[quote]I'm not sure about the government bureaucracy thing really, I guess it could be fine if it replaced the current one that enforces the "locking people up = problem solved" paradigm. Not sure about the system itself you propose though.
Surely eradicating the black market as much as possible should be a more sought after option? That way less people get hurt because the regulated product is available through legitimate means that make the black market look unnecessary and like a bad deal. By knowingly keeping a black market to "discourage" users from getting anything until their vetting period is over, lots of people are endangered because they wouldn't want to wait. You can't rely on people being "smart enough" I don't think. Plenty of people are fine using the black market now so why would they postpone their access just to get on some kind of list?[/QUOTE]
Well, patience IS a virtue. :P
Why would they postpone the access? Well the idea behind it is that if the person in question can prove s/he is responsible with other drugs like pot or LSD by not recklessly using it or endangering other people as a result, that they would be given a license to use the harder stuff.
[del]Alternatively, maybe people could instead have a sort of "trial" period where they are allowed access to these but if they screw it up then they lose access altogether[/del]
Shit, maybe that wouldn't work so well; if people get barred access they'll just turn to the blackmarket.
FUCK THE HUMAN PSYCHE.
I realize that there are flaws in a system like this that would have to compete with the black market. Maybe they just need to get rid of it altogether, because I see the blackmarket cockblocking government regulation in legal drugs like this.
It's proven difficult to get rid of in the past but I surmise that if drugs were in fact legalized that black markets would be more vulnerable, since a majority of the demand they would have had would now belong to the legal drug companies, shrinking the number of black market dealers significantly.
If the government were then able to reward people for turning in black market dealers I think it could be entirely minimized since now people aren't dependent on them so turning them in not only gets rid of a person they don't even care about anymore but also places a handsome bill in their pocket.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;38457262]Well, patience IS a virtue. :P
Why would they postpone the access? Well the idea behind it is that if the person in question can prove s/he is responsible with other drugs like pot or LSD by not recklessly using it or endangering other people as a result, that they would be given a license to use the harder stuff.
[del]Alternatively, maybe people could instead have a sort of "trial" period where they are allowed access to these but if they screw it up then they lose access altogether[/del]
Shit, maybe that wouldn't work so well; if people get barred access they'll just turn to the blackmarket.
FUCK THE HUMAN PSYCHE.
I realize that there are flaws in a system like this that would have to compete with the black market. Maybe they just need to get rid of it altogether, because I see the blackmarket cockblocking government regulation in legal drugs like this.
It's proven difficult to get rid of in the past but I surmise that if drugs were in fact legalized that black markets would be more vulnerable, since a majority of the demand they would have had would now belong to the legal drug companies, shrinking the number of black market dealers significantly.
If the government were then able to reward people for turning in black market dealers I think it could be entirely minimized since now people aren't dependent on them so turning them in not only gets rid of a person they don't even care about anymore but also places a handsome bill in their pocket.[/QUOTE]
Rewarding people for turning in dealers is just going to drive the market further underground, also making it more dangerous to deal with these people at all, driving prices up (bringing back the black market profit incentive) and increasing levels of crime, providing fuel for those controlling the black market and undoing the good the legalisation would do. The only way (that i know of) you can completely get rid of the black market without having a totalitarian government is by giving a better offer to the people, it's not as simple as 'just getting rid of it'.
[QUOTE=TamTamJam;38463100]Rewarding people for turning in dealers is just going to drive the market further underground, also making it more dangerous to deal with these people at all, driving prices up (bringing back the black market profit incentive) and increasing levels of crime, providing fuel for those controlling the black market and undoing the good the legalisation would do. The only way (that i know of) you can completely get rid of the black market without having a totalitarian government is by giving a better offer to the people, it's not as simple as 'just getting rid of it'.[/QUOTE]
Which is why the legal companies would offer clean, properly concentrated drugs over the black market's inconsistent ones. However I'm NEVER going to be comfortable with these just being handed out to anyone who wants them; I'm going to stand by my opinion that people who want these more potentially abusable drugs should be proven responsible enough to have them at the very least. I'm still not sure whether you guys are for or against government paternalism but I think that the government should at least non-invasively protect its citizens.
