorts?

I too will never change my mind to avoid violence, same as I will never run anywhere but toward whatever the problem is, part of my makeup - although I too appreciate the utility of subterfuge.

Quite frankly, I know basically what is your idea of cold-blooded and it may suprise you to know that I advocate the use of precisely those weapons in the ongoing strife in Lebanon, preferably by non-state aligned, private Lebanese Maronite Christian bodies (old SLA would be a good start), having established small enclaves near the southern border of the same nation, but their families will remain living in their homes to the south of that border (Hizbollah aren' t the only ones who know how to play dirty).

As to your plan, if you read the entirety of my posts you will see that that approach is precisely what I advocate. The difference is in how to get there. No political party has the willpower to absorb the backlash of instituting such a move unless society has gone to hell in a handbasket already. I simply intend to accelerate the strife - and thus the decision making process. For mine, it is the lesser of two evils, far fewer people will suffer in even a decade of accelerated strife, than would suffer in another century of half-arsed, indifferent 'enforcement'.

As to drug prices going down as a result of enforcement, you confuse the effects of greater scale manufacturing and the effect of market forces (super-saturation of the market = competition) with the general function of price control. If the governments held the power to make, distribute and license drug use (although prescriptions will equal quasi-prohibition) they will have the dollars to meet the social costs of allowing use. Taking the grasping arseholes out of the equation will lower prices to the point that no-one has to steal, rob or kill to get their fix. With this approach I am in total agreement, however, I believe distribution should be via hotels & clubs (with proof of age, etc.).

I know that this doesn't CURE the problem, however, I can't see anything that will. Thus it is time to mitigate the harm, both to the user and society as a whole. I can't see that we will become a society of stoners anymore than we are a society of drunks now, we will simply be a society where a persons choice of drug is not how they are judged.]

tup

halogen - 8-4-2007 at 07:48

Quote:

I know that this doesn't CURE the problem, however, I can't see anything that will. Thus it is time to mitigate the harm, both to the user and society as a whole. I can't see that we will become a society of stoners anymore than we are a society of drunks now, we will simply be a society where a persons choice of drug is not how they are judged.

On this I agree wholeheartedly. But one must admit that there are some fundemental changes in society and attitudes which people have for any such thing to occur. The reason that such things are judged to be impossible is the prevalent attitude and social structure at present which is only enforced by the government and other societalstructures that gain. Vashington gets more power as a direct result of these machinations. Who would turn down this power. Face the facts; the system is essentially corrupt rotten to the marrow. And something must be done immediately.

Sauron - 8-4-2007 at 08:05

I did not say drug prices go down as a result of enforcement, I said drug prices historically have consistently gone down due to swelling supply and that enforcement and interdiction efforts have apparently, evidently, been irrelevant. In other words, DESPITE enforcement, not BECAUSE of it.

Which only serves to underscore the abject failure of enforcement.

My "plan" is pie in the sky and will never happen for a multitude of reasons. That makes it no plan at all.

joeflsts - 8-4-2007 at 11:36

Quote:

Originally posted by halogen

Quote:

Awww, but the definition of corruption is in the eye of the beholder I think. In fact amateur chemists are less than a minority. Scream till you lose your voice, it won't help I'm afraid.

Joe

tupence_hapeny - 8-4-2007 at 11:56

Only one way to that wonderful day, however, it requires the balance of power to shift to the gangs. The simple truth is that no advanced, nominally democratic nation (such as the United Fascist States of Amerika, or even Ustralia) can win a war against it's own citizens. The simple reason for this is that they cannot use their overwhelming might to crush any such action, because the remainder of the country (and the UN) would crucify them, while those they are engaged against are outside the law, and the sanction of the UN (in particular, they are NOT bound by Chem warfare treaties).

The other point is that governments have proven notoriously inept at protecting their supporters from the predatory nature of their opponents. The only way the current system can end, unless someone has the guts to stop it before hand, is through fear, if not out and out terror.

This point, is where democracy falls down, where the laws are enforced against half the population - putting them outside the protection of the law and supposedly within the sanction of it - is where civilization ends.

I direct the reader to read s.155, as contained in John Locke, Two Treatises on Government (2nd Treatise), Ch.XIII, where it is said:

http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=282...

