Attitudes

[Ephor]

I don't know what I hope to achieve in this post; possibly catharsis, possibly just a little attention. Maybe someone will learn something from it.

Since my late teens I have exerted a reasonable effort experimenting in various controlled substances. Measured against society I should be considered liberal in my view of this use, though you will probably be relieved to hear that I hold heroin and crack in low regard. I've used cannabis since a relatively early age and now use it pretty much daily, and use/have used ecstacy, speed, ketamine and mushrooms on an infrequent, "event" basis.

I am not concerned about my use of the latter, and though my use of the former feels a little intense it's not something that I feel I couldn't rein in. Maybe I should be concerned, but that's really not the question I wish to ask.

I first used cocaine whilst travelling on my gap year, and presently use it with relative regularity (I consume it at regular social occasions, and buy a small quantity every couple of weeks). This is not to say that I use it daily, and never alone. I won't go into my reasons for my use, but don't assume that my refusal to promote it betrays a repetant addiction. Recently the ugly aspects of the drug have reared their head - I binge on larger quantities, would consider it a regular feature of my life and came pretty close to experiencing a panic attack. I have not reached a point of reliance, though I am beginning to display patterns of behaviour that probably indicate an embryonic addiction.

Back to my statement on heroin and crack: that I hold little respect for their use. I support the legalisation of drugs, and not from a personal standing point, but have always felt uncomfortable with allowing access to those two. Now I wonder if I should place cocaine in that category; though the onset is clearly slower, does this make a difference? I wonder how this should change my attitudes, if at all.

What are your views on recreational drug use, and its legal complications? Can crack and heroin be defended?

In the past, rather than really consider changing drug laws I have just pushed my own criteria of what may be considered acceptable. I'm not satisfied with that, are you?

[Dante Hicks]

I'm not sure you'll get too many sensible / sane replies to this one as both "sides" are fairly entrenched here.

All I'll say on the distinction you're making between drugs is not necessarily obvious. There seems to be a variety of ways you can distinguish between drugs which could include :

1) Immediate harm to the user (risk of instant injury, etc)
2) Long-term harm to the user (cancer, mental illness, long-term depression)
3) Level / Speed of addiction
4) Some nebulous concept of harm done to "society" by the drug.
5) Some sort of notion of what's already acceptable (e.g. we can't ban booze even if we wanted to because it's too entrenched now)

The legal classification system seems to be some confusing mix of the above, although it's not exactly coherent (e.g. apparently Crystal Meth being classified lower than dried mushrooms or ecstacy) but what is your distinction? Why is heroin 'worse' (in your mind) than 'cocaine' (or caffeine, or cannabis for that matter)? That seems to be the important thing.

I won't bother repeating my usual views on the legalisation subject as they are well known, but I'd be interested in why you believe these distinctions are valid.

As for whether people should take drugs, that's another matter. A lot of people seem to have trouble controlling themselves (this goes for booze or gambling or shopping or lots of other things) and they probably should steer clear. Others are going to have more clear cut signs they shouldn't use certain substances (e.g. they could be allergic or something).

[Nodrog]

Well if someone happens to disagree with you on the benefits of heroin or crack, what is your justification for sending them to jail for X years? Its not up to us to 'defend' crack or heroin; the burden of justification lies with you here, since youre the one who apparently wants to lock people up for disagreeing.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by horn

"protecting", fellow citizens from the inevitable legions of smack heads stealing whatever they can get their mits on for one more fix i would assume to be the reasons given to ban such drugs.

i would assume that, if legalized, the smack prices would drop a great deal (though i'm sure they'd be taxed to hell anymore, i'm sure a single pack o smack would be like $10, 2/3 of which being tax). and i would guess that in general the level crime committed in order to procure it would actually go down.

Originally Posted by Nodrog

the burden of justification lies with you here, since youre the one who apparently wants to lock people up for disagreeing.

for all practical purposes the burden of proof lies on whoever disagrees with the status quo.

you may think that should change, and you may see no need to justify that stance, but there it is.

[vampire_lestat]

Surely if coke was cheap there'd be no need for crack, I'd always thought it was for people who couldn't afford cocaine.

[madi]

how about make it all legal, make it all cheap and let all the idiots kill themselves off?

would save a lot of crime and oppression etc

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by acropolis

for all practical purposes the burden of proof lies on whoever disagrees with the status quo.

For "practical purposes" there is no real burden of proof - the people with power* simply do what they want (constrained by what they can get away with).

* = perceived highest capacity for violence, in the long term.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

For "practical purposes" there is no real burden of proof - the people with power* simply do what they want (constrained by what they can get away with).

* = perceived highest capacity for violence, in the long term.

usually the people in power here do whatever they want, but that's because on 99% of issues almost nobody cares.

no one cares if your government goes with contractor A or B etc, and so long as whoever holds office sticks with the popular will on the 1%, he's free 99% of the time.

But here's my point. If you can prove that on some issue that had been an issue of indifference that there was a much superior choice, and convince a large number of people, then you can move that issue into the 1%. But clearly in this, 'the burden of proof was on you.' Obviously it would be nice to move everything into the 1%, but it isn't reasonably possible; people don't have time to understand every aspect of every issue, which is why we hire people to do that for us.