I guess the whole proving-yourself-responsible thing is going to drive some people underground, in which case, I say let them. If they reject a system put in place to protect them then I think that's as far as government paternalism should go.
[editline]15th November 2012[/editline]
wait a second why would rewarding people for turning in dealers drive the prices of legal drugs up
[QUOTE=BFG9000;38470795]Which is why the legal companies would offer clean, properly concentrated drugs over the black market's inconsistent ones. However I'm NEVER going to be comfortable with these just being handed out to anyone who wants them; I'm going to stand by my opinion that people who want these more potentially abusable drugs should be proven responsible enough to have them at the very least. I'm still not sure whether you guys are for or against government paternalism but I think that the government should at least non-invasively protect its citizens.
I guess the whole proving-yourself-responsible thing is going to drive some people underground, in which case, I say let them. If they reject a system put in place to protect them then I think that's as far as government paternalism should go.
[editline]15th November 2012[/editline]
wait a second why would rewarding people for turning in dealers drive the prices of legal drugs up[/QUOTE]
How would they prove themselves responsible? How would we judge that? People are great at faking things. I think one of the reasons we don't seem to agree on this is our personal perception of drugs. I don't view drugs in a negative light whatsoever. Almost any drug has a potential for damage, but they have a potential for good as well. I reject the notion that withholding drugs is protection at all.
Also, I think he meant it would drive up black market prices since there would be a demand for black market drugs.
but then why would people pay insane prices for black market drugs in comparison to legal drugs
And I guess you're right about the whole "people are good at faking things". In theory if one is patient enough they could beat the system.
I'm still not comfortable with these harder drugs being given to just anybody though. Reassure me somehow, please.
Remember what I said about coca and caffeine?
Caffeine and coca are not so dissimilar. They are both realistically "hard" drugs when in concentrated form. Caffeine was almost banned at the same time as coca for similar reasoning (black men going negro nuts thinking they were superhuman and raping white women, etc.). Coca is currently mainly distributed in powdered extract form (cocaine) because it is far easier to transport and conceal a few grams of powder than it is to transport the many kilos of leaves required to synthesise it or make into the safer and more convenient coca tea.
Caffeine, the legal substance of the two, is mainly consumed in the form of beverages such as tea and coffee because they are far more convenient, less easy to overdose on (who wants to feel full and piss every few minutes all day?), and provide additional benefits i.e. flavour and satisfaction of thirst. People rarely consume caffeine in pure powder form because it is inconvenient and more pleasant methods of consumption are available. Some people use caffeine pills and energy drinks but for the most part abuse of these tends to be fairly low and limited to silly teenagers wanting to catch a buzz who would probably be safer passing a doobie around.
Caffeine, a hard drug, has no age limit. Addiction to it is widespread and not generally considered all that problematic because it can be maintained easily at low cost and is not socially stigmatised. Some people need it to actually get out of bed or feel normal. It is not used in a concentrated form or overdosed on for the most part because that's what happens when convenient and safer methods of usage exist. Coca tea is pleasant and provides a nice mild buzz much like a cup of coffee or tea but it is rarely used outside of producing countries because of prohibition. If coca and cocaine were legalised I have a feeling a similar thing to what happens with caffeine would occur - many people would just use the more convenient form of coca such as tea and maybe coca sweets or energy drinks. Cocaine would probably continue to be used sometimes but probably mainly in party environments or clubs where it is used currently, and hey, at least dosage could be recommended reliably and it wouldn't be cut with rat poison!
I'm not sure if that was reassurance but I felt it was an important situation to refresh.
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;38472861]Remember what I said about coca and caffeine?