Quote:

Sec. 155. It may be demanded here, What if the executive power, being
possessed of the force of the common-wealth, shall make use of that force
to hinder the meeting and acting of the legislative, when the original
constitution, or the public exigencies require it? I say, using force
upon the people without authority, and contrary to the trust put in him
that does so, is a state of war with the people, who have a right to
reinstate their legislative in the exercise of their power: for having
erected a legislative, with an intent they should exercise the power of
making laws, either at certain set times, or when there is need of it,
when they are hindered by any force from what is so necessary to the
society, and wherein the safety and preservation of the people consists,
the people have a right to remove it by force. In all states and
conditions, the true remedy of force without authority, is to oppose
force to it. The use of force without authority, always puts him that
uses it into a state of war, as the aggressor, and renders him liable to
be treated accordingly.

The state of war is broadly speaking precisely the state described by Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathon, Ch.XIII

http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=348...

Quote:

The Incommodites Of Such A War
Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every
man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time,
wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength,
and their own invention shall furnish them withall. In such condition,
there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain;
and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use
of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious
Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things
as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth;
no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is
worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death;
And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.

Interestingly both of these authors wrote during the most disturbed passage in English history, where the power of the people was usurped and used against the people. The person doing so on that occasion was the King, he lost his head (figuratively) then he lost it again (both literally & permanently).

There are extremely dark days ahead boys and girls, and the unfortunate truth is that the Roman Empire fell for similar reasons, corruption and discriminatory law enforcement weakened it sufficiently that the superpower of that time fell to the terrorists of the age... Ain't history grand

tup

PainKilla - 8-4-2007 at 12:20

It's precisely that that I too will fear will happen. It's because of this that I am such a large proponent of pharmacological education. It may take a generation, but properly executed, it should (in part anyway), avoid a large conflict like that.

It would be as simple as implementing a program in school that teaches pharmacology - then the people would be educated, and less prone to be being herded by the mass media and politicians. Of course, this is probably being a bit optimistic, but pharmacology is interesting to everyone that I know, be it drug user or not, so I can see such a program going over well with the students.

The other problem is implementing it, which involves somewhat of the same hurdles to jump over - that is: politicians, parents, generally ignorant people. Still, if taken from a strictly education standpoint, I don't see any reason as to why this program wouldn't be largely successful. There is also the problem of money, but with the huge amounts being wasted (imho) on the War on Drugs, education could easily be revamped to include such a program.

[Edited on 8-4-2007 by PainKilla]

seb - 8-4-2007 at 16:13

:cool:

May I put some sunglasses on? thank you. I have a chemistry degree and two manufacturing convictions. I waste time, and I do time. I believe I should have a say in these matters.

vulture - 9-4-2007 at 04:22

Quote:

Scuttlebutt has it though that the MDA/MMDA precursors are mostly Dutch exports, FWIIW. And I am talking worldwide.

Well, precursors are not the final product, are they? My main point is that there doesn't seem to be such a vast stimulant abuse/production in the EU as in the US. Certainly not to such an extent that it is the topic of the day. I'm just wondering why. Is it different perception, different media coverage or is it something societal?

uncompromisedfreedom - 9-4-2007 at 04:56

I want to reiterate what I posted earlier in this thread: forgot the "social" consequences, forget it if every single fucking person would start using drugs, IT'S WRONG TO LOCK SOMEONE AWAY IN A CAGE FOR DOING SOMETHING THAT HARMS NO ONE ELSE!!! Does this strike a chord with anyone? Simple moral proposition, for me...does it do it for anyone else, or no? Always discussions about how society is worse or better off because off the laws -- forget that. Society is a group of individuals -- and society's laws are meant to protect other individuals from themselves, not from himself.

Also, not to antagonize Sauron who I can see from my brief stay here contributes much knowledge, but in one of your posts you said that you'd tried alcohol and cocaine (inarguably both hard drugs) and knew people who were 'addicted' to morphine prescribed medically -- (if you mean they were physically dependent that was an unavoidable consequence of daily opiate use, medical or not -- people act like, oops, he got addicted, how'd that happen? drop the word addicted too much baggage, anyhow. physically depended -- yep, physically dependent on water, too. And if you're honest about the average opiate user's side effects, you see water and opiates are not too far apart in a daily user's body. Look at what opiate users have done in the past -- founded major hospitals, led great armies, written enlightened books, enjoyed themselves, etc.) -- since you yourself have this experience with drugs, do you support the drug laws?

Do you think that users and distribution and logistics people should be locked away?

Then, why not alcohol users?

And if you think that at least the drug users, and maybe the alcohol users too, should be locked away, then why don't you present to do your time?

(This is not antagonism, or not meant as such, at least -- I just want to understand your view.)