Anyway, I don't get the 'violence' thing. Over here we try to lock down people perceived as extremely violent, and they end up pretty powerless. Which I assume is a complete misinterpretation.

[PSH]

Originally Posted by madi

how about make it all legal, make it all cheap and let all the idiots kill themselves off?

would save a lot of crime and oppression etc

Bring back natural selection!

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by PSH

Bring back natural selection!

we already have cigarettes, and they rarely cause people to kill other people.

[PSH]

Originally Posted by acropolis

we already have cigarettes, and they rarely cause people to kill other people.

I meant let the weak kill themselves thus improving the gene pool. Is natural selection the wrong term for this?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by acropolis

Anyway, I don't get the 'violence' thing. Over here we try to lock down people perceived as extremely violent, and they end up pretty powerless. Which I assume is a complete misinterpretation.

Locking people up is violence (of a form). That's what's meant by the state's monopoly on the legitimate use of violence (or force). Violence in this sense is about capacity, not use. An extremely successful mafia boss may never actually need to kill anyone, it's just presumed if people piss him off they'll get whacked. That doesn't mean they're not perceived as violent or powerful (in this sense).

But going back to burdens and proofs, I would still say that it's a bit of a red herring to speak of such things in a practical sense. The majority of Britons opposed the war on Iraq but our government still went to war (i.e. changed the status quo) despite failing the burden of homes criteria. I'd be surprised if anything but a minority of policies were supported by a majority of the population.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by PSH

I meant let the weak kill themselves thus improving the gene pool. Is natural selection the wrong term for this?

i understood you, and natural selection was the correct term. i just argued that we already are getting our quota of 'natural selection' thanks to cigarettes.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Locking people up is violence (of a form). That's what's meant by the state's monopoly on the legitimate use of violence (or force). Violence in this sense is about capacity, not use. An extremely successful mafia boss may never actually need to kill anyone, it's just presumed if people piss him off they'll get whacked. That doesn't mean they're not perceived as violent or powerful (in this sense)..

So in context of your post, are you saying that there is some element in your government (and governments in general) that is more willing to lock people up than other elements, and therefore holds the power; or the somewhat tautological truth that governments hold the power of the nations they represent?

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

But going back to burdens and proofs, I would still say that it's a bit of a red herring to speak of such things in a practical sense. The majority of Britons opposed the war on Iraq but our government still went to war (i.e. changed the status quo) despite failing the burden of homes criteria. I'd be surprised if anything but a minority of policies were supported by a majority of the population.

Seriously though, why are you guys there?

I've never understood that.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by acropolis

or the somewhat tautological truth that governments hold the power of the nations they represent?

It was this one, sorry. Basically, I'm saying this burden of truth is all well and good but the power holders will do what they want, irrespective of what the status quo is (unless by status quo, you meant general power dynamic rather than general status of affair).

Seriously though, why are you guys there?

I've never understood that.

Pretty much the same reason you guys are (rah rah imperialism), except our media did a worse job at selling it (80% of our press was for the war, the majority of our politicians were for it). Our government did it's usual shit thing, but they were less effective this time (possibly because the UK has a largish Muslim population and/or a lot of people think Bush is evil/shit). To be honest, if Clinton* had been in the White House rather than Bush, but had still invaded, "we" might be more supportive. Most of our gutless populace was well up for bombing the Serbs (but our media was more gun-ho about that and there's no real pro-Serb lobby to speak of).

p.s. Cigarettes are a terribly slow way of killing the stupid, compared to a heroin overdose.

* = Obviously he couldn't, but you know what I mean. I have no idea of what Briton's would have thought of Gore.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

(unless by status quo, you meant general power dynamic rather than general status of affair).

my definition of status quo has next year being 2006, and the general response to impetus being in accordance to the same rules instead of having the same impetus (i.e., next year we could still have 'status quo' even if new orleans isn't hit by another hurricane named katrina so long as whatever disaster does happen is responded to by something fitting the consistent pattern of incompetence).

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

p.s. Cigarettes are a terribly slow way of killing the stupid, compared to a heroin overdose.

cigarettes are 'conveniently slow', heroin is 'inconveniently fast.' In that cigs tend to kill people around retirement age, when they would start collecting from government but after they've spent a lifetime (or 2/3 of a lifetime) paying into the coffers. Heroin overdose hits right after we've spent 20-30 years educating them and they are just hitting high output years. Or soon after they released the excellent 'in utero' but before they get back in the studio much.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by acropolis

cigarettes are 'conveniently slow', heroin is 'inconveniently fast.

Not when we're talking natural selection. Killing people when they're 70 is pretty pointless if they've already had 8 kids (from an evolutionary point of view).

[dda]

Probably the single most dangerous drug to society and to the user is crystaline methamphetamine. Speed is bad enough on its own but crystal seems to be much worse.

The reason I say this is because crystal is much cheaper and has much longer lasting effects than does cocaine or the base form of cocaine (crack).