Caffeine and coca are not so dissimilar. They are both realistically "hard" drugs when in concentrated form. Caffeine was almost banned at the same time as coca for similar reasoning (black men going negro nuts thinking they were superhuman and raping white women, etc.). Coca is currently mainly distributed in powdered extract form (cocaine) because it is far easier to transport and conceal a few grams of powder than it is to transport the many kilos of leaves required to synthesise it or make into the safer and more convenient coca tea.
Caffeine, the legal substance of the two, is mainly consumed in the form of beverages such as tea and coffee because they are far more convenient, less easy to overdose on (who wants to feel full and piss every few minutes all day?), and provide additional benefits i.e. flavour and satisfaction of thirst. People rarely consume caffeine in pure powder form because it is inconvenient and more pleasant methods of consumption are available. Some people use caffeine pills and energy drinks but for the most part abuse of these tends to be fairly low and limited to silly teenagers wanting to catch a buzz who would probably be safer passing a doobie around.
Caffeine, a hard drug, has no age limit. Addiction to it is widespread and not generally considered all that problematic because it can be maintained easily at low cost and is not socially stigmatised. Some people need it to actually get out of bed or feel normal. It is not used in a concentrated form or overdosed on for the most part because that's what happens when convenient and safer methods of usage exist. Coca tea is pleasant and provides a nice mild buzz much like a cup of coffee or tea but it is rarely used outside of producing countries because of prohibition. If coca and cocaine were legalised I have a feeling a similar thing to what happens with caffeine would occur - many people would just use the more convenient form of coca such as tea and maybe coca sweets or energy drinks. Cocaine would probably continue to be used sometimes but probably mainly in party environments or clubs where it is used currently, and hey, at least dosage could be recommended reliably and it wouldn't be cut with rat poison!
I'm not sure if that was reassurance but I felt it was an important situation to refresh.[/QUOTE]
I don't really understand this argument, there are plenty of stimulant RCs which are both legal and stronger than caffeine yet they aren't exactly popular, I can't exactly see that a non extract coca product would be overly popular with those who want cocaine. So they wouldn't switch, it's like saying if a weak version of heroin existed then people would use it instead yet there is over the counter Opiates in most countries and they're not as popular.
If drugs became legalized people would want the ones they know now, sure they might be put into easier methods of consumption such as drinks etc but people would want the same effects, not a weaker alternative.
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;38472861]Remember what I said about coca and caffeine?
Caffeine and coca are not so dissimilar. They are both realistically "hard" drugs when in concentrated form. Caffeine was almost banned at the same time as coca for similar reasoning (black men going negro nuts thinking they were superhuman and raping white women, etc.). Coca is currently mainly distributed in powdered extract form (cocaine) because it is far easier to transport and conceal a few grams of powder than it is to transport the many kilos of leaves required to synthesise it or make into the safer and more convenient coca tea.
Caffeine, the legal substance of the two, is mainly consumed in the form of beverages such as tea and coffee because they are far more convenient, less easy to overdose on (who wants to feel full and piss every few minutes all day?), and provide additional benefits i.e. flavour and satisfaction of thirst. People rarely consume caffeine in pure powder form because it is inconvenient and more pleasant methods of consumption are available. Some people use caffeine pills and energy drinks but for the most part abuse of these tends to be fairly low and limited to silly teenagers wanting to catch a buzz who would probably be safer passing a doobie around.
Caffeine, a hard drug, has no age limit. Addiction to it is widespread and not generally considered all that problematic because it can be maintained easily at low cost and is not socially stigmatised. Some people need it to actually get out of bed or feel normal. It is not used in a concentrated form or overdosed on for the most part because that's what happens when convenient and safer methods of usage exist. Coca tea is pleasant and provides a nice mild buzz much like a cup of coffee or tea but it is rarely used outside of producing countries because of prohibition. If coca and cocaine were legalised I have a feeling a similar thing to what happens with caffeine would occur - many people would just use the more convenient form of coca such as tea and maybe coca sweets or energy drinks. Cocaine would probably continue to be used sometimes but probably mainly in party environments or clubs where it is used currently, and hey, at least dosage could be recommended reliably and it wouldn't be cut with rat poison!