Another thing: you mentioned that those making drugs with chemistry are pimping out chemistry like a $2 whore, or something like that. What about those who make drugs at Merck or Bayer? What about when they knew the heroin they manufactured was going to go to addicts? Was it OK from the 20's to the 60's, and starting now again, in the UK, when heroin was prescribed to those physically dependent on them? (Addicts, as they're so kindly marginalized and boxed up in a word by assholes and idiots worldwide.)

So, then, why is manufacturing clandestine drugs in a way that is clean and competent, doesn't put users at more risk than if big pharma had done the job, and doesn't poison the neighbors with vapors -- how is that any different than big pharma on a moral level?

Also: don't make any mistake -- the government would crack down on these chemicals if these drug labs didn't exist -- they like to take all such powers out of people's hands! You may have read the interesting Wired article 'Don't Try This At Home' which detailed the visit a Fed group paid to United Nuclear, just because they were selling chemicals that could be used for firecrackers and crap, not for drugs.

Are you anti-firecracker?

Believe me, the governments of the world -- because they've decided to cease guarding the individuals who entered into the pact which creates a society in the first place rather than their so-called image of the 'group's' best interest -- would be after your beakers and chemicals anyhow. It's just too much power in the hands of a person.

Again, IT'S NOT THE DRUG LABS THAT ARE F'ING YOU -- the government could turn around right now, legalize drugs, let you buy your labware, and only prosecute drug users and chemists that inflict direct harm on others and their property (i.e. hitting them with a car while high, poisoning neighbors with chemical fumes, etc.) -- and only prosecute them for causing harm to others or their property, not for being on drugs or being chemists.

I was hoping for a dramatic uprising to be caused by my previous screed, it was much better writing. Let me know what you guys think about my fervent belief that it is simply wrong to lock people in a fucking cage for doing something that harms no one else.

quicksilver - 9-4-2007 at 06:40

I have thought along similar lines and been very Libertarian in my thinking in terms of the drug issues and similar social problems. Weather to view them as law enforcement issues or public health issues.....
You know that I am very close to thinking in that vein....however; drug-cooking is never as simple as one would want it to be. Neither is using drug & etoh, etc. There are always issues inherent in the discussion that are important factors unless we are simply talking about the general, theoretical "big-picture" context of if we could start over and build a utopia, etc, etc. but we are talking about real life, correct?
Real-life issues are pretty grim. If a drug cook gets sloppy he/she can poison people quite well and fast. Remember the Fentenyl that was giving people Parkinson's? Or the green meth that had several heavy metals in it to a toxic level?
You make the shit; you take responsibility for it. but then people say: "My shit is pure, I take great care in it's manufacture." Well, not everyone does. And the facts are that meth cooks do so for money. Look what a fine mess we get ourselves into in a "bottom-line" driven society already?

tupence_hapeny - 9-4-2007 at 06:52

The point behind my reference to the lack of authority, is that the present day version of democracy appears to believe that where enough people don't have any opinion one way or the other, then they are counted as being supportive of the status quo, rather than ambivalent to it.

The difficulty with this approach is that where the status quo authorises the use of strong violence and paramilitary tactics against rather a large part of the population - those who have been subjected to that violence, in addition to those who have good reason to fear that such violence may be visited upon them, are hardly ambivalent toward the likelihood of that violence.

On this basis a whole lot more people strongly disagree with the 'War on Drugs' than strongly agree with the same (indifference is not something from which strong agreement could or should be validly inferred). As violence begets violence, when the ambivalent sections of our society begin to realise that their family, livelihood and safety are endangered by the status quo, the status quo will change.

I have said it before, and I will say it again, the strongest agent of change is fear, as fear will overcome inertia - it is about the only emotion that will.

tup

The_Davster - 9-4-2007 at 20:22

Looks like drugs used to be a huge problem...

This is hilarious...

[Edited on 9-4-2007 by The_Davster]

12AX7 - 9-4-2007 at 21:10

Quote:

Originally posted by uncompromisedfreedom
IT'S WRONG TO LOCK SOMEONE AWAY IN A CAGE FOR DOING SOMETHING THAT HARMS NO ONE ELSE!!! Does this strike a chord with anyone?

Curious; how do you view suicide?

Tim

Sauron - 10-4-2007 at 02:26

Stop! You'll make the poor fellow's head hurt, placing him in a quandry like that.

Would he not intervene in the attempted suicide of a loved one, or a friend? I am speaking as one who has done just that.

Yet to apply his aparently absolute standard, suicide hurts no one (else) does it? Or doesn't it?

I'll be interested in his answer. I'm waiting to PM him with Jack Kavorkian's cell phone number.

vulture - 10-4-2007 at 14:04

Quote:

Yet to apply his aparently absolute standard, suicide hurts no one (else) does it? Or doesn't it?