As described, crystal gives a feeling of euphoria which makes one feel invencible. Unfortunately, protracted use (and addiction rates are high), causes one to lose any feeling of need to maintain hygine and has very negative effects on skin, internal organs and the brain. People who are crystal or even meth adicts will commonly lose most of their teeth (but who needs to eat), develope skin sores, especially on the face, develope jaw grinding which is involuntary, they scratch their arms incessently causing infection to any skin sores there.

However, from society's perspective, perhaps the worst effect is the paranoia which sets in after a few days of not sleeping. I have seen a case where a couple after about 72 hours on a run got butcher knives and started stabbing their walls because they felt that there were demons in the walls. When this didn't stop the problem they then turned the butcher knives on each other (he being more successful than she).

I had a case where one member of a conspiracy to steal and fence stolen goods, for no apparent reason, decided that one of his business partners was untrustworthy so he shot him 13 times with the civilian version of an M-16 rifle (Colt AR-15).

One sister stabbed her sister to death after their father's funeral earlier that day because the sister had taken more than her share of hits on the pipe.

In Stockton-on-San-Joaquin, the most common cause of a homicide is gang killings, second is methamphetamine useage and third is domestic violence.

There was a time when there was a fair amount of homicides behind cocaine/crack but these were over sales and purchases of the drug seldom because of the effects of the drug.

There is probably a need for the re-thinking of most drug policies. However, I am willing to admit that I am at a loss to say what a good policy would be. Education about drugs is always appealing however, GD is an example of a number of pretty intelligent individuals who, despite their intelligence and the risks involved appear to think that drug usage is a highly desirable thing.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by dda

Education about drugs is always appealing however, GD is an example of a number of pretty intelligent individuals who, despite their intelligence and the risks involved appear to think that drug usage is a highly desirable thing.

The risks are pretty low for most people except at the extremes (as with many things). Drinking alcohol is not particularly risky unless you're on three bottles of whiskey a night (or the equivalent). That's the distinction that most people don't seem to make.

(There's a risk of getting caught too, but it's pretty minimal in most cases. Even selling small quantities of drugs does not seem to getting caught for most, but importing hundreds of kilos of cocaine is another matter)

[Cannon_Fodder]

I've said this before, I wont take drugs (apart from alcohol) and to some extent I think worse of people for doing drugs (Don't know why, probably just the stigma attached to it). However I do feel there is some basic human attachment to drugs to get to an alternate state of mind, feeling good etc... But there are some huge downfalls to it. I suppose 'Equilibrium' said it best "Some of us must forego feeling, so that other's can" (roughly). The trouble is, how can you decide who can handle the drugs and who cant?

[dda]

In the US we catch a lot of small sellers and very few large sellers.

However, it is the user that is the concern. What do you do for that group of users who are at the extreme?

I have always thought that the answer might be to legalize drugs but to make it a government monopoly. As with any product, there is always a need to attract new consumers. The government would be so ineffective at attracting new users that soon there would be no users. (joke)

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by dda

In the US we catch a lot of small sellers and very few large sellers.

When estimating risk, you've got to look at proportions though. You may catch thousands of small-time dealers, but there are many many thousands more. If there were no small time dealers, there wouldn't be any big time dealers (or users for that matter).

As for users, you let people live their own lives. If they need help, you offer it. That's got to be the golden rule of any social policy. Educating people about the risks (without idiotic propaganda) is key, in addition to trying to ensure people know what they're being sold (one of the problems with most drugs seem to be that the purity is completely random so people can't easily regulate what they consume - imagine drinking a beer which had a random % of alcohol in it)

And sniborp : It's up to a person to find out / decide if they can handle certain drugs. I don't do certain things simply because I don't like the consequences they bring on. I am eager to try heroin at least once, and who knows - I may die of an OD on the first go, or I may become a pathetic junkie sucking cock to pay for my next hit. But that's life.

There may be a tiny minority who need to be physically restrained from taking somethings (e.g. everytime they take drug x they stab someone or something) but it seems fairly easy to imagine legislating for those sort of extreme cases.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Not when we're talking natural selection. Killing people when they're 70 is pretty pointless if they've already had 8 kids (from an evolutionary point of view).

i was talking from a fiscal solvency point of view.

[vampire_lestat]

Originally Posted by acropolis

Obviously it would be nice to move everything into the 1%, but it isn't reasonably possible; people don't have time to understand every aspect of every issue, which is why we hire people to do that for us.

Surely if everything was in the 1% it would be 100%?

[Rinoa]

Rinoa's Point From the highlands of scotland:

Ectasy tablet : £3
Gram Base Speed £20
Gram Coke £40
Gram Herion £60


From my experience in scotland , id say 40-60% of +16 teens are doing class a drugs, the simple fact is that its cheaper to do some forms of drugs than to drink alcohol. But if anyone in the highlands tries to pedal h or crack i know for a fact they get the first train out of there, usually in an ambulance. I am a recreational drug user of 6 years but i still cannot contemplate even thinking of the whole crack/H scene, even though ive seen it offerered at many parties.