I'm not sure if that was reassurance but I felt it was an important situation to refresh.[/QUOTE]
But don't people typically use cocaine and the like in moderately concentrated amounts?
[QUOTE=BFG9000;38480905]But don't people typically use cocaine and the like in moderately concentrated amounts?[/QUOTE]
Yes, that's the point. It's concentrated because it's more convenient to ship and sell in concentrated form for the black market.
but I wouldn't want coca leaves id want concentrated cocaine for the full affects?
Yeah I'm a bit off on that one to be honest, sorry guys :) a lot of the time when I post in this thread I'm pretty buzzed from caffeine, damn I'm a junkie right?
But yeah TamTamJam that was part of what I was trying to say. It's more convenient to ship a few grams of prohibited powder than several kilograms of leaves.
[QUOTE=TamTamJam;38482891]Yes, that's the point. It's concentrated because it's more convenient to ship and sell in concentrated form for the black market.[/QUOTE]
That is also the point we're pointing out against, it's also concentrated because that's what people want they don't want another weak stimulant like caffeine, there wouldn't be nearly any demand for a non concentrate form as we've seen with RC stimulants which don't really sell well compared to the scale of illegal drugs
I personally find it pretty unreasonable to make marijuana illegal considering medicinal uses and how much power it jut hands over to the Mexican drug cartels. Not to mention all the potential money that could come from taxed, state ran marijuana vendors.
A lot of drugs are far less harmful than most governments would have you believe. I'm actually currently doing a research paper arguing for the decriminalization of psychedelic drugs.
Psychedelics such as LSD, shrooms, mescaline, and even marijuana show very little potential to cause psychological and physiological harm to humans. They show no potential for physical addiction, some potential for physchological addiction (just like hamburgers and masturbating, mind you), and very little potential for harm regardless of dosage (mescaline is an exception - an overdose could occur at only 5 times an active dose).
Bear with me for a moment while we rewind to the mid-20th century. Prohibition had recently been repealed in america. Jolly old Uncle Sam had reunited booze with the common man, and alcoholism rates were skyrocketing. As the number of plastered plebeians wandering the streets in a drunken stupor increased, so did the number of Alcoholics Anonymous members. As business boomed for this benevolent organization, a new challenger appeared out of the dust and tumbleweeds. This challenger adjusted the wide brim of his ten gallon hat as his fingers hovered above the worn leather holster of his shiny colt six-shooter. As he raised his head, his face escaped from the obscurity cast by the shadow of his large head piece. It was the LSD molecule, arriving just in time to fuck shit up by helping people and completely revolutionize psychopharmacology.
The hyper-sensitive context of an LSD trip encourages a user to examine his self and actions from a neutral perspective - a loss of ego. This is why the substance was able to achieve success rates of 60-90% in therapy with alcoholic subjects (depening on the effectiveness of the screening process used to pick candidates for treatment), in comparison with AA's success rate of 40-60% at the time.
Shrooms follow a similar pattern - a shroom trip from the perspective of the tripper is an extremely sacred spiritual experience. In fact, a study was conducted with 40 ardent christians who were each given doses of psilocybin (the active ingredient in our favorite funky fungus). The subjects of this study reported that it was one of the most intense spiritual experiences of their lives, if not the most intense.
We all know the arguments and facts about marijuana, so I wont even bother opening that can of worms.
We've established that psychedelics have a definite use in psychiatric therapy and that they are incredibly safe from a physiological and psychological standpoint as long as users consume them responsibly in a fitting set and setting, so why not make them legal? If these substances were legally available, they would profit the government through their sale and they would be MUCH safer, as the dealers of the drugs would be put out of business.
This means kids wont be out buying "acid" that is actually a dangerous research chemical, or mushrooms that might be poisonous, or "mescaline" which, because it comes in the form of a white powder, (or yellow, brownish, depending on purity) is easily cut with any number of other dangerous white powders like cocaine.