That's a pretty nasty quagmire you're getting into here. Breaking someone's heart could be considered as hurting someone else too, as this can be a crippling loss. So should people who break other people's hearts (don't we all at some point?) be locked away?

Why would you want to lock someone up who tried to commit suicide anyway? That also takes their life away.

12AX7 - 10-4-2007 at 17:20

But it gives them more life than they would (presumably) have on their own (proof being, they tried taking their life).

If breaking someone's heart can be considered hurt, then would a true nobody, whom nobody knows, commiting suicide be any crime? What's wrong with this statement?

Tim

uncompromisedfreedom - 10-4-2007 at 21:07

Quote:

Stop! You'll make the poor fellow's head hurt, placing him in a quandry like that.

Would he not intervene in the attempted suicide of a loved one, or a friend? I am speaking as one who has done just that.

Yet to apply his aparently absolute standard, suicide hurts no one (else) does it? Or doesn't it?

I'll be interested in his answer. I'm waiting to PM him with Jack Kavorkian's cell phone number.

Your ridiculous Sauron -- my first post was respectful, I don't know why you're getting this way. No, my head does not hurt: I'm at least in the top .01% in terms of IQ, so the answer to this question is well within my reach, though apparently not within yours.

Would I intervene to prevent the suicide of a loved one -- who had hope of finding some happiness? Yes, I would intervene.

BUT NO, I would not lock them in a cage to punish them for trying to commit suicide!!!

Did you miss what I said totally? I didn't say it was wrong to discourage someone from doing drugs -- just that it's wrong to cage them for doing drugs!!!!

And all your poison drugs -- the fentanyl MPTP bit, etc. -- are very sad situations and I believe that the cooks of those drugs are guilty of a crime.

BUT, the point is that they would not be cooking drugs up if drugs were legal and could be produced by large pharmas for users!!!

AND, just because people cook drugs does not mean amateur chemistry needs to be restricted -- that's down on the gov't. Did the drug cooks hold a gun to their head? This is more or less moot, though, because my whole point is that there won't be any of these amateur-ish producers if the drugs were legal!!! (Actually, there probably would be, but they would only do it out of an interest in chemistry -- it would be cheaper to simply buy their drugs from the pharmas so the market would dry up.)

And, you got one thing right Sauron -- I'm surprised with you, despite the years of memorization that allow you to regurgitate knowledge, you are incapable of a very simple logical process that follows from the one of the things we good humans hold most dear: freedom -- the drug cooks aren't amateur chemists if they selling them and making money, obviously.

They just have a lot in common with amateur chemists in terms of equipment and reagent acquisition.

Again, I never said you can't try to intervene in the lives of a loved one to stop them from a victimless action which you think is not beneficial to them, I just said that you couldn't lock said person in a cage while maintaining your status as a moral being.

So, are you gonna lock your suicidal buddy in a cage?

If so, what a friend you are.

Bet this one'll hurt his head, eh? Idiot. Go turn yourself in for the crimes you committed involving cocaine or accept the fact that they are not crimes.

vulture - 11-4-2007 at 00:19

Quote:

But it gives them more life than they would (presumably) have on their own (proof being, they tried taking their life).

I'd rather take the fast train out instead of being locked in a cage, but that's just me. Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.

Quote:

If breaking someone's heart can be considered hurt, then would a true nobody, whom nobody knows, commiting suicide be any crime? What's wrong with this statement?

I don't get your point, but I object to the point that suicide is a crime. It never is. You can't protect people from themselves, let's not promote a nanny state. Let natural selection do its job.

quicksilver - 11-4-2007 at 05:13

I think this subject may be headed to the topic of "is there such thing as a victim-less crime?" For many years I had thought so. I really did. I thought that if some poor sod sat in front of his TV and got pissed that he did no harm to anyone and no one should in any manner interfere with his freedom to do so. - It seemed logical at the time. And in certain respects it seems so today. But most folks don't live in isolation. They have families, children, loved ones. They live in a society where there are others about them.

* A man who is drunk and laying about on his couch cannot give aid to the old lady who just broke her hip on the stairs.
* A woman who is passed out on pills cannot care for her child.
* A young person who is passively high on weed cannot further the education his parent's paid for.