Keep in mind that alcohol and cigarettes are not only LEGAL, but our government allows the companies that produce these things to ADVERTISE them. These are substances that quite literally equate to death. Cigarettes are straight up poison. Alcohol is extremely dangerous when not consumed with moderation and responsibility. Well guess what alcohol does to its consumers? It [U]strips them of their ability to be responsible and moderate their actions![/U] [I]Alcohol consumption literally implies the inability to safely consume alcohol[/I].
I'm not even going to get into the amount of money we spend on enforcing drug laws - paying officers to seek out users and dealers, paying for clothes lodging and food for the inmates who are imprisoned for these things, paying for investigations into large drug suppliers, paying for damage caused by gang violence that is funded from drug profits that would not exist if we didn't try to get rid of drugs in the first place, etc.
[QUOTE=trucker hat;38554503]A lot of drugs are far less harmful than most governments would have you believe. I'm actually currently doing a research paper arguing for the decriminalization of psychedelic drugs.
Psychedelics such as LSD, shrooms, mescaline, and even marijuana show very little potential to cause psychological and physiological harm to humans. They show no potential for physical addiction, some potential for physchological addiction (just like hamburgers and masturbating, mind you), and very little potential for harm regardless of dosage (mescaline is an exception - an overdose could occur at only 5 times an active dose).
Bear with me for a moment while we rewind to the mid-20th century. Prohibition had recently been repealed in america. Jolly old Uncle Sam had reunited booze with the common man, and alcoholism rates were skyrocketing. As the number of plastered plebeians wandering the streets in a drunken stupor increased, so did the number of Alcoholics Anonymous members. As business boomed for this benevolent organization, a new challenger appeared out of the dust and tumbleweeds. This challenger adjusted the wide brim of his ten gallon hat as his fingers hovered above the worn leather holster of his shiny colt six-shooter. As he raised his head, his face escaped from the obscurity cast by the shadow of his large head piece. It was the LSD molecule, arriving just in time to fuck shit up by helping people and completely revolutionize psychopharmacology.
The hyper-sensitive context of an LSD trip encourages a user to examine his self and actions from a neutral perspective - a loss of ego. This is why the substance was able to achieve success rates of 60-90% in therapy with alcoholic subjects (depening on the effectiveness of the screening process used to pick candidates for treatment), in comparison with AA's success rate of 40-60% at the time.
Shrooms follow a similar pattern - a shroom trip from the perspective of the tripper is an extremely sacred spiritual experience. In fact, a study was conducted with 40 ardent christians who were each given doses of psilocybin (the active ingredient in our favorite funky fungus). The subjects of this study reported that it was one of the most intense spiritual experiences of their lives, if not the most intense.
We all know the arguments and facts about marijuana, so I wont even bother opening that can of worms.
We've established that psychedelics have a definite use in psychiatric therapy and that they are incredibly safe from a physiological and psychological standpoint as long as users consume them responsibly in a fitting set and setting, so why not make them legal? If these substances were legally available, they would profit the government through their sale and they would be MUCH safer, as the dealers of the drugs would be put out of business.
This means kids wont be out buying "acid" that is actually a dangerous research chemical, or mushrooms that might be poisonous, or "mescaline" which, because it comes in the form of a white powder, (or yellow, brownish, depending on purity) is easily cut with any number of other dangerous white powders like cocaine.
Keep in mind that alcohol and cigarettes are not only LEGAL, but our government allows the companies that produce these things to ADVERTISE them. These are substances that quite literally equate to death. Cigarettes are straight up poison. Alcohol is extremely dangerous when not consumed with moderation and responsibility. Well guess what alcohol does to its consumers? It [U]strips them of their ability to be responsible and moderate their actions![/U] [I]Alcohol consumption literally implies the inability to safely consume alcohol[/I].
I'm not even going to get into the amount of money we spend on enforcing drug laws - paying officers to seek out users and dealers, paying for clothes lodging and food for the inmates who are imprisoned for these things, paying for investigations into large drug suppliers, paying for damage caused by gang violence that is funded from drug profits that would not exist if we didn't try to get rid of drugs in the first place, etc.[/QUOTE]
Im pretty sure you are wrong about the mescaline man
[editline]23rd November 2012[/editline]
Like its fatal dose is really high not 5 times more than its active dose
[QUOTE=Stormcharger;38567114]Im pretty sure you are wrong about the mescaline man
[editline]23rd November 2012[/editline]
Like its fatal dose is really high not 5 times more than its active dose[/QUOTE]
wasn't able to find anything to contradict that. I know an active dose is 200 - 400 mg and most people seem to agree that it gets dangerous when you take over 1000 mg
Yea it would get dangerous in terms of tripping way to hard but the ld50 is like 800-1200mg/kg which you have to have an unrealistic amount to reach that kinda dosage
A documentary called Breaking the Taboo narrated by Morgan Freeman and produced by the production company of Richard Branson's son has just been released for free on Youtube.
I haven't watched it yet but plan to shortly.
Whatever position you identify with it seems like it could make some good points for arguing for or against the debate in this thread if it re-awakens.
[video=youtube;8UtNF-Le2L0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UtNF-Le2L0[/video]
If you want to discuss the movie specifically without debating, I set up a [URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1230952"]thread[/URL] in Videos/Flash/etc.
In the US, they search you for drugs but yet they choose who they let run drugs over the border. It's all a controlled operation.
I would like to see some sort of coffeshop around my area, controlled distribution and consumption would surely decrease the amount of drug use and crime. I am tired off searching for new sources, I met some pretty shady dealers in my time.
A type of "drug house" would surely better for everyone, those illegal transactions are annoying and I mistrust the quality.
I can see the negative and positive effects to the world. Only with marijuana though.
+ No 'sketchy' drugs.
+ $$$ for the gov't
(treat it like alcohol would be treated. Age limit, can't do it on public streets, etc.)
- be easier for kids to get dope.
Dealers don't generally ask for ID.
Better kids get their drugs clean, uncontaminated, and of known strength so they can take the right dosage than from the black market.
Most dangers of even the harder drugs, as I feel I've explained in this thread a few thousand times, are actually caused by the circumstances in which they are distributed, supplied, and obtained meaning the side effects of the black market, not the substance.
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;38863593]Dealers don't generally ask for ID.
Better kids get their drugs clean, uncontaminated, and of known strength so they can take the right dosage than from the black market.
Most dangers of even the harder drugs, as I feel I've explained in this thread a few thousand times, are actually caused by the circumstances in which they are distributed, supplied, and obtained meaning the side effects of the black market, not the substance.[/QUOTE]
I agree, in my area where I used to live. There were some really sketchy drugs, filled with weird substances and other chemical stuff.
[QUOTE=FamousCra;38862415]I can see the negative and positive effects to the world. Only with marijuana though.
+ No 'sketchy' drugs.
+ $$$ for the gov't
(treat it like alcohol would be treated. Age limit, can't do it on public streets, etc.)
- be easier for kids to get dope.[/QUOTE]
I could buy dope from the age of 14 in my classroom at school
I don't think it could possibly make it easier, it was harder for me to get alcohol.
I made my own bill in my government class regarding this and it turned out real well. People followed through with it and pushed it. I really believe that drugs should be legalized, but if the ones with high dependence were, they should be regulated like fuck. This was my bill:
[quote]It is the belief that the legalization and extreme taxation of drugs such as Heroin, Cocaine, and Methamphetamine will lead to the decline of their usage. This should be applied to drugs that have high physical and psychological dependence.
Imposing a tax of $500+ per gram of each drug and their availability limited to pharmacies.
Only sell by the gram so lower quantities at a cheaper price are inaccessible.
Age of consumption limited to 21 or older.
Require a statement to be signed saying the person fully understands the risk of using these drugs can be death.
Having government regulated facilities that produce the drugs and keep them 100% pure, unadulterated substance.
The taxation can be used to help fund the deficit, as well as the facilities.[/quote]
Would the inflated tax not make the "more dangerous" substances cheaper on the black market?