- Do we not have a greater responsibility to society to be something other than self indulgent, slothful children who want entertainment at all costs? To the extent that we ignore our social-familial responsibilities we may ignore our humanity.
Is it our right to withdraw from helping & contributing in the lives of our loved ones and society in general?
Perhaps. but what sort of freedom is that? I am beginning to perceive a difference between liberty and freedom.
One comes with a certain amount of responsibility and another can be a hermit's challenge. The subject has far ranging implications....

vulture - 11-4-2007 at 08:04

Quote:

* A man who is drunk and laying about on his couch cannot give aid to the old lady who just broke her hip on the stairs.

This is just ridiculous. What if you happen to take a nap (being sober) and don't notice it either? Then you've commited a crime? You've gotta be kidding me. So everyone who looks the other way when there's somekind of trouble (and that are MANY people) are criminals?

12AX7 - 11-4-2007 at 10:11

If no one moves, it is a crime of sorts.

Consider if the risk is more serious: an old lady being robbed, or a neighbor's house breaking in. Sometimes, this even happens because all the neighbors assume another has called the police, say.

Tim

vulture - 11-4-2007 at 13:12

Quote:

Sometimes, this even happens because all the neighbors assume another has called the police, say.

Exactly, so you want to put the whole neighbourhood behind bars because they could have done something?

12AX7 - 11-4-2007 at 14:40

You'll notice I just said "it is a crime of sorts."

Regardless of whether or not it is sufficient to earn, say, jail time (which is a legal sentence, while we're talking about social norms), doesn't it make your human part feel just a little sad that someone wouldn't be responsible?

Tim

The_Davster - 11-4-2007 at 22:39

I fail to see how 'accepting responsibility' involves being caged and being raped by real criminals.

If I did not help someone I could see was in need of help, I know I would feel horrible for quite some time, and that would be enough punishment.

Up here there is mentality of not helping people who are actively being victimized in violent crime, the 'just call 911 and stay out of it'. I personally consider this completly immoral and dishonourable. It is illegal to intervene with a weapon, and there have been many cases up here where the 'good samaritin with a gun' gets more jail time than a rapist.

Anyone know the article 'praising suicide' or something along those lines? By Clarissa or Clarence someone. It is the most politically incorrect darwinistic viewpoint I have ever read. I liked it. The author was also suicidal at one point, making the viewpoint admirable, it was quite the read.

[Edited on 11-4-2007 by The_Davster]

quicksilver - 12-4-2007 at 06:31

Quote:

Originally posted by vulture
This is just ridiculous. What if you happen to take a nap (being sober) and don't notice it either? Then you've commited a crime? You've gotta be kidding me. So everyone who looks the other way when there's somekind of trouble (and that are MANY people) are criminals?

No, the point here is that should he want to give aid he would be in no position to do so. Should he try to he would be incapable of helping.
By it's very nature intoxication creates a climate that inhibits the functionality of man. Should that in an of itself be a crime? NO IMO however what it does is lessen what we are capable of as a society & individually.
I am NOT saying that such a person should be held criminally accountable in every sense....but there are limits. When one becomes a trusted public servant for instance; they hold a responsibility that should not be shirked just because they wanted to get high. Parenthood may be another example when the child is in infancy, etc.

vulture - 12-4-2007 at 12:07

Quote:

they hold a responsibility that should not be shirked just because they wanted to get high. Parenthood may be another example when the child is in infancy, etc.

That's when they start hurting other people...not a victimless action anymore..get it?

12AX7 - 12-4-2007 at 15:30

Quote:

Originally posted by vulture

Quote:

they hold a responsibility that should not be shirked just because they wanted to get high. Parenthood may be another example when the child is in infancy, etc.

That's when they start hurting other people...not a victimless action anymore..get it?

That was his point. How many people do you know of who would, by taking such an action, never hurt anyone, in any way, at any point in time?

Humans are rarely alone, and even more rarely completely forgotten. Think about it.

Tim

The_Davster - 12-4-2007 at 17:24

How are you to say your actions as a amateur chemist would never hurt anyone?

Or would you say that since the state can never completly be sure you won't do something stupid with your chems that noone can be trusted to own them?

What gives you the right to force your beliefs of what is right or wrong for another person upon them?

As a group of people who are the victims of 'tyranny of the majority' some of us seem quite content to join up with the majority on other issues and demonize behaviors of others.

Cost-Harm Analysis of Drug Use

leu - 12-4-2007 at 18:54

Opinions are easily obtained, but scientific data and analysis are somewhat more difficult

The attached study, published in The Lancet, Volume 369, Number 9566, 24 March 2007 pp 1047-1053 verifies what some members have always thought about drug use

Undoubtedly other members will disagree with the findings of this study, but the methodology seems rigorous :cool:

Attachment: nutt.zip (219kB)
This file has been downloaded 592 times

Pages: 1 2