When heroin is available uncontaminated, in known strength with dosage information and help available, at reasonable price from a safe location, and with sterile paraphenalia, for example, a dependence can be maintained effectively and pretty safely and a user can easily hold down daily activities such as a job just as well as someone dependent on a legitimate substance such as caffeine or tobacco. The addiction only becomes a problem when the above is not provided and it cannot be maintained due to decline in the availability of the substance or financial problems often leading to acquisitive theft, currently caused by the black markets inflated pricing and loan sharking of dealers etc. but this could also be caused by over-taxed overpriced legitimate product.
Another important point to take into account is that there are plenty of people who use heroin and opiates occasionally without becoming addicted and without experiencing problems, these are said to be the majority of users. This is often not picked up on due to scaremongering and the loaded connotations attached to the word "addiction" throughout the media and government educational material on the matter.
Well my thought when writing the bill was that if the feds produced it and sold it to pharmacies, the pharmacies would have to pay the tax to buy it and then they can sell it with the tax along with a higher price. Can you explain how you think a person who maintains a dependence on heroin can hold down a job? You're not supposed to drive while on it, jobs take up the better half of the day, so the person would only be able to take it at the end of the day.
I'd imagine the prices would probably not be THAT outrageous, and it'd probably end up not being limited to a gram. But if the prices were competitively priced for a year or two, the black market would probably start drying up in heroin sales as people could find competitively priced heroin for the same price, guaranteed clean, and ease of access.
I haven't tried heroin, nor will I, but this is one drug that is important to regulate if it was legalized.
Also: the forum I just read about heroin literally outlines that everyone starts out, "I'll do it on the weekends" and eventually it'll turn into every few hours.
[url]http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/threads/435362-Using-heroin-and-physical-dependence[/url]
[quote]You get hooked, one way or another. Remember that present heroin-addicts never said "ok, so I'm planning to get addicted to heroin in the future". It just happened, after their "only use 4 times a month, in the weekends" became 8 times, then 15, then everyday, then every few hours.[/quote]
[quote]I know you'll prolly say "but I'm not like them, I can stay true to my word". I said the same thing, but I realized my "once a month" became twice a week and thankfully I stopped before I got physically dependent. I was addicted though, no doubt. Every time a negative thought surged me, I thought about shooting up for a couple of months AFTER quitting. [/quote]
No, it's funner to risk getting caught. :420:
[QUOTE=Unreliable;39193358]Can you explain how you think a person who maintains a dependence on heroin can hold down a job? You're not supposed to drive while on it, jobs take up the better half of the day, so the person would only be able to take it at the end of the day.
I'd imagine the prices would probably not be THAT outrageous, and it'd probably end up not being limited to a gram. But if the prices were competitively priced for a year or two, the black market would probably start drying up in heroin sales as people could find competitively priced heroin for the same price, guaranteed clean, and ease of access.
I haven't tried heroin, nor will I, but this is one drug that is important to regulate if it was legalized.
Also: the forum I just read about heroin literally outlines that everyone starts out, "I'll do it on the weekends" and eventually it'll turn into every few hours.
[url]http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/threads/435362-Using-heroin-and-physical-dependence[/url][/QUOTE]
I don't mean hardcore "dose up all day" dependence. I'm talking 1 or 2 doses a day in the evening kind of thing, and not working or driving whilst under the influence of it.
Yes, that particular forum has a lot of people like that but there are people who are able to keep it as a strictly weekend/every two or three weeks recreational exercise.
Seems like a sensible sensible bill to me.
Interestingly before any drugs laws were bought in to demonise those who use opium and heroin, etc. (the Chinese in the USA who were taking a lot of work at the expense of whites who the political system favoured), it was available from shops and people would use it to treat things and recreationally with little negative effects. Those who developed a dependence were just treated with compassion and helped by medical personnel rather than demonised and ridiculed.
I believe that drugs should be legalized in some states and not in others so if certain ppl want to be as far away from it as possible they can go there and vice versa.